Skip to content
Back to skills

Ijfw Plan Check

ASecurity

Donahoe Loop audit gate before execution. Trigger: 'audit plan', 'check plan', 'review plan', 'plan audit', 'plan check', 'before we build', 'before execution', 'validate the plan', 'is this plan solid', 'plan review'. Owns pre-execution audit intent -- fires before any foreign plan-checker.

  • 39 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 8 views
  • Added September 1, 2026
ai-agentsgo

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 1, 2026

npx -y skills add FerroxLabs/wayland-core --skill ijfw-plan-check --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Ijfw Plan Check?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Ijfw Plan Check
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/ferroxlabs-ijfw-plan-check/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ferroxlabs-ijfw-plan-check)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: ijfw-plan-check
description: "Donahoe Loop audit gate before execution. Trigger: 'audit plan', 'check plan', 'review plan', 'plan audit', 'plan check', 'before we build', 'before execution', 'validate the plan', 'is this plan solid', 'plan review'. Owns pre-execution audit intent -- fires before any foreign plan-checker."
---

Pre-execution audit gate. Runs before EXECUTE. Verdict is decisive.

## Step 1 -- Locate the plan

Check in order: user-specified path, `.ijfw/memory/plan.md`, `.planning/**/PLAN.md`.
If none found: `No plan doc located. Paste the plan or give the path.` Do not proceed.

## Step 2 -- Goal-backward analysis

Read success criteria from `.ijfw/memory/brief.md` if present. For every task: does
it trace to a criterion? Tasks with no traceable criterion are scope drift -- flag them.

## Step 3 -- Scope leak check

Anything in the plan not in the brief is a scope leak. List each with task name + reason.
If no brief exists, flag the absence as a risk.

## Step 4 -- Risk surface

Flag tasks that are under-specified (no verify step, no file path), half-baked
(depends on an undecided decision), or destructive (no rollback note).

## Step 5 -- Dependency ordering

If task B needs task A's output but B is listed before A, flag the inversion with names.

## Step 6 -- Verdict

```
Plan audit: <N> tasks reviewed
Goal alignment:   <N> trace to criteria / <N> need attention
Scope:            clean | <N> leak(s)
Risk surface:     <N> need sharpening
Dependency order: correct | <N> inversion(s)

Verdict: PASS | FLAG | BLOCK

Must-fix before execution (FLAG):
  1. <task> -- <file>:<line> -- <fix>

Rework needed (BLOCK):
  1. <issue> -- <reason>
```

- **PASS**: proceed to EXECUTE.
- **FLAG**: fix numbered items, then proceed.
- **BLOCK**: rework required. Do not execute until re-audited.

## Step 6.5 -- Metrics block (machine-readable)

After the verdict text, emit this HTML comment block exactly:

```
<!-- plan-check-metrics
tasks_total: <int>
goal_alignment_pass: <int>
goal_alignment_fail: <int>
scope_leaks: <int>
budget_overrun: <bool>
dep_inversions: <int>
under_specified_pct: <int>
verdict: <PASS|FLAG|BLOCK>
-->
```

**under_specified_pct:** percentage of tasks that are missing ANY of:
- Verb-noun description (e.g., "Write failing test for X", not "fix stuff")
- Target file path(s)
- Verifiable success criterion

Populate each field from the counts gathered in Steps 2-6. `budget_overrun` is
`true` if the plan exceeds the task ceiling for the `time_budget` bucket recorded
in `.ijfw/memory/plan.md` frontmatter (HOUR_1=3, HOUR_2_3=7, HOUR_4_5=12,
HOUR_6_PLUS=unlimited); `false` if no budget was set or ceiling not exceeded.

## Step 7 -- Plan review modes (Deep only)

Fires ONLY for verdict `FLAG` or `PASS`. If verdict is `BLOCK`, skip Step 7 -- rework is needed, not a review mode.

### Default mode selection (reads Step 6.5 metrics block deterministically)

```
if metrics.budget_overrun == true:
  default = REDUCTION
elif metrics.dep_inversions > 0 or metrics.under_specified_pct > 30:
  default = HOLD
elif metrics.goal_alignment_fail > 0 and metrics.scope_leaks == 0:
  default = SCOPE_EXPANSION
else:
  default = SELECTIVE
```

Tag the default with `(Recommended)` and a one-line basis citing the triggering metric:
- `(Recommended) -- budget overrun: <N> tasks vs <BUCKET> ceiling <M>`
- `(Recommended) -- dep inversions: <N>; under-specified <P>%`
- `(Recommended) -- <N> goal-alignment gaps, no scope leaks`
- `(Recommended) -- plan passes audit; pick highest-value subset`

### Mode definitions (kind, not degree -- NO scores per gstack rule)

| Mode | When it fits | Action |
|---|---|---|
| SCOPE EXPANSION | Brief has acceptance criteria with no matching tasks (>20%) | Surface gaps; user adds to brief; re-plan |
| SELECTIVE | Plan is right but too big for session | Pick top N tasks; rest go to backlog |
| HOLD | Plan has too many unknowns (under_specified_pct > 30, or dep_inversions > 0) | Return to Discovery/Research; re-surface later |
| REDUCTION | budget_overrun: true | Cut to smallest viable slice; defer rest |

### AskUserQuestion shape

```json
{
  "question": "Plan is ready. How do you want to move forward?",
  "header": "Plan review",
  "options": [
    { "label": "Selective -- execute top N tasks", "description": "Pick highest-value items; rest go to backlog" },
    { "label": "Reduction -- cut to smallest viable slice", "description": "Trim to what fits the time budget" },
    { "label": "Scope expansion -- surface missing pieces", "description": "Add tasks for uncovered acceptance criteria" },
    { "label": "Hold -- return to discovery", "description": "Too many unknowns; research more before execute" }
  ]
}
```

### Routing (each mode terminates with a specific next step)

- **SELECTIVE:** Follow-up AskUserQuestion (multiSelect) to pick which tasks; plan.md marks non-selected as `backlog: true`; execute runs only the selected subset.
- **REDUCTION:** Re-invoke planner with "cut to top <ceiling> tasks preserving highest-value deliverable"; re-audit; re-review.
- **SCOPE_EXPANSION:** Surface missing criteria in chat; ask user which to add; re-plan; re-audit. If user cannot answer a criterion, emit a plan-review ISSUE (see ISSUE vocabulary below).
- **HOLD:** Write `.ijfw/state/plan-hold.md` with timestamp, reason (which metrics trigger HOLD), and list of unresolved gaps. Tell user: "Plan on hold. Resume with `/ijfw-plan resume` when ready."

### ISSUE vocabulary (unified ledger)

If any routing action produces a new unresolved gap, emit a structured ISSUE with `kind: plan-review` and persist to `.ijfw/state/execute-issues.json` (unified ledger shared with Phase 4; discriminated by `kind` field).

Example entry:

```json
{
  "id": "iss_<N>",
  "kind": "plan-review",
  "mode": "SCOPE_EXPANSION",
  "gap": "User cannot specify success criterion for task 'X'",
  "status": "unresolved",
  "resolution": null,
  "created_at": "<ISO-8601>",
  "resolved_at": null
}
```

**Day-1 protection:** Every consumer treats a missing `.ijfw/state/execute-issues.json` as `{ "issues": [] }`. Canonical JS read stub:

```js
const path = ".ijfw/state/execute-issues.json";
const ledger = fs.existsSync(path) ? JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path, 'utf8')) : { issues: [] };
```

Do NOT reference `plan-issues.json` -- the unified ledger path is always `execute-issues.json`.

Closer: `You have a <PASS|FLAG|BLOCK> -- <next action>.`

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.