align-to-mission

name: align-to-mission description: "Use when you want to check whether every phase in a plan serves the project's stated mission. Catches scope creep, tangential work, misaligned success metrics, and aggregate drift from the north star." argument-hint: "[plan-file-path] [--dispatch]"

Align to Mission

Check whether every phase and deliverable in a plan serves the project's north star. Plans accumulate scope naturally — individually-reasonable phases can drift from the mission in aggregate. This skill compares each phase against the mission and flags misalignment before resources are committed.

This is a plan-only lens. It reads the plan document and the project's mission source. It does not read the target codebase (that is /extension-check's job).

Arguments

Parse $ARGUMENTS at invocation:

• First positional arg: Path to the plan document. If omitted, prompt for it.
• --dispatch: Non-interactive mode for fleet orchestration. Suppresses all interactive elements (no Plan Mode, no AskUserQuestion). Emits a single markdown document with YAML frontmatter per skills/_shared/contracts/lens-result-contract.md. Use this when invoked by /ironclad or another orchestrator.

--dispatch Mode

When --dispatch is passed:

• Do NOT call EnterPlanMode. The dispatcher owns the lifecycle.
• Do NOT call AskUserQuestion. No human is present.
• Do NOT prompt for clarification. If the plan lacks phases or is too ambiguous to assess, emit status: blocked with a description of what is missing.
• Execute the procedure below silently.
• Emit the structured markdown result as the FINAL output and stop. No text after the result document.

When --dispatch is NOT passed, follow the interactive procedure (see Interactive Mode below).

Procedure

Step 1: Read the Plan

Read the full plan document. Identify:

• Goal / Problem Statement — what the plan claims to solve.
• Phases — the breakdown of work. Each phase is assessed individually.
• Decision Forks — choices that may affect alignment.
• Validation Strategy — success criteria the plan defines for itself.

If the plan lacks identifiable phases, stop. In --dispatch mode, emit status: blocked. In interactive mode, tell the user the plan needs a phased breakdown before alignment analysis is meaningful.

Step 2: Locate the Mission

Find the project's north-star statement using this fallback hierarchy:

1. PROJECT_MISSION.md in the repo root — the canonical source.
2. README.md mission/purpose section — extract the north-star statement.
3. GitHub repo description — the one-liner from the repo settings (if accessible).
4. CLAUDE.md purpose/description section — the repo's self-description for Claude Code.

Use the first source that yields a usable mission statement — a concrete statement of what the project exists to achieve, not a list of features or technical description.

If none of these yield a usable mission statement, do NOT block. Instead:

• Emit an info-severity finding recommending the team create a PROJECT_MISSION.md.
• Infer the mission from the plan's own Goal section and proceed with that as the working mission. Note explicitly that you are using the plan's goal as a proxy — this weakens the analysis because the plan is being compared against itself.

Step 3: Per-Phase Alignment Assessment

For each phase or deliverable in the plan, assess:

3a: Does This Phase Serve the Mission?

Classify each phase into one of three categories:

• Aligned — directly advances the north star. The phase would not exist without the mission.
• Tangential — useful work, but not mission-critical. Could be deferred or cut without harming the mission. Examples: documentation cleanup, nice-to-have tooling, speculative features.
• Misaligned — actively pulls away from the mission. Introduces scope, dependencies, or complexity that does not serve the north star. Rare but high-impact when found.

3b: Are Success Metrics Aligned?

If the plan defines validation criteria or success metrics for a phase:

• Do those metrics measure progress toward the mission, or do they measure something else?
• Could a phase pass its own validation criteria while failing to advance the mission?

3c: Is the Phase Proportionate?

• Does the effort size (S/M/L/XL) match the mission importance of the deliverable?
• A large phase for a tangential deliverable is a signal — the plan may be over-investing in non-mission work.

Step 4: Aggregate Drift Check

After assessing individual phases, step back and check the plan as a whole:

• Ratio check: What fraction of the plan's phases are tangential or misaligned? A plan where most phases are aligned but one is tangential is healthy. A plan where half the phases are tangential has drifted.
• Cumulative scope: Do the individually-tangential phases add up to a significant scope commitment? Three small tangential phases may collectively represent more effort than the core mission work.
• Mission coverage: Does the plan address the mission comprehensively, or does it leave mission-critical areas untouched while investing in adjacent concerns?
• Metric alignment: Do the plan's aggregate validation criteria, taken together, confirm the mission will be advanced? Or could all criteria pass while the mission remains unserved?

Step 5: Emit Findings

Classify each finding using the severity vocabulary defined in skills/_shared/contracts/lens-result-contract.md (critical > major > minor > info).

Tag each finding with a concern area. This skill's primary concern area is scope. Secondary: architecture (when misalignment stems from structural choices). Use the closest match from the canonical set in the contract.

Map findings to body sections:

Structured Result Emission (--dispatch only)

After Step 5, emit a single markdown document with YAML frontmatter as the FINAL output. No text before or after this document.

Format: Follow the canonical schema at skills/_shared/contracts/lens-result-contract.md. That contract is the single source of truth for all lens skill --dispatch output.

For this skill, set lens: align-to-mission in frontmatter. All other fields, severity vocabulary, body sections (Blockers/Risks/Gaps/Questions/Observations), concern area values, and blocked/failed output shape are defined in the contract.

Interactive Mode (no --dispatch)

When invoked without --dispatch, this skill is an advisor, not a report generator.

Enter Plan Mode. Call EnterPlanMode. All analysis is read-only.

Execute Steps 1-5 above, then present findings as an advisory conversation:

Advisory Format

Lead with the mission statement (Step 2) and a per-phase alignment summary table. Then present each concern with options and leans.

For each finding, present:

1. The concern — what the assessment revealed, stated concretely.
2. Options — 2-3 ways the plan could address the concern (including "keep as-is" when the concern is minor).
3. Lean — which option you'd pick and why, in one sentence.
4. Rationale — the reasoning behind the lean, grounded in the mission.

Example Advisory Output

## Mission Alignment Review: [Plan Title]

### Mission
[The north-star statement, with source noted]

### Phase Alignment Summary

| Phase | Alignment | Notes |
|-------|-----------|-------|
| 2a. [name] | Aligned | Directly serves [mission aspect] |
| 2b. [name] | Tangential | Useful but not mission-critical |
| 2c. [name] | Aligned | ... |

### Aggregate Assessment
[Does the plan as a whole advance the mission? Ratio of aligned/tangential/misaligned.]

### Concerns

**Concern:** Phase 2b is tangential — [explanation]
- **(a)** Defer to a follow-up plan
- **(b)** Keep but reduce scope to [specific cut]
- **(c)** Keep as-is — the tangential work enables future mission-critical work
- **Lean:** (a) — [one-sentence reason grounded in mission]

Use one heading per concern. Phases that are cleanly aligned need only their summary table row — no separate section.

Relationship to /adversarial-review

/adversarial-review touches mission alignment tangentially across its seven lenses but does not dedicate a full pass to it. This standalone skill gives mission alignment a full context window and structured per-phase assessment for independent fleet dispatch by /ironclad.

Red Flags — You Are Doing This Wrong