Plan review
Claude Code plugin with skills shared across project
npx -y skills add KonH/ClaudeTools --skill plan-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- 24 days oldThe repository was created 24 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
- 1 stars1 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 a dated plan under docs/specs/ for missing steps, wrong assumptions, or guideline violations before implementation begins.
SKILL.md
2.1 KB, 458 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Review the latest dated plan under docs/specs/ (or the plan file specified in $ARGUMENTS) for potential problems before implementation begins.
Plan Discovery
With $ARGUMENTS: resolve against docs/specs/ — look for docs/specs/<YY_MM_DD_HH>_<name>/plan.md using the full dated spec identifier.
Without $ARGUMENTS:
- List all
*/plan.mdfiles underdocs/specs/ - Extract the
YY_MM_DD_HHprefix from each folder - Use the file with the latest timestamp prefix
Rules
- Read the plan file first, then read relevant project rules (
CLAUDE.mdand any project rules directory) that apply to the plan's scope - Spawn a sub-agent to perform the review independently (it should re-read the plan and rules itself)
- The sub-agent must NOT modify any files — review only
- Present all concerns at once, then ask the user to approve all or indicate which to skip
- Keep each point short: state the problem, why it matters, and a concise fix — no nitpicking on style or naming
- Format proposed fixes as
diffblocks (lines removed prefixed with-, lines added prefixed with+) alongside the plain-text explanation - Focus on: missing steps, wrong assumptions, inconsistency with project guidelines, architectural mismatches, and anything likely to cause rework during implementation
- If no real concerns are found, say so briefly and stop
Sub-agent prompt template:
Review the plan at
[plan path]. Read it in full, then read the relevant project rules for the plan's scope (checkCLAUDE.mdand any project rules directory for domain-specific guidance). Identify concerns — missing steps, wrong assumptions, guideline violations, architectural mismatches — that would cause problems during implementation. Return a numbered list of concerns, each with: problem, why it matters, proposed fix. For each fix, include adiffblock showing the before/after lines (lines removed prefixed with-, lines added with+). Skip style/naming nitpicks. If there are no real concerns, say so.