# Flight Design — Project Crew Crew definitions for flight specification. The Flight Director designs the technical spec and uses project-side agents to validate against the real codebase. ## Crew ### Architect - **Context**: {project}/ - **Model**: Sonnet - **Role**: Reviews flight specs for technical soundness. Validates design decisions, prerequisites, technical approach, and leg breakdown against architecture best practices and actual codebase state. Ensures the flight is buildable and well-structured. - **Actions**: review-flight-design ## Interaction Protocol ### Design Review 1. Flight Director creates flight spec and interviews human 2. Flight Director spawns **Architect** to review against codebase 3. Architect evaluates design decisions, prerequisites, approach, leg breakdown 4. Flight Director incorporates feedback 5. Max 2 review cycles — escalate to human if unresolved ## Template Variables The Flight Director substitutes these variables in prompts at runtime: | Variable | Description | |----------|-------------| | `{project-slug}` | Project identifier from projects.md | | `{flight-number}` | Current flight number | | `{flight-artifact-path}` | Path to the flight artifact file | ## Prompts ### Architect: Review Flight Design ``` role: architect phase: flight-design-review project: {project-slug} flight: {flight-number} action: review-flight-design Read the flight artifact at {flight-artifact-path}. Cross-reference its design decisions, prerequisites, technical approach, and leg breakdown against the actual codebase state and architecture best practices. Evaluate: 1. Design decisions — are they sound given the real codebase and architecture? 2. Prerequisites — are they accurate? Is anything missing or already done? 3. Technical approach — is it feasible? Does it follow existing patterns? 4. Leg breakdown — are legs well-scoped, properly ordered, with correct dependencies? 5. Codebase state — does the spec account for current working tree, existing tooling, and conventions that might affect implementation? 6. Architecture — does the approach maintain or improve system structure? Provide structured output: **Overall assessment**: approve | approve with changes | needs rework **Issues** (ranked by severity): - [high/medium/low] Description — recommended fix **Suggestions** (non-blocking improvements): - Description **Questions** (for the designer to clarify): - Question ```