diff --git a/docs/DevDesignReview.md b/docs/DevDesignReview.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a03b843
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/DevDesignReview.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Dev Design Review
+
+## Overall Assessment
+The current Dev-Design.md is 75-80% ready for delegation. Strong architecture and phased approach, but missing key operational sections.
+
+## Chapter-by-Chapter Feedback
+
+### 1. North Star
+**Strengths**: Clear vision.
+**Gaps**: No measurable success criteria for MVP.
+**Recommendation**: Add success metrics (e.g., Bob spends <15 min/week on research).
+
+### 2. System Architecture
+**Strengths**: Good diagram and memory budget.
+**Gaps**: No data flow description, error propagation, or external dependency diagram.
+**Recommendation**: Add numbered daily run flow and failure modes section.
+
+### 3. Data Layer
+**Strengths**: Strong SQLite rationale and retention policy.
+**Gaps**: No backup strategy or migration process.
+**Recommendation**: Add SQLite backup/restore and schema migration approach.
+
+### 4. Adapter Layer
+**Strengths**: Clear HTTP-only decision.
+**Gaps**: No formal adapter interface contract.
+**Recommendation**: Define minimal Adapter Interface (methods, exceptions).
+
+### 5. Theme Tagging
+**Strengths**: Good phased approach.
+**Gaps**: No theme governance process.
+**Recommendation**: Add subsection on how themes are proposed and maintained.
+
+### 6. Falsification Engine
+**Strengths**: Exponential decay is a smart improvement.
+**Gaps**: No calibration/tuning process.
+**Recommendation**: Add note on how decay parameters are validated.
+
+### 7. Output Layer
+**Strengths**: Good consumer separation.
+**Gaps**: MCP tools are too high-level; no auth model.
+**Recommendation**: Define minimum MCP tools and basic API auth.
+
+### 8. Observability
+**Strengths**: Decent start.
+**Gaps**: No log retention, alerting thresholds, or SLIs.
+**Recommendation**: Add log retention policy and basic alerting matrix.
+
+### 9. Scheduling
+**Strengths**: Good comparison.
+**Gaps**: No explicit recommendation for Phase 1 vs future.
+**Recommendation**: State clear recommendation (cron for Phase 1).
+
+### 10. Inference
+**Strengths**: Clear host-level decision.
+**Gaps**: No model upgrade/rollback process.
+**Recommendation**: Add model upgrade guidance.
+
+### 11. Security
+**Strengths**: Basic coverage.
+**Gaps**: Container hardening and dependency scanning.
+**Recommendation**: Add MVP security baseline subsection.
+
+### 12. Implementation Phases
+**Strengths**: Strong.
+**Gaps**: No Definition of Done per phase.
+**Recommendation**: Add DoD checklist for each phase.
+
+### 13. Backport to PRD
+**Strengths**: Useful.
+**Recommendation**: Consider moving actual requirement text to PRD to avoid duplication.
+
+### 14. Design Decisions
+**Strengths**: Good.
+**Recommendation**: Add "Revisit in Phase X" column for key decisions.
+
+## Missing Sections to Add
+
+1. **Testing Strategy** (unit, integration, E2E)
+2. **Deployment & CI/CD**
+3. **Operational Runbooks**
+4. **Risk Register & Assumptions**
+5. **Dependencies & Tooling**
+
+## Priority for Next Revision
+Focus on adding Testing Strategy, Runbooks, and DoD per phase first. This will make the document truly delegation-ready.
\ No newline at end of file