# Plan Review R003 — Step 3

Verdict: Approved

The Step 3 plan is appropriately constrained to follow-up criteria rather than implementation. It focuses on documenting the evidence required before first-class strength-training tools are added, and it preserves the task boundary by making PRD/ROADMAP edits conditional on clarifying existing future scope only.

Execution notes to keep this safe:

- Prefer centralizing the detailed implementation criteria in `docs/upstream-gaps/strength-training.md`; PRD/ROADMAP should remain high-level unless wording is ambiguous.
- Criteria should require public API or black-box evidence for endpoint paths, schemas/units, response shapes, pagination, write/update/delete semantics, idempotency/retry behavior, and error shapes before any new MCP tool is proposed.
- Explicitly call out destructive/update behavior so future strength writes can fit the existing registration-time safety gates instead of model-controlled confirmation.
- Do not treat forum demand or roadmap intent as endpoint evidence; it only justifies documenting the gap and best-effort NOTE/WORKOUT guidance.
- If Step 3 is docs-only, record that no Go tests were relevant; if prompt or generated docs are touched unexpectedly, run the targeted validation for those files.
- Keep `CHANGELOG.md` on the Step 5 delivery checklist if not updated during this step, since the task’s documentation requirements still mark it as must-update.
