Proposal Review
Methodically review proposals by chunking content, predicting feedback, and producing actionable output for the proposer.
Workflow
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. INTAKE: Read entire proposal, identify source format │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 2. CHUNK: Split into reviewable sections (smart hybrid) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3. REVIEW LOOP: For each chunk: │
│ • Present chunk content │
│ • Predict 3-4 likely reactions │
│ • Use AskUserQuestion for feedback │
│ • Record response │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 4. SYNTHESIZE: Compile feedback, infer overall sentiment │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 5. OUTPUT: Generate feedback document matching source │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Phase 1: Intake
Read the entire proposal. Identify:
- Source format: Local file, GitHub PR/issue/gist, Google Doc export, etc.
- Structure: Headers, sections, numbered lists, or flowing prose
- Length: Estimate chunk count (aim for 3-8 chunks for typical proposals)
Do not summarize or share initial impressions. Proceed directly to chunking.
Phase 2: Chunking Strategy
Use smart hybrid chunking:
| Proposal Structure | Chunking Approach |
|---|---|
| Clear headers/sections | One chunk per major section |
| Large section (>500 words) | Split at natural paragraph breaks |
| Small adjacent sections (<100 words each) | Merge into single chunk |
| Numbered lists of items | Group 3-5 related items per chunk |
| Flowing prose without structure | Split at topic transitions (~300-400 words) |
Chunk ordering: Present in document order unless there's a clear dependency (e.g., "Alternatives" before "Proposed Solution" if alternatives inform the solution review).
Phase 3: Review Loop
For each chunk:
3.1 Present the Chunk
Quote or summarize the chunk content. For longer chunks, quote key sentences and summarize the rest. Use a clear header like:
### Chunk 2 of 5: Technical Architecture3.2 Predict Reactions
Generate 3-4 predicted reactions spanning these categories:
| Category | Example Predictions |
|---|---|
| Clarification | "This is unclear—what does X mean?", "How does this interact with Y?" |
| Concern | "This scope seems too large", "Have you considered Z risk?" |
| Approval | "This approach makes sense", "Good tradeoff analysis" |
| Suggestion | "Consider alternative A", "This needs more detail on B" |
Select predictions that feel most relevant to this specific chunk. Not every chunk needs all categories.
3.3 Collect Feedback
Use AskUserQuestion with:
- Predicted reactions as options (2-4 most likely)
- User can select one OR provide custom feedback via "Other"
- Keep option labels concise (under 10 words), use description for detail
Example:
question: "What's your reaction to this technical architecture section?"
header: "Architecture"
options:
- label: "Looks good"
description: "The proposed architecture is sound and well-reasoned"
- label: "Scope concern"
description: "This feels too ambitious for the timeline"
- label: "Need clarification"
description: "Some technical details are unclear or missing"
- label: "Consider alternative"
description: "There may be a simpler or better approach"3.4 Record Response
Store each response with:
- Chunk identifier (number + title)
- Selected option or custom text
- Any quoted content the feedback references
Phase 4: Synthesis
After all chunks reviewed:
- Group feedback by theme: Consolidate similar concerns across chunks
- Infer overall sentiment: Based on feedback distribution:
- Mostly approvals → Positive with minor suggestions - Mixed → Conditional support, needs revisions - Mostly concerns → Significant issues to address
- Identify patterns: Note if same concern appears multiple times
Then ask:
question: "Would you like me to include suggested next steps for the proposer?"
header: "Next Steps"
options:
- label: "Yes, include action items"
description: "Generate concrete next steps based on feedback"
- label: "No, just the feedback"
description: "Keep output to observations and reactions only"Phase 5: Output Generation
Adapt output format to source:
| Source | Output Format |
|---|---|
| GitHub PR | PR review comment with quoted lines and threaded feedback |
| GitHub Issue | Comment with sections matching issue structure |
| Markdown file | Companion *-feedback.md with inline references |
| Google Doc | Structured comment list with section references |
| Generic/unknown | Structured markdown with clear sections |
Output Structure
## Feedback Summary
**Overall**: [Inferred sentiment - 1 sentence]
## Section-by-Section Feedback
### [Section Name]
[Feedback with quotes where relevant]
### [Section Name]
...
## Key Themes
- [Theme 1]: [Consolidated feedback]
- [Theme 2]: ...
## Next Steps (if requested)
- [ ] [Action item 1]
- [ ] [Action item 2]Tone Guidelines
- Direct but constructive
- Quote specific text when critiquing
- Frame concerns as questions when possible ("Have you considered..." vs "This won't work")
- Acknowledge what works, not just what doesn't
Edge Cases
Very short proposals (<300 words): Skip chunking, review as single unit with 4-5 predicted reactions.
Very long proposals (>3000 words): Cap at 8-10 chunks. Merge aggressively or offer to focus on specific sections.
Unclear structure: Ask user which sections matter most before chunking.
Multiple proposals: Review one at a time. Ask user for order preference if not obvious.