Document review
Skill weorbitant/compound-engineering-feat-python-plugin/skills/document-review
Refines brainstorm or plan documents through structured review before proceeding to the next workflow step. Use when a brainstorm or plan document exists and needs improvement.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add weorbitant/compound-engineering-feat-python-plugin --skill document-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 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.
SKILL.md
3.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Document Review
Improve brainstorm or plan documents through structured review.
Step 1: Get the Document
If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed to Step 2.
If no document is specified: Ask which document to review, or look for the most recent spec/plan in docs/superpowers/specs/, docs/superpowers/plans/, or docs/plans/ (the last is for plans created before v3.0.0).
Step 2: Assess
Read through the document and ask:
- What is unclear?
- What is unnecessary?
- What decision is being avoided?
- What assumptions are unstated?
- Where could scope accidentally expand?
These questions surface issues. Don't fix yet—just note what you find.
Step 3: Evaluate
Score the document against these criteria:
| Criterion | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Problem statement is clear, no vague language ("probably," "consider," "try to") |
| Completeness | Required sections present, constraints stated, open questions flagged |
| Specificity | Concrete enough for next step (brainstorm → can plan, plan → can implement) |
| YAGNI | No hypothetical features, simplest approach chosen |
If invoked within a workflow (after /workflows:brainstorm or /workflows:plan), also check:
- User intent fidelity — Document reflects what was discussed, assumptions validated
Step 4: Identify the Critical Improvement
Among everything found in Steps 2-3, does one issue stand out? If something would significantly improve the document's quality, this is the "must address" item. Highlight it prominently.
Step 5: Make Changes
Present your findings, then:
- Auto-fix minor issues (vague language, formatting) without asking
- Ask approval before substantive changes (restructuring, removing sections, changing meaning)
- Update the document inline—no separate files, no metadata sections
Simplification Guidance
Simplification is purposeful removal of unnecessary complexity, not shortening for its own sake.
Simplify when:
- Content serves hypothetical future needs, not current ones
- Sections repeat information already covered elsewhere
- Detail exceeds what's needed to take the next step
- Abstractions or structure add overhead without clarity
Don't simplify:
- Constraints or edge cases that affect implementation
- Rationale that explains why alternatives were rejected
- Open questions that need resolution
Step 6: Offer Next Action
After changes are complete, ask:
- Refine again - Another review pass
- Review complete - Document is ready
Iteration Guidance
After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion—diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it.
Return control to the caller (workflow or user) after selection.
What NOT to Do
- Do not rewrite the entire document
- Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss
- Do not over-engineer or add complexity
- Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections