---
name: document-review
description: Review requirements or plan documents using parallel persona agents that surface role-specific issues. Use when a requirements document or plan document exists and the user wants to improve it.
argument-hint: "[path/to/document.md]"
---

# Document Review

Review requirements or plan documents through multi-persona analysis. Dispatches specialized reviewer agents in parallel, auto-fixes quality issues, and presents strategic questions for user decision.

## Phase 0: Detect Mode

Check the skill arguments for `mode:headless`. Arguments may contain a document path, `mode:headless`, or both. Tokens starting with `mode:` are flags, not file paths -- strip them from the arguments and use the remaining token (if any) as the document path for Phase 1.

If `mode:headless` is present, set **headless mode** for the rest of the workflow.

**Headless mode** changes the interaction model, not the classification boundaries. Document-review still applies the same judgment about what is deterministic vs. what needs verification. The only difference is how non-auto findings are delivered:
- `auto` fixes are applied silently (same as interactive)
- `batch_confirm` and `present` findings are returned as structured text for the caller to handle -- no AskUserQuestion prompts, no interactive approval
- Phase 5 returns immediately with "Review complete" (no refine/complete question)

The caller receives findings with their original classifications intact and decides what to do with each tier.

Callers invoke headless mode by including `mode:headless` in the skill arguments, e.g.:
```
Skill("compound-engineering:document-review", "docs/plans/my-plan.md mode:headless")
```

If `mode:headless` is not present, the skill runs in its default interactive mode with no behavior change.

## Phase 1: Get and Analyze Document

**If a document path is provided:** Read it, then proceed.

**If no document is specified (interactive mode):** Ask which document to review, or find the most recent in `docs/brainstorms/` or `docs/plans/` using a file-search/glob tool (e.g., Glob in Claude Code).

**If no document is specified (headless mode):** Output "Review failed: headless mode requires a document path. Re-invoke with: Skill(\"compound-engineering:document-review\", \"<path> mode:headless\")" without dispatching agents.

### Classify Document Type

After reading, classify the document:
- **requirements** -- from `docs/brainstorms/`, focuses on what to build and why
- **plan** -- from `docs/plans/`, focuses on how to build it with implementation details

### Select Conditional Personas

Analyze the document content to determine which conditional personas to activate. Check for these signals:

**product-lens** -- activate when the document contains:
- User-facing features, user stories, or customer-focused language
- Market claims, competitive positioning, or business justification
- Scope decisions, prioritization language, or priority tiers with feature assignments
- Requirements with user/customer/business outcome focus

**design-lens** -- activate when the document contains:
- UI/UX references, frontend components, or visual design language
- User flows, wireframes, screen/page/view mentions
- Interaction descriptions (forms, buttons, navigation, modals)
- References to responsive behavior or accessibility

**security-lens** -- activate when the document contains:
- Auth/authorization mentions, login flows, session management
- API endpoints exposed to external clients
- Data handling, PII, payments, tokens, credentials, encryption
- Third-party integrations with trust boundary implications

**scope-guardian** -- activate when the document contains:
- Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2, must-have/should-have/nice-to-have)
- Large requirement count (>8 distinct requirements or implementation units)
- Stretch goals, nice-to-haves, or "future work" sections
- Scope boundary language that seems misaligned with stated goals
- Goals that don't clearly connect to requirements

**adversarial** -- activate when the document contains:
- More than 5 distinct requirements or implementation units
- Explicit architectural or scope decisions with stated rationale
- High-stakes domains (auth, payments, data migrations, external integrations)
- Proposals of new abstractions, frameworks, or significant architectural patterns

## Phase 2: Announce and Dispatch Personas

### Announce the Review Team

Tell the user which personas will review and why. For conditional personas, include the justification:

```
Reviewing with:
- coherence-reviewer (always-on)
- feasibility-reviewer (always-on)
- scope-guardian-reviewer -- plan has 12 requirements across 3 priority levels
- security-lens-reviewer -- plan adds API endpoints with auth flow
```

### Build Agent List

Always include:
- `compound-engineering:document-review:coherence-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:feasibility-reviewer`

Add activated conditional personas:
- `compound-engineering:document-review:product-lens-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:design-lens-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:security-lens-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:scope-guardian-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:adversarial-document-reviewer`

### Dispatch

Dispatch all agents in **parallel** using the platform's task/agent tool (e.g., Agent tool in Claude Code, spawn in Codex). Each agent receives the prompt built from the subagent template included below with these variables filled:

| Variable | Value |
|----------|-------|
| `{persona_file}` | Full content of the agent's markdown file |
| `{schema}` | Content of the findings schema included below |
| `{document_type}` | "requirements" or "plan" from Phase 1 classification |
| `{document_path}` | Path to the document |
| `{document_content}` | Full text of the document |

Pass each agent the **full document** -- do not split into sections.

**Error handling:** If an agent fails or times out, proceed with findings from agents that completed. Note the failed agent in the Coverage section. Do not block the entire review on a single agent failure.

**Dispatch limit:** Even at maximum (7 agents), use parallel dispatch. These are document reviewers with bounded scope reading a single document -- parallel is safe and fast.

## Phase 3: Synthesize Findings

Process findings from all agents through this pipeline. **Order matters** -- each step depends on the previous.

### 3.1 Validate

Check each agent's returned JSON against the findings schema included below:
- Drop findings missing any required field defined in the schema
- Drop findings with invalid enum values
- Note the agent name for any malformed output in the Coverage section

### 3.2 Confidence Gate

Suppress findings below 0.50 confidence. Store them as residual concerns for potential promotion in step 3.4.

### 3.3 Deduplicate

Fingerprint each finding using `normalize(section) + normalize(title)`. Normalization: lowercase, strip punctuation, collapse whitespace.

When fingerprints match across personas:
- If the findings recommend **opposing actions** (e.g., one says cut, the other says keep), do not merge -- preserve both for contradiction resolution in 3.5
- Otherwise merge: keep the highest severity, keep the highest confidence, union all evidence arrays, note all agreeing reviewers (e.g., "coherence, feasibility")
- **Coverage attribution:** Attribute the merged finding to the persona with the highest confidence. Decrement the losing persona's Findings count *and* the corresponding route bucket (Auto, Batch, or Present) so `Findings = Auto + Batch + Present` stays exact.

### 3.4 Promote Residual Concerns

Scan the residual concerns (findings suppressed in 3.2) for:
- **Cross-persona corroboration**: A residual concern from Persona A overlaps with an above-threshold finding from Persona B. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55-0.65. Inherit `finding_type` from the corroborating above-threshold finding.
- **Concrete blocking risks**: A residual concern describes a specific, concrete risk that would block implementation. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55. Set `finding_type: omission` (blocking risks surfaced as residual concerns are inherently about something the document failed to address).

### 3.5 Resolve Contradictions

When personas disagree on the same section:
- Create a **combined finding** presenting both perspectives
- Set `autofix_class: present`
- Set `finding_type: error` (contradictions are by definition about conflicting things the document says, not things it omits)
- Frame as a tradeoff, not a verdict

Specific conflict patterns:
- Coherence says "keep for consistency" + scope-guardian says "cut for simplicity" -> combined finding, let user decide
- Feasibility says "this is impossible" + product-lens says "this is essential" -> P1 finding framed as a tradeoff
- Multiple personas flag the same issue -> merge into single finding, note consensus, increase confidence

### 3.6 Route by Autofix Class

**Severity and autofix_class are independent.** A P1 finding can be `auto` if the correct fix is deterministic. The test is not "how important?" but "can the fix be derived from the document's own content without judgment?"

| Autofix Class | Route |
|---------------|-------|
| `auto` | Apply automatically -- fix is derivable from the document itself. One part of the document is clearly authoritative over another; reconcile toward the authority. |
| `batch_confirm` | Group for single batch approval -- one clear correct answer, but authors new content where exact wording needs verification |
| `present` | Present individually for user judgment |

Demote any `auto` finding that lacks a `suggested_fix` to `batch_confirm`. Demote any `batch_confirm` finding that lacks a `suggested_fix` to `present`.

**Auto-eligible patterns:** summary/detail mismatch (body is authoritative over overview), wrong counts, missing list entries derivable from elsewhere in the document, stale internal cross-references, terminology drift, prose/diagram contradictions where prose is more detailed. If the fix requires judgment about *what* to write (not just *that* something needs updating), it belongs in `batch_confirm` or `present`.

### 3.7 Sort

Sort findings for presentation: P0 -> P1 -> P2 -> P3, then by finding type (errors before omissions), then by confidence (descending), then by document order (section position).

## Phase 4: Apply and Present

### Apply Auto-fixes

Apply all `auto` findings to the document in a **single pass**:
- Edit the document inline using the platform's edit tool
- Track what was changed for the "Auto-fixes Applied" section
- Do not ask for approval -- these are unambiguously correct

### Batch Confirm

If any `batch_confirm` findings exist:

**Headless mode:** Do not prompt. Include `batch_confirm` findings in the structured text output alongside `present` findings, clearly marked with their classification so the caller can distinguish them. The caller decides whether to apply them.

**Interactive mode:**

1. Present the proposed fixes in a numbered table (see template)
2. **Ask for approval using the platform's interactive question tool** -- do not print the question as plain text output:
   - Claude Code: `AskUserQuestion`
   - Codex: `request_user_input`
   - Gemini: `ask_user`
   - Fallback (no question tool available): present numbered options and stop; wait for the user's next message before proceeding
3. Question text: "Apply these N fixes? (yes/no/select)"
4. Handle the response:
   - **yes**: Apply all in a single pass
   - **select**: Let the user pick which to apply
   - **no**: Demote remaining to the `present` findings list

This turns N obvious-but-meaning-touching fixes into 1 interaction instead of N.

### Present Remaining Findings

**Headless mode:** Do not use interactive question tools. Output all non-auto findings as a structured text summary the caller can parse and act on:

```
Document review complete (headless mode).

Applied N auto-fixes.

Batch-confirm findings (clear fix, wording needs verification):

[P1][batch_confirm] Section: <section> — <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>
  Suggested fix: <suggested_fix>

Present findings (requires judgment):

[P0][present] Section: <section> — <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>
  Suggested fix: <suggested_fix or "none">

[P1][present] Section: <section> — <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
  Why: <why_it_matters>
  Suggested fix: <suggested_fix or "none">

Residual concerns:
- <concern> (<source>)

Deferred questions:
- <question> (<source>)
```

Omit any section with zero items. Then proceed directly to Phase 5 (which returns immediately in headless mode).

**Interactive mode:**

Present `present` findings using the review output template included below. Within each severity level, separate findings by type:
- **Errors** (design tensions, contradictions, incorrect statements) first -- these need resolution
- **Omissions** (missing steps, absent details, forgotten entries) second -- these need additions

Brief summary at the top: "Applied N auto-fixes. Batched M fixes for approval. K findings to consider (X errors, Y omissions)."

Include the Coverage table, auto-fixes applied, residual concerns, and deferred questions.

### Protected Artifacts

During synthesis, discard any finding that recommends deleting or removing files in:
- `docs/brainstorms/`
- `docs/plans/`
- `docs/solutions/`

These are pipeline artifacts and must not be flagged for removal.

## Phase 5: Next Action

**Headless mode:** Return "Review complete" immediately. Do not ask questions. The caller receives the text summary from Phase 4 and handles any remaining findings.

**Interactive mode:**

**Ask using the platform's interactive question tool** -- do not print the question as plain text output:
- Claude Code: `AskUserQuestion`
- Codex: `request_user_input`
- Gemini: `ask_user`
- Fallback (no question tool available): present numbered options and stop; wait for the user's next message

Offer:

1. **Refine again** -- another review pass
2. **Review complete** -- document is ready

After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion -- diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it.

Return "Review complete" as the terminal signal for callers.

## What NOT to Do

- Do not rewrite the entire document
- Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss
- Do not over-engineer or add complexity
- Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections
- Do not modify caller skills (ce-brainstorm, ce-plan, or external plugin skills that invoke document-review)

## Iteration Guidance

On subsequent passes, re-dispatch personas and re-synthesize. The auto-fix mechanism and confidence gating prevent the same findings from recurring once fixed. If findings are repetitive across passes, recommend completion.

---

## Included References

### Subagent Template

@./references/subagent-template.md

### Findings Schema

@./references/findings-schema.json

### Review Output Template

@./references/review-output-template.md