Tone down review loops: single-pass plan review, raise issue bar

- Remove chunk-based plan review in favor of single whole-plan review
- Add Calibration sections to both reviewer prompts so only serious
  issues block approval
- Reduce max review iterations from 5 to 3
- Streamline reviewer checklists (spec: 7→5, plan: 7→4 categories)

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -112,22 +112,17 @@ git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
 
 ## Plan Review Loop
 
-After completing each chunk of the plan:
+After writing the complete plan:
 
-1. Dispatch plan-document-reviewer subagent (see plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md) with precisely crafted review context — never your session history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the plan, not your thought process.
-   - Provide: chunk content, path to spec document
-2. If ❌ Issues Found:
-   - Fix the issues in the chunk
-   - Re-dispatch reviewer for that chunk
-   - Repeat until ✅ Approved
-3. If ✅ Approved: proceed to next chunk (or execution handoff if last chunk)
-
-**Chunk boundaries:** Use `## Chunk N: <name>` headings to delimit chunks. Each chunk should be ≤1000 lines and logically self-contained.
+1. Dispatch a single plan-document-reviewer subagent (see plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md) with precisely crafted review context — never your session history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the plan, not your thought process.
+   - Provide: path to the plan document, path to spec document
+2. If ❌ Issues Found: fix the issues, re-dispatch reviewer for the whole plan
+3. If ✅ Approved: proceed to execution handoff
 
 **Review loop guidance:**
 - Same agent that wrote the plan fixes it (preserves context)
-- If loop exceeds 5 iterations, surface to human for guidance
-- Reviewers are advisory - explain disagreements if you believe feedback is incorrect
+- If loop exceeds 3 iterations, surface to human for guidance
+- Reviewers are advisory — explain disagreements if you believe feedback is incorrect
 
 ## Execution Handoff
 

skills/writing-plans/plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -2,17 +2,17 @@
 
 Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
 
-**Purpose:** Verify the plan chunk is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
+**Purpose:** Verify the plan is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
 
-**Dispatch after:** Each plan chunk is written
+**Dispatch after:** The complete plan is written.
 
 ```
 Task tool (general-purpose):
-  description: "Review plan chunk N"
+  description: "Review plan document"
   prompt: |
-    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan chunk is complete and ready for implementation.
+    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan is complete and ready for implementation.
 
-    **Plan chunk to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH] - Chunk N only
+    **Plan to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH]
     **Spec for reference:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
 
     ## What to Check
@@ -20,33 +20,30 @@ Task tool (general-purpose):
     | Category | What to Look For |
     |----------|------------------|
     | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, incomplete tasks, missing steps |
-    | Spec Alignment | Chunk covers relevant spec requirements, no scope creep |
-    | Task Decomposition | Tasks atomic, clear boundaries, steps actionable |
-    | File Structure | Files have clear single responsibilities, split by responsibility not layer |
-    | File Size | Would any new or modified file likely grow large enough to be hard to reason about as a whole? |
-    | Task Syntax | Checkbox syntax (`- [ ]`) on steps for tracking |
-    | Chunk Size | Each chunk under 1000 lines |
+    | Spec Alignment | Plan covers spec requirements, no major scope creep |
+    | Task Decomposition | Tasks have clear boundaries, steps are actionable |
+    | Buildability | Could an engineer follow this plan without getting stuck? |
 
-    ## CRITICAL
+    ## Calibration
 
-    Look especially hard for:
-    - Any TODO markers or placeholder text
-    - Steps that say "similar to X" without actual content
-    - Incomplete task definitions
-    - Missing verification steps or expected outputs
-    - Files planned to hold multiple responsibilities or likely to grow unwieldy
+    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation.**
+    An implementer building the wrong thing or getting stuck is an issue.
+    Minor wording, stylistic preferences, and "nice to have" suggestions are not.
+
+    Approve unless there are serious gaps — missing requirements from the spec,
+    contradictory steps, placeholder content, or tasks so vague they can't be acted on.
 
     ## Output Format
 
-    ## Plan Review - Chunk N
+    ## Plan Review
 
     **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
 
     **Issues (if any):**
-    - [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters]
+    - [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for implementation]
 
-    **Recommendations (advisory):**
-    - [suggestions that don't block approval]
+    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
+    - [suggestions for improvement]
 ```
 
 **Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations