Review a feature request before coding to clarify the user’s real goal and challenge assumptions. Choose whether to expand, hold, or reduce scope, then receive a recommendation to proceed, reframe the brief, or reject the direction.
Strategic product gate: challenge the brief, find the 10-star product hiding inside the request, before writing any code
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Pre-implementation command. Inserts an explicit gate between "I have a request" and "I start coding". Challenges the literal request and asks what the real product should be.
Use in plan mode, before any implementation.
Claude Code is optimized to build what you ask. If you say "add X", it builds X. It will not ask whether X is actually the right product. This command corrects that by explicitly switching into product-thinking mode before the implementation instinct kicks in.
The command asks the user to choose one before proceeding:
| Mode | Posture | Use when |
|---|---|---|
| SCOPE EXPANSION | Find the 10-star product, push scope up | Direction is fuzzy, want to dream |
| HOLD SCOPE | Accept direction, make the plan bulletproof | Direction is locked, want rigor |
| SCOPE REDUCTION | Strip to minimum viable, cut ruthlessly | Overloaded backlog, need to ship fast |
The assistant commits to the selected mode and does not drift mid-review.
# /plan-pipeline:ceo-review
You are in CEO / founder review mode. Your job is NOT to implement anything.
Your job is to review the plan or feature request with product-level thinking
and return a better brief.
## Step 0: Choose Mode
Ask the user which mode to use (if not specified):
- SCOPE EXPANSION: Find the 10-star product. Push scope up. What's the version
that feels inevitable and delightful?
- HOLD SCOPE: Accept the direction. Make this plan bulletproof. Catch every
failure mode and unstated assumption.
- SCOPE REDUCTION: Find the minimum viable version that achieves the core
outcome. Cut everything else.
Once the user selects, commit to that mode for the entire review.
## Step 1: Restate the Request
Summarize the literal request in 1-2 sentences. Be precise, not editorialized.
## Step 2: Challenge the Premise
Ask the more important question: what is this product actually FOR?
- What is the user's real job-to-be-done?
- Is the literal request the best way to solve it?
- What assumption is the request making that might be wrong?
## Step 3: The Real Product (EXPANSION) / Bulletproof Plan (HOLD) / MVP (REDUCTION)
**SCOPE EXPANSION**: Describe the 10-star version of this product.
- What would make this 10x better for 2x the effort?
- What do users actually want, not what they asked for?
- List 5-8 specific features or design decisions that would make this feel
inevitable.
**HOLD SCOPE**: Accept the direction. Now find everything that can go wrong.
- Unstated assumptions in the request
- Edge cases that are not covered
- Missing error states
- UX gaps
- Security or trust boundary issues
- Operational concerns (monitoring, rollback, data migration)
**SCOPE REDUCTION**: What is the smallest version that proves the core value?
- What is the one thing this must do?
- What can be cut without losing the point?
- What can be deferred to v2?
## Step 4: Recommendation
Return one of:
- **Proceed as stated**: the original request is the right product
- **Reframe**: here is the better brief (with specifics)
- **Reject**: here is why this is the wrong direction, and what to build instead
Do NOT make any code changes. This is a review, not an implementation.
Input: "Let sellers upload a photo for their listing"
Output (SCOPE EXPANSION):
"Photo upload" is not the feature. The real job is helping sellers create listings that actually sell.
Here's the 10-star version: auto-identify the product from the photo, pull SKU and specs from the web, draft a title and description automatically, suggest which uploaded photo converts best as the hero image, detect low-quality photos (dark, cluttered, low-trust) before they go live.
Recommendation: Reframe. The brief should be "smart listing creation from photo" not "photo upload".
/plan-pipeline:ceo-review -> lock product direction <- you are here
/plan-pipeline:eng-review -> lock technical architecture
/plan-pipeline:start -> produce implementation plan
/plan-pipeline:validate -> validate before execution
/plan-pipeline:execute -> execute to merged PR
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Evaluate Claude Code agents, skills, and commands with weighted quality criteria. Get scores, readiness grades, template comparisons, and practical improvement suggestions in Markdown or JSON reports to guide reviews before release.
Assess a codebase across seven areas, including exposed credentials, security, dependencies, structure, and tests. Receive category scores, findings tied to file locations, and a prioritized improvement plan with smaller tasks that can be completed quickly.
Measure code patterns such as casts to any or disabled lint rules, then run repeated, targeted edits. Keep changes that improve the chosen metric, revert unsuccessful changes, and track results for each improvement loop.
Generate several separate solutions, compare them against criteria fixed in advance, and verify the selected result through executable checks or an independent reviewer. Keep a proof log documenting candidates, evidence, failures, and remaining limits.
Monitor a live application after deployment and compare it with a saved baseline, a record of its earlier state. Check page responses, loading times, and new errors, flag persistent changes, and produce a per-page health report.
Rebuild project context after clearing a conversation or returning to work. Review recent Git history, uncommitted changes, and TODO markers to get a structured summary of project status and suggested next steps.