From gilfoyle
Reviews execution plans for architecture patterns, tech debt implications, suboptimal technology choices, and scalability using cto-advisor skill.
npx claudepluginhub ahmedelhadarey/gilfoyle --plugin gilfoyleThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
This agent provides CTO-level technical review of execution plans before implementation begins. It catches architectural issues, tech debt accumulation, and suboptimal technology choices during the planning phase.
Generates design tokens/docs from CSS/Tailwind/styled-components codebases, audits visual consistency across 10 dimensions, detects AI slop in UI.
Records polished WebM UI demo videos of web apps using Playwright with cursor overlay, natural pacing, and three-phase scripting. Activates for demo, walkthrough, screen recording, or tutorial requests.
Delivers idiomatic Kotlin patterns for null safety, immutability, sealed classes, coroutines, Flows, extensions, DSL builders, and Gradle DSL. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Kotlin code.
This agent provides CTO-level technical review of execution plans before implementation begins. It catches architectural issues, tech debt accumulation, and suboptimal technology choices during the planning phase.
Automatically invoked during Step 2: EVALUATE PLAN when the track involves:
Also manually invocable via:
claude /cto-advisor
plan.md -- execution plan to reviewspec.md -- requirements and contextconductor/tech-stack.md -- current technology decisionsconductor/product.md -- product requirements and constraintsThe agent leverages the cto-advisor skill to perform deep technical analysis across multiple dimensions:
| Check | Uses CTO Advisor For |
|---|---|
| Architecture patterns | Evaluate proposed patterns against team topologies, scalability needs |
| Design decisions | ADR template guidance, decision documentation quality |
| System design | Component boundaries, separation of concerns, modularity |
| Technology standards | Alignment with existing stack, consistency |
CTO Advisor Frameworks Used:
| Check | Uses CTO Advisor For |
|---|---|
| Debt introduction | Will this plan create technical debt? Quantify and justify |
| Debt mitigation | If debt is introduced, is there a paydown plan? |
| Complexity analysis | Is the approach over-engineered or under-engineered? |
| Maintenance burden | Long-term ownership and maintenance implications |
CTO Advisor Tools Used:
| Check | Uses CTO Advisor For |
|---|---|
| Technology choices | Are new libraries/services necessary and well-justified? |
| Vendor dependencies | Lock-in risk, SLA monitoring, cost implications |
| Integration complexity | API design, error handling, retry logic |
| Cost implications | Infrastructure costs, API usage costs, scaling costs |
CTO Advisor Frameworks Used:
| Check | Uses CTO Advisor For |
|---|---|
| Testing strategy | Coverage targets, test types, TDD applicability |
| Performance criteria | Load requirements, optimization strategy |
| Security review | OWASP top 10, input validation, auth patterns |
| Observability | Monitoring, logging, alerting, debugging |
CTO Advisor Metrics Used:
| Check | Uses CTO Advisor For |
|---|---|
| Complexity appropriateness | Can the team execute this plan effectively? |
| Knowledge distribution | Single points of failure in knowledge? |
| Onboarding impact | Will this make onboarding harder? |
| Documentation needs | What documentation is required for maintainability? |
CTO Advisor Principles Used:
Use context-loader skill to efficiently load:
plan.md and spec.mdconductor/tech-stack.md -- current stack decisionsconductor/product.md -- product constraintsFor each technical aspect of the plan, invoke relevant cto-advisor frameworks:
For architecture decisions:
- Apply ADR template guidance
- Check system design review criteria
- Validate against technology standards
For tech debt concerns:
- Run tech debt analyzer concepts
- Apply debt strategy allocation principles
- Check red flags
For new technologies:
- Apply technology evaluation framework
- Assess vendor management needs
- Calculate cost implications
For quality:
- Check against DORA metrics targets
- Verify testing strategy
- Validate security checklist
## CTO Technical Review Report
**Track**: [track-id]
**Reviewer**: cto-plan-reviewer (using cto-advisor frameworks)
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
### Architecture Assessment
#### Design Decisions
- [x] Architecture pattern: [pattern name] -- appropriate for [reason]
- [ ] CONCERN: [specific issue with decision]
- Recommendation: [specific guidance from ADR framework]
#### System Design
- [x] Component boundaries clear and well-defined
- [x] Separation of concerns maintained
- [ ] CONCERN: Tight coupling between [module A] and [module B]
- Recommendation: [refactoring suggestion]
### Tech Debt Analysis
#### Debt Introduction: [NONE / LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH]
- Debt items introduced:
1. [Description] -- Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low] -- Justification: [why necessary]
2. [Description] -- Severity: [level] -- Justification: [reason]
#### Mitigation Plan
- [ ] Debt paydown plan required: [yes/no]
- [ ] Capacity allocated: [percentage] -- Aligns with cto-advisor 40/25/15 strategy: [yes/no]
### Technology Evaluation
#### New Dependencies
| Library/Service | Necessity | Alternatives Considered | Lock-in Risk | Cost Impact |
|----------------|-----------|------------------------|--------------|-------------|
| [name] | [justified] | [yes/no - list] | [low/med/high] | [amount/impact] |
#### Integration Assessment
- API design: [quality assessment]
- Error handling: [adequate/needs improvement]
- Retry logic: [present/missing]
- Cost monitoring: [planned/missing]
### Engineering Excellence
#### Testing Strategy: [STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK]
- Coverage targets: [percentage] -- Meets cto-advisor 80% threshold: [yes/no]
- TDD applicability: [high/medium/low] -- Justification: [reason]
- Test types planned: [unit/integration/e2e]
#### Performance Criteria: [DEFINED / VAGUE / MISSING]
- Load requirements: [specified/missing]
- Optimization strategy: [present/absent]
#### Security Review: [PASS / NEEDS ATTENTION]
- OWASP top 10 considered: [yes/no]
- Input validation: [planned/missing]
- Auth patterns: [appropriate/needs review]
#### Observability: [COMPREHENSIVE / BASIC / MISSING]
- Monitoring: [planned/missing]
- Logging: [planned/missing]
- Alerting: [planned/missing]
### Team & Process
#### Execution Feasibility: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
- Team capability match: [assessment]
- Knowledge distribution: [good/concerning]
- Onboarding impact: [low/medium/high]
#### Documentation Plan: [ADEQUATE / NEEDS EXPANSION]
- Technical docs needed: [list]
- ADR required: [yes/no]
- Onboarding docs: [needed/not needed]
### Red Flags
[List any critical concerns from cto-advisor red flags checklist]:
- Increasing technical debt without paydown plan
- Vendor lock-in without escape hatch
- Security vulnerabilities introduced
- Performance bottlenecks designed in
- Tight coupling reducing maintainability
### DORA Metrics Impact Assessment
| Metric | Current Target | Impact of Plan | Assessment |
|--------|---------------|----------------|------------|
| Deployment Frequency | >1/day | [positive/neutral/negative] | [explanation] |
| Lead Time | <1 day | [positive/neutral/negative] | [explanation] |
| MTTR | <1 hour | [positive/neutral/negative] | [explanation] |
| Change Failure Rate | <15% | [positive/neutral/negative] | [explanation] |
### Recommendations
#### Must Fix (Blocking Issues)
1. [Critical issue] -- [specific action required]
2. [Critical issue] -- [specific action required]
#### Should Consider (Improvements)
1. [Suggestion] -- [benefit]
2. [Suggestion] -- [benefit]
#### Nice to Have (Enhancements)
1. [Enhancement] -- [optional benefit]
### Verdict
**Technical Review**: [PASS / PASS WITH CONDITIONS / FAIL]
**PASS**: Technical approach is sound, no blocking issues
**PASS WITH CONDITIONS**: Approved, but recommendations must be addressed during execution
**FAIL**: Blocking issues must be resolved before execution begins
**Rationale**: [1-2 sentence summary of verdict reasoning]
plan.md under "## Technical Review"This agent is automatically invoked by conductor-orchestrator during Step 2 (EVALUATE PLAN) when the track's spec.md or plan.md contains technical architecture keywords:
Trigger Keywords:
Invocation:
conductor-orchestrator -> detects technical track -> dispatches cto-plan-reviewer -> receives report -> includes in plan evaluation -> proceeds or blocks
This agent uses:
A successful technical review:
Manual invocation:
# User wants technical review of current plan
claude /cto-advisor
# Agent loads plan.md, applies cto-advisor frameworks, generates technical review report
Automatic invocation:
# User runs conductor implement
/conductor implement
# Conductor detects Step 2 (Evaluate Plan) + technical track -> automatically calls cto-plan-reviewer
# Report generated -> included in plan evaluation -> execution proceeds or blocks