You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
/ba:review-plan has drifted well behind /ba:review. /ba:review has had sustained investment — a consolidation pipeline, confidence/severity machinery, reviewer discovery/selection refinements, and an in-flight automation roadmap — while /ba:review-plan has not kept pace. This issue tracks bringing review-plan up to parity.
Deliberately not pinning specifics./ba:review is actively changing, so by the time this is picked up its exact mechanics will differ from today. Treat /ba:reviewas it stands at pick-up time as the reference, not any snapshot described here.
Known gaps (illustrative, not a spec)
The entire confidence/severity ladder and consolidation machinery is missing from review-plan./ba:review consolidates, dedups, and severity/confidence-ranks findings, then gates/suppresses the weak ones; review-plan has none of that.
None of the /ba:review automation work currently being designed is being applied to review-plan either. See [roadmap] automate the /ba:review interactive loop while preserving reviewer taste #23 and the brainstorm at docs/brainstorms/2026-06-06-ba-review-automation-brainstorm.md — those improvements (smarter reviewer selection, finding verification, pre-existing handling, …) should be considered for review-plan too, in whatever form they ultimately ship.
Important: a plan review is not a code review
Don't expect a verbatim port. Reviewing a plan is a different activity from reviewing code: findings are about plan quality — gaps, ambiguity, missing acceptance criteria, risky sequencing, unstated assumptions — not file:line code issues. The reviewer roster, and what a "finding" even means, differ. So parity means adapting/ba:review's mechanisms to the plan-review domain, which will take some up-front exploration rather than a copy-paste.
Suggested next step
Start with a research/brainstorm pass that maps /ba:review's then-current capabilities against /ba:review-plan, and decides which translate directly, which need adapting to plan review, and which don't apply at all.
Why
/ba:review-planhas drifted well behind/ba:review./ba:reviewhas had sustained investment — a consolidation pipeline, confidence/severity machinery, reviewer discovery/selection refinements, and an in-flight automation roadmap — while/ba:review-planhas not kept pace. This issue tracks bringingreview-planup to parity.Deliberately not pinning specifics.
/ba:reviewis actively changing, so by the time this is picked up its exact mechanics will differ from today. Treat/ba:reviewas it stands at pick-up time as the reference, not any snapshot described here.Known gaps (illustrative, not a spec)
review-plan./ba:reviewconsolidates, dedups, and severity/confidence-ranks findings, then gates/suppresses the weak ones;review-planhas none of that./ba:reviewautomation work currently being designed is being applied toreview-planeither. See [roadmap] automate the /ba:review interactive loop while preserving reviewer taste #23 and the brainstorm atdocs/brainstorms/2026-06-06-ba-review-automation-brainstorm.md— those improvements (smarter reviewer selection, finding verification, pre-existing handling, …) should be considered forreview-plantoo, in whatever form they ultimately ship.Important: a plan review is not a code review
Don't expect a verbatim port. Reviewing a plan is a different activity from reviewing code: findings are about plan quality — gaps, ambiguity, missing acceptance criteria, risky sequencing, unstated assumptions — not
file:linecode issues. The reviewer roster, and what a "finding" even means, differ. So parity means adapting/ba:review's mechanisms to the plan-review domain, which will take some up-front exploration rather than a copy-paste.Suggested next step
Start with a research/brainstorm pass that maps
/ba:review's then-current capabilities against/ba:review-plan, and decides which translate directly, which need adapting to plan review, and which don't apply at all.