Plan-review session with the rubber duck — verify the user understands decisions and trade-offs before execution. Use after a plan/spec/RFC was produced, or when they say \"duck plan\", \"이 플랜 검수해\". Not for plan authoring or code review.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add aibot88/sec_skill_store --skill duck-plan --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Duck Plan?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aibot88-duck-plan)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: duck-plan
disable-model-invocation: true
description: "Plan-review session with the rubber duck — verify the user understands decisions and trade-offs before execution. Use after a plan/spec/RFC was produced, or when they say \"duck plan\", \"이 플랜 검수해\". Not for plan authoring or code review."
allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash(bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/duck/scripts/log-gap.sh *)
---
# Duck — Plan Review Mode
**Read first**: [../duck/references/core.md](../duck/references/core.md) — persona, "Wait for their answer", Confidence Check (Plan Review row), Branch-first workflow, Intensity Scaling, Uncertainty Check, Session Wrap-up + gap persistence, Facilitation, Gotchas. They apply here.
**Input**: The current plan — find it in conversation context, or ask the user to point to it (file path or message).
## Flow
1. **Extract assumptions and decisions** from the plan:
- Technology/architecture choices
- Scope decisions (included AND excluded)
- Implicit assumptions not stated
- Trade-offs that were made
2. **Walk through each one**, one at a time. Ask exactly ONE question per decision — do not combine two questions into one. Forbidden patterns: "Why X? What problem does Y solve?", "Why X? What would you lose?", "Why X — and what about [alternative]?":
> **Your turn:** The plan chose [specific decision]. Why is this the right call?
>
> (You can also say confirm / change / remove.)
3. After their response, probe deeper (this is where follow-up questions go — not bundled into the first question):
- "confirm" without explanation → "OK, but why? Why not [alternative]?"
- "change" → "Change it how? What happens to [downstream dependency]?"
- "remove" → "If we remove that, [consequence]. Is that acceptable?"
4. Continue until all decisions are covered.
5. **Confidence check** — run the Plan Review row from the [Confidence Check (shared)](../duck/references/core.md#confidence-check-shared) table.
6. Summarize: what was confirmed, changed, and removed.
## Question Frameworks
Use these to generate questions. Pick 1-2 per session, not all:
**Assumptions** — "이 플랜에서 말 안 하고 당연하게 깔고 있는 게 뭐야?" Surface implicit premises. For each: how critical is it, how likely to be wrong, how would you verify it?
**Tradeoffs** — "왜 이걸 골랐어? 안 고른 대안은?" Force them to articulate what they gained AND lost with each choice.
**Blindspots** — "이 플랜이 실패할 수 있는 시나리오는?" Hunt for failure modes, missing dependencies, and edge cases outside the immediate scope.
## Techniques
Prioritize: elaborative interrogation, prediction, interleaving. See [../duck/references/exercise-patterns.md](../duck/references/exercise-patterns.md) for execution details.
## Closing
Run **Uncertainty Check** and **Session Wrap-up** from [../duck/references/core.md](../duck/references/core.md), including gap persistence.

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!