analyze-plan-feedback

Feedback Analysis & Prioritization

Step 1: Parse arguments

$ARGUMENTS

Parse $ARGUMENTS for:

Plan path (optional): The first argument that looks like a file path. Resolve to absolute and read it.
Reviewer count (optional): A number (1-10). Defaults to 3 if not provided.

If no plan path is provided, auto-detect candidates and present an interactive selection:

Detect candidates (run these in parallel):

Check if a plan file was recently created, read, or discussed in this session
Check git diff --name-only and git log --oneline -5 --diff-filter=AM -- 'docs/plans/**/*.md' for recently added/modified plans
Look for plan files/directories matching docs/plans/**/*.md

ALWAYS present an AskUserQuestion multiple-choice UI with up to 4 detected candidates. Never just ask a text question — always use the interactive chip UI. Example:

AskUserQuestion(questions: [{ question: "Which plan should I collect feedback for?", header: "Plan", options: [ { label: "phase-15-transcript-import/", description: "Modified 2 mins ago — 8 files" }, { label: "phase-14-streaming.md", description: "Modified 3 days ago" } ], multiSelect: false }])

The user can always select "Other" (built into AskUserQuestion) to type a custom path.

If zero candidates are found, still use AskUserQuestion with helpful options:

options: [ { label: "docs/plans/", description: "Browse the plans directory" }, { label: "Browse recent files", description: "Show recently modified .md files" } ]

Examples:

/analyze-plan-feedback docs/plans/my-plan.md → 3 reviewers
/analyze-plan-feedback docs/plans/my-plan.md 2 → 2 reviewers
/analyze-plan-feedback 2 → auto-detect plan, 2 reviewers
/analyze-plan-feedback → auto-detect plan, 3 reviewers

Step 2: Collect feedback interactively

Ask the user to paste feedback one reviewer at a time, up to the reviewer count. After each paste, confirm receipt and ask for the next.

For each reviewer (1 through N):

Ask: "Paste reviewer N feedback:"
The user may paste text directly or provide a file path — if it looks like a path, read the file.

Do NOT proceed to analysis until all N reviewers' feedback has been collected.

Step 3: Analyze

Review and analyze all collected feedback against the plan:

Technical Assessment

For each piece of feedback from each reviewer:

Is the technical point valid and accurate?
Does it apply to our specific stack and codebase?
Is it based on current best practices or outdated patterns?
Cross-reference against codebase patterns where relevant

Priority Classification

Categorize every distinct feedback point:

Priority Criteria

Critical Blocks shipping. Security vulnerabilities, data loss risk, broken functionality

High Should fix before merge. Performance issues, missing error handling, test gaps

Medium Fix soon. Code quality, naming, documentation, minor UX issues

Low Nice-to-have. Style preferences, theoretical improvements, future considerations

Conflict Resolution

Where reviewers disagree:

State each position clearly
Evaluate which is more applicable to our context
Make a recommendation with reasoning

Action Items

Create a numbered list of specific, actionable tasks:

Each task references the feedback source(s)
Each task has a clear definition of done
Group by the plan section they affect

Implementation Timeline

For each action item, estimate:

Effort: 1 (trivial) to 5 (significant rework)
Risk of skipping: What happens if we don't do this?
Dependencies: Does this block or depend on other items?

Output Format

Feedback Summary

Critical (must address)

Item with effort estimate and source

High Priority

Item with effort estimate and source

Medium Priority

Item with effort estimate and source

Low Priority / Deferred

Item with effort estimate and source

Recommended Next Steps (in order)

First thing to do
Second thing to do ...

Reviewer Agreement Matrix

After presenting the analysis, ask if the user wants to apply any of the feedback directly to the plan.