Skip to content
Back to skills

Review Plan

ASecurity

Validate an implementation plan by checking for gaps, ambiguity, incorrect assumptions, and missing dependencies. Use after creating a plan and before execution.

  • 10 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added October 1, 2026
ai-agentsrustgoapi

Works with

  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 2 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned October 1, 2026

npx -y skills add martinemde/dotfiles --skill review-plan --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Review Plan?

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

Security grade badge for Review Plan
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/martinemde-review-plan/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/martinemde-review-plan)

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: review-plan
description: Validate an implementation plan by checking for gaps, ambiguity, incorrect assumptions, and missing dependencies. Use after creating a plan and before execution.
argument-hint: "[focus areas for review]"
context: fork
agent: reviewer
metadata:
  author: @ivy
---

# Review Plan: Validate Before Executing

You are reviewing an implementation plan. Your job is to find problems before they waste execution time. Be direct about issues — a false positive costs a re-read, a missed problem costs a rework cycle.

## Arguments

```
$ARGUMENTS
```

## Instructions

### 1. Find the Plan

Read the active plan file. Check these locations in order:

- `~/.claude/plans/` — most recent `.md` file
- Plan content in recent conversation context

If no plan is found, report this and stop.

### 2. Cross-Reference with Codebase

For every concrete claim the plan makes, verify it:

| Claim type              | Verification                                                           |
| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Modify `src/foo.ts`"   | Does `src/foo.ts` exist?                                               |
| "Call `functionName()`" | Does `functionName` exist? Is the signature correct?                   |
| "Import from `package`" | Is `package` in dependencies?                                          |
| "Tests are in `test/`"  | Does the test directory exist? What patterns do existing tests follow? |
| "Convention is X"       | Does CLAUDE.md or the codebase confirm this?                           |

Use `Glob`, `Grep`, and `Read` to verify. Don't trust the plan's claims about the codebase — check them.

### 3. Check Task Graph Integrity

Review the dependency structure:

- **Missing dependencies**: Does Task C use output from Task A without declaring `blockedBy: [A]`?
- **Circular dependencies**: Are there cycles that would deadlock execution?
- **Over-serialization**: Are tasks marked sequential that could actually run in parallel?
- **Under-serialization**: Are tasks marked parallel that actually depend on each other (e.g., both touch the same file)?
- **Orphan tasks**: Are there tasks with no downstream consumer? (Might be intentional, might be a gap.)

### 4. Assess Instruction Clarity

For each task, ask: could an agent execute this without further clarification?

Flag as ambiguous:

- "Update the config" — which config? What change?
- "Fix the tests" — which tests? What's wrong?
- "Follow the existing pattern" — which pattern? Where is it?

Good task descriptions name specific files, functions, and expected behavior.

### 5. Check for Missing Work

Common gaps:

- Tests not included for new functionality
- Missing error handling for new code paths
- No commit strategy defined
- No verification step after changes
- Edge cases mentioned in the issue but not addressed in tasks
- Platform-specific behavior not handled (check for `.tmpl` files, OS conditionals)

### 6. Report Findings

Categorize findings by severity:

**Blocking** — must fix before execution:

- Wrong file paths or function names
- Missing critical dependencies between tasks
- Incorrect API usage or assumptions about tool behavior
- Tasks that would fail because prerequisites don't exist

**Warning** — should address but can proceed:

- Vague task descriptions that might cause agent confusion
- Untested assumptions that are probably correct but not verified
- Missing test tasks for new code
- Suboptimal parallelization (could be faster)

**Note** — improvements, not blockers:

- Style suggestions
- Alternative approaches worth considering
- Minor optimizations

If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies focus areas, weight your review toward those concerns — but check task
graph integrity either way, since a dependency error invalidates the plan regardless of what the
review was asked to focus on.

### 7. Verdict

End with a clear verdict:

- **Approve** — no blocking issues, proceed to execution
- **Revise** — blocking issues found, list what needs to change before proceeding

Files in this skill

  • README.md2.9 KB
  • SKILL.md4 KB

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.