Planning Audit

Hierarchical alignment audit across the planning stack:

Strategy/Vision → Architecture → Plans → Implementation

Each layer should logically derive from the one above. This skill audits for alignment gaps, staleness, completeness, and coherence at each level.

When to Use

• /do:plan audit plans - Direct invocation
• /do:plan audit comprehensive - As part of full audit
• When plans feel disconnected from reality
• Before major planning sessions
• After strategy changes to check downstream impact

Intensity Levels

The Planning Stack

Layer 1: Strategy/Vision

Files: PROJECT_SPEC.md, VISION.md, STRATEGY.md, PROJECT.md

What this layer defines:

• What are we building and why?
• Who is it for?
• What problems does it solve?
• What is success?

Layer 2: Architecture

Files: ARCHITECTURE.md, system diagrams, ADRs (Architecture Decision Records)

What this layer defines:

• How will we structure the solution?
• What are the major components?
• How do they interact?
• What technologies/patterns?

Layer 3: Plans

Files: PLAN-*.md, BACKLOG-*.md, SPRINT-*.md, ROADMAP.md

What this layer defines:

• What work needs to be done?
• In what order?
• What are the dependencies?

Layer 4: Implementation

Files: Actual code, EVALUATION-*.md, TODO-*.md

What this layer defines:

• What has actually been built?
• Does it match the plans?

Audit Process

Quick Audit

1. Locate documents - Find what exists at each layer
2. Spot-check alignment - Do adjacent layers reference each other?
3. Flag obvious issues - Missing layers, stale dates, obvious contradictions
4. Output - Brief summary with red flags

See ../audit-master/references/planning/quick-audit.md for checklist.

Medium Audit

All of Quick, plus:

1. Layer completeness - Is each layer sufficiently detailed for its purpose?
2. Vertical traceability - Can you trace from strategy → architecture → plan → code?
3. Horizontal consistency - Do documents at same layer agree?
4. Staleness detection - Are documents outdated vs. reality?
5. Output - Layer-by-layer assessment with specific gaps

See ../audit-master/references/planning/medium-audit.md for checklist.

Thorough Audit

All of Medium, plus:

1. Strategy coherence - Does the strategy itself make sense? Gaps? Overlaps?
2. Architecture sufficiency - Does architecture enable all strategy goals?
3. Plan coverage - Is all strategy/architecture work planned?
4. Plan realism - Are plans achievable? Dependencies identified?
5. Implementation alignment - Does code match plans? Drift detected?
6. Temporal consistency - Planning horizon appropriate per layer?
7. Output - Comprehensive report with traceability matrix

See ../audit-master/references/planning/thorough-audit.md for checklist.

Planning Horizon Guidelines

Anti-pattern: Detailed task breakdowns for work 3+ sprints out (waste, will change)

Anti-pattern: No visibility beyond current sprint (no strategic alignment)

Output Format

═══════════════════════════════════════
Planning Audit Complete ([intensity])

Layer Health:
  Strategy:     [rating] [issues]
  Architecture: [rating] [issues]
  Plans:        [rating] [issues]
  Alignment:    [rating] [issues]

Critical Gaps: [n]
Stale Documents: [n]
Alignment Issues: [n]

Report: PLANNING-AUDIT-<timestamp>.md
═══════════════════════════════════════

Ratings