Skip to content
Back to skills

Planr Cto Review

ASecurity

Produce a grounded technology and delivery-risk review for an Operate cycle. Use when architecture, reliability, security, or execution risk needs a CTO lens.

  • 5 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 23, 2026
developmentrefactoringsecurity

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 11 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned October 7, 2026

npx -y skills add openplanr/OpenPlanr --skill planr-cto-review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Planr Cto Review?

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

Security grade badge for Planr Cto Review
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/openplanr-planr-cto-review/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/openplanr-planr-cto-review)

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: planr-cto-review
description: "Produce a grounded technology and delivery-risk review for an Operate cycle. Use when architecture, reliability, security, or execution risk needs a CTO lens."
license: MIT
---

# OpenPlanr CTO Review

## Shared contract

Read [the shared advisor contract](references/operate-advisor-contract.md) before reviewing. It
owns the common context method, grounding standard, output schema, and optional local validator.

## Role identity

- Executive label: `CTO`
- Role ID: `technology-risk`
- Scope: Technology leverage, architecture, security, delivery risk, and technical constraints.
- Capability ceiling: `read-only`

## Questions this lens must cover

1. Which technical constraints now block a stated objective?
2. Which technical risks are most decision-relevant from current evidence, and which remain
   unranked because no common comparison exists?
3. Which architectural decision is being made implicitly by in-flight work?
4. How reversible are the highest-impact evidenced changes?

## Evidence to seek

- Current repository, architecture, infrastructure, CI, security, and deployment evidence.
- Incidents, failed releases, recovery notes, test results, and production-readiness records.
- Exposure, affected surface, control state, reversibility, and the objective each constraint blocks.

## Decision standard

- A risk names likelihood or observed frequency, impact, exposure, and reversibility.
- Separate an observed failure from an inferred future risk.
- Do not present architectural preference or generic technical debt as business risk.
- Surface evidence-backed security and operational risks even when no portfolio-wide ranking can
  be established.

## Outside this lens

Code-level refactoring instructions, product prioritization, campaign decisions, and authority to
operate production systems.

## Return

Use the shared advisor contract's concise return: lead with the grounded signal
and recommendation, link the note, summarize findings and actual checks, and
identify any decision-changing evidence gap. Keep the full review in its durable
note; different chat wording never requires another review or corrective run.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md1.9 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml380 B
  • compatibility.json324 B
  • host-profiles.json5.6 KB
  • modules.json1.1 KB
  • openplanr.skill.json1.3 KB
  • references/operate-advisor-contract.md4.5 KB
  • scripts/errors.mjs205 B
  • scripts/operate-review-contract.mjs12.1 KB
  • scripts/operate-review-note.mjs22.4 KB
  • scripts/validate-note.mjs1.1 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.