Review Your Architectural plans

A plan that looks finished on paper can still get rejected at the permit desk, or worse, pass review and turn into a costly problem once construction actually starts. I review architectural plans the way a plan checker or an experienced contractor would, looking for the issues that don't show up until someone tries to build from them or a permit office sends them back.
I check code compliance first, since this is usually where rejections happen, egress requirements, accessibility provisions, structural notes, fire separation, and zoning setbacks depending on what's relevant to your project and jurisdiction. I check the plans for internal consistency, making sure dimensions actually match across floor plans, elevations, and sections, since a mismatch here is one of the most common reasons plans get flagged or cause confusion on site. I check constructability, looking for details that are technically drawn but would be genuinely difficult or unclear to build from, things like conflicting structural and mechanical paths, unclear framing details, or missing information a contractor would need to actually price or build the work.
Once the review is done, you get a clear report, not a marked up drawing with no explanation. Each issue is listed with what's wrong, where it is on the plan, why it matters, whether it's likely to cause a permit rejection or just a build issue, and what would resolve it. If something needs your architect or engineer to address directly, I'll say so clearly rather than vaguely flagging it.
This isn't a quick skim looking for obvious mistakes. I go through the plan set methodically, the way it would be checked by someone whose job depends on catching what gets missed, and flag what would genuinely hold up your permit or cause a problem during construction.