diff --git a/quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md b/quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..76b582fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# [S] Design checkpoint asks for the best long-term approach
+
+## Goal
+
+At `/quest-review`'s design checkpoint, the agent steps back, works out the
+best long-term approach from first principles, and compares it with the
+current one before making another fix, so PRs stop piling up
+just-one-more-change patches. Agents that loop on review findings often
+change course once someone asks whether there is a better alternative; the
+checkpoint should ask that question for them.
+
+The checkpoint's trigger stays as `nextStep` in `src/cli/review.ts`
+decides it today, and the agent still hands the choice to the user. Loops
+outside `quest review`, such as `/quest-iterate` fixing CI failures or
+online reviewers' comments, are out of scope.
+
+## Plan
+
+Decided 2026-11-12 (user, /quest-plan):
+
+- What should change?
+  - ✅ Strengthen the existing checkpoint: the `next checkpoint` line
+    `nextStep` prints in `src/cli/review.ts` and the checkpoint paragraph in
+    `assets/skills/review.md` (rejected: also counting `/quest-iterate`'s fix
+    cycles, which adds a second round counter; having the agent rethink on
+    its own and hand off only when it recommends a change of course)
+
+  Agents follow the printed `next` line, and today it only says "reconsider
+  the approach". So the line itself should carry the step back (the best
+  long-term design from first principles, compared with the current one),
+  not only point at the skill. Keep it short enough to read as one
+  instruction.
+- Which milestone?
+  - ✅ m0 (rejected: m1, m2): agents loop on moq-dev's own PRs now.
+
+Recommended: reword the skill paragraph so the agent first states the
+problem the PR solves without reference to the current code, designs what
+it would build if starting today, then compares that with the current
+approach and the remaining findings. Keep its existing outcomes (continue,
+rethink, merge as is, drop), the `Design change:` comment, and restarting
+the count with `quest review --new`. Update the `quest review --help` text
+in `src/cli/main.ts` that describes the checkpoint. The `nextStep` tests in
+`test/review.test.ts` match only the `next checkpoint: ` prefix, so make
+them assert that the line carries the step back, or the rewording could
+regress unnoticed.