agentsclimarketplace

Plan linked review

Skill aneviaro/pipack/agent/skills/plan-linked-review

Backup of my pi agent configuration: settings, custom skills, and npm dependency manifests.

Install
npx -y skills add aneviaro/pipack --skill plan-linked-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Review current local changes for correctness, quality, and best practices against a required implementation plan link or path. Use when asked to review local changes, diffs, or implementation progress against a plan/spec step. If no plan link/path is provided, use ask_user_question before reviewing.

SKILL.md

2.9 KB, 582 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Plan-Linked Review

Use this skill to review uncommitted local changes against a specific implementation plan.

Required input

A plan link or path is mandatory, for example:

  • @docs/plans/20260630-calendar-api-backend-implementation.md
  • docs/plans/some-plan.md
  • a URL to a plan/spec document

If the user asks for this review without a plan link/path, stop and call ask_user_question:

{
  "question": "Please provide the plan link or path to review these changes against.",
  "allowFreeform": true,
  "recommendation": "Paste the docs/plans/... path or URL for the implementation plan."
}

Do not infer the plan from recent context unless the user explicitly named it in the current request.

Workflow

  1. Read the referenced plan.
  2. Identify the requested step/task/phase.
    • If the user specifies a step (for example, 1st step, Task 2, Phase 1), review only that scope.
    • If no step is specified, review against the whole plan.
  3. Inspect local changes:
    • git status --short
    • git diff --stat
    • git diff --name-status
    • focused git diff / file reads for changed files
  4. Compare implementation against the plan requirements and completion criteria.
  5. Review from these perspectives:
    • correctness and functional behavior
    • contract/spec compatibility
    • quality, maintainability, boundaries, naming, and simplicity
    • security/privacy requirements from the plan
    • test coverage and verification commands
    • regressions or accidental unrelated changes
  6. Run the smallest relevant verification commands from the plan when practical.
  7. Assess and estimate the finding relevance from 0 to 10. Report only the findings with relevance > 8.

Output format

Be concise and decisive.

Use this structure:

Findings:
- [severity] file:line — issue and why it matters

Plan coverage:
- Implemented: ...
- Missing/partial: ...

Verification:
- `command` — PASS/FAIL

Recommendation: approve / request changes

Proposed commit message: [proposed commit message]

If there are no issues, say Findings: no blocking issues. and still report plan coverage and verification.

Review rules

  • This is a review skill: do not edit files unless the user explicitly asks to fix issues.
  • Prefer exact file paths and line numbers for findings.
  • Treat executable contracts and tests as stronger evidence than prose docs when they conflict.
  • Do not over-report nits; include only issues that affect correctness, maintainability, security/privacy, or plan completion.
  • If verification cannot be run, say exactly why.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.