Brief Review

Overview

Interrogate an architectural project brief, RFP, or Owner's Project Requirements (OPR) against eight review axes and produce a written analysis that lives in docs/briefs/. The output is a working document — it lists gaps, contradictions, and recommended clarifying questions to send back to the owner before design work begins.

Aligned with North American practice: AIA B101 / B201 brief expectations, ASHRAE Guideline 0 (OPR), and LEED v4.1 / WELL v2 prerequisites for documented project requirements.

When to use

Trigger on:

• Pasted brief / RFP / OPR text with a request to evaluate it.
• Project file paths to a brief document the user wants reviewed.
• Explicit asks: "review this brief", "check the RFP", "unpack the OPR", "is this brief complete", "what's missing from this brief".

Do NOT trigger for:

• Design critique of an existing project (use design-critic).
• Zoning code analysis (use zoning-summary).
• Drawing-set review (use drawing-checklist).
• Translating brief content into client-facing language (use client-translator).

Workflow

Step 1 — Bootstrap if needed

Check that docs/briefs/index.md exists. If not:

python scripts/init_briefs_workspace.py

Step 2 — Gather context

• Read docs/project.md if it exists for owner, site, jurisdiction, prior decisions.
• Read the brief itself (pasted text, file path, or attached PDF).
• Identify the brief type: rfp | opr | program-brief | design-brief. Some axes apply differently across types (e.g., decision rights are heavier in RFPs; performance criteria are heavier in OPRs).

Step 3 — Apply eight-axis review

Load references/brief_axes.md for the full framework with sub-criteria. Quick reference:

1. Stated vs unstated objectives — What the owner asks for vs what the building type/market implies they actually need. Surface unstated objectives explicitly.
2. Program completeness — Areas (gsf/nsf), populations, adjacencies, FF&E, growth assumptions. Check against references/program_benchmarks.md for typical NA building-type ranges.
3. Site & jurisdiction context — Address, zoning district referenced, AHJ named, applicable code edition (IBC year, state amendments, local), climate zone (ASHRAE 169), fire jurisdiction, utility providers.
4. Performance criteria — Energy targets (EUI, ASHRAE 90.1 vintage, IECC), certifications (LEED / WELL / Living Building / Fitwel / Passive House / RELi), commissioning scope (ASHRAE Guideline 0), POE benchmarks, measurable outcomes.
5. Schedule & budget realism — Order-of-magnitude check against typical $/gsf for the project type and region (use references/program_benchmarks.md). Flag if schedule excludes AHJ review timelines or long-lead procurement.
6. Decision rights & governance — Who signs off at SD/DD/CD? Single point of contact? Owner's rep / project manager? Internal committees, board approvals, public hearings?
7. Risk & exclusions — What's explicitly out of scope? Hazardous materials assumptions, geotech responsibility, existing-conditions verification, survey scope, demolition scope, permitting fees, owner-furnished items.
8. Sustainability & resilience — Net-zero pathway requested? Climate hazards considered (flood, wind, heat, wildfire, seismic)? Adaptive reuse vs new build trade-off addressed? If resilience is a stated priority, recommend running the resilience-check skill in addition.

Focus on the 3-5 axes with real signal. Do not pretend to score every axis on every brief — note the ones that are clearly fine in one line and move on.

Step 4 — Write the review

Read assets/brief-review-template.md, fill placeholders. Filename:

docs/briefs/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>-review.md

Slug rule: lowercase, [^a-z0-9-] removed, max 40 chars, derived from project name or brief topic (acme-hq-opr, westside-school-rfp). If a review with the same date+slug already exists, suffix -<n>.

Use the Write tool. Match the language of the brief (this skill is English-only by design — if the brief is non-English, translate quoted excerpts into English in the review).

Step 5 — Update the brief index

python scripts/append_to_index.py \
  --date 2026-05-07 \
  --slug acme-hq-opr \
  --brief-type opr \
  --primary-axes "objectives,performance,decision-rights"

The script appends a row to docs/briefs/index.md. Do NOT edit the index manually with the Edit tool — table alignment breaks easily.

Step 6 — Report

Tell the user:

• Path to the review file.
• The 2-3 most pressing gaps or contradictions.
• A short list of recommended clarifying questions to send back to the owner.
• Whether resilience-check or zoning-summary should be run next.

Output structure

The review should end with two action lists:

• Gaps to close before SD — items the owner must resolve before schematic design can begin in earnest.
• Questions back to owner — phrased as direct questions, ready to copy into an email or RFI-style response.

Rules

• Every gap cites WHY, rooted in one of the eight axes — never "this seems vague" without an axis tag.
• Refuse to invent program areas the brief did not state. If gsf is missing, flag it; do not guess.
• If the brief references a code edition, name the edition explicitly (e.g., "IBC 2021 with 2023 California amendments"). If the edition is absent, flag it.
• Distinguish hard contradictions (two clauses that cannot both be true) from soft tensions (priorities that compete but can be balanced).
• Specifics over generalities. "Brief states LEED Gold but excludes commissioning, which is a LEED prerequisite (EAp1)" beats "sustainability section is unclear."

Anti-patterns

• Listing every axis even when most are clearly fine — pick the 3-5 with real signal.
• Suggesting redesign of the project. Brief review evaluates the brief, not the design.
• Inventing benchmarks not in references/program_benchmarks.md — if the project type isn't covered, say so.
• Editing index.md manually instead of using append_to_index.py.
• Pretending the brief is in worse shape than it is to look thorough. Acknowledge what's solid.

Resources

• scripts/init_briefs_workspace.py — bootstrap docs/briefs/ and the brief index
• scripts/append_to_index.py — append a row to docs/briefs/index.md
• references/brief_axes.md — detailed eight-axis review framework with sub-criteria and example findings
• references/program_benchmarks.md — typical $/gsf, gsf/occupant, and program ratios for North American building types (sanity-check schedule and budget)
• assets/brief-review-template.md — review markdown template