agentleFS
Sign inStart free
countzerocountzero/switch_claude_account/.claude/skills/plan-review/SKILL.md

plan-review

Skill9 starsChanged 25 days agoMITView on GitHub

Second-pass review of a plan before presenting it to the user. Use when about to present a non-trivial plan in plan mode, or a multi-step implementation outline in normal/build mode (TodoWrite with 3+ non-trivial items, or a response describing edits to 2+ files). Skip for trivial / one-line changes or when the user asked for "minimal" / "quick" / "just do X" / "smallest fix". Applies ten design lenses and emits a one-line tail marker only when the pass changes the plan.

43 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use plan-execute, pr-comment and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • longranger2Skill

    plan-execute

    Use when the user says "/plan-execute", "plan execute", "implement plan", or "execute plan" and provides a finalized plan file path to carry out. Claude orchestrates, Codex writes code, Claude reviews, and Codex fixes issues until the quality bar is met.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • BenjaminGSkill

    pr-comment

    This skill should be used when reviewing someone else's pull request and you want drafted review comments posted to GitHub — either gate / gate-wf findings (tier-marked) or pr-challenge's reviewer questions (unmarked) — each drafted through humanizer and posted as a standalone inline comment at its file:line, after one confirmation. Triggers on "post these as review comments", "comment the gate findings on the PR", "draft and post my review", "leave review comments", after a gate / gate-wf run or a pr-challenge pass on a PR you're reviewing.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    spec-review

    Independent, multi-model review of a design or spec **before** any code is written, for the microsoft/winappcli repo. Activate when a contributor asks to "review this spec", "review my design", "review this design doc", "validate this approach", "should we build this", "spec review", "design review", or "feature review". Fans out parallel sub-agents — each doing its OWN research against the real codebase and ecosystem rather than trusting the spec — covering necessity & scope, approach & alternatives, feasibility vs reality, risks & unknowns, DX & user impact, and a different-model-family cross-check. Emits a decision-oriented recommendation (proceed / proceed-with-changes / reconsider) to stdout. This is the PRE-CODE companion to the pr-review skill (which reviews code already written); use spec-review at the design/spec stage, not on an implemented diff. Does NOT write code or edit the spec.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    office-hours

    Set up and run Claude Code office hours, including the calendar event when the champion's own calendar connector allows it. Use when a champion wants a regular time for teammates to bring problems.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AWSSkill

    retro

    Conduct a retrospective on a coding session.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • BlockSkill

    plan

    Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 35 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If, and only if, the second pass changed something, append exactly one tail line to the plan, after a blank line:

    line 43
  2. Distinctive:

    Don't recite the lens list in the plan body.

    line 57
  3. Distinctive:

    Don't claim adherence ("adheres to KISS").

    line 58
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't fire on trivial tasks.

    line 59

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 35 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Plan Review (Second Pass)

When to fire

Fire when ALL of the following hold:

  • The plan involves writing or changing code.
  • The plan touches more than one file OR introduces a new abstraction (function, class, type, module, config key, route, schema field, table, env var).
  • The user has not asked for a minimal / quick / smallest answer.

Fires in plan mode AND in normal/build mode (multi-file edit outlines, or TodoWrite with 3+ non-trivial items, count as a plan).

Skip for pure Q&A, file inspection, one-line fixes, and mechanical edits.

Workflow

  1. Draft the first-pass plan internally.
  2. Walk each lens below as a single probe. Revise the plan if any probe yields a concrete removal or simplification.
  3. Present the (possibly revised) plan. Append the tail marker ONLY if the second pass changed something.

Lenses

LensProbe
YAGNIAnything in this plan not required by the current ticket / user request?
KISSSimplest version that still solves the problem? Why isn't that the plan?
DRYIs this knowledge already represented somewhere reusable in the codebase?
SOLIDAny single piece with more than one reason to change? Split it.
Premature OptimizationAdding complexity for an unmeasured perf concern?
Occam's RazorSimpler explanation of the problem that would make a smaller plan sufficient?
Tesler's ConservationIs irreducible complexity placed in the right layer (api / service / library / client)?
Gall's LawStarting from a working simple system and growing it, or designing complexity up front?
Principle of Least AstonishmentWill the next reader be surprised by naming, dependency direction, or layering?
InversionWhat would make this plan obviously bad? Are we close to any failure mode?

Disclosure

If, and only if, the second pass changed something, append exactly one tail line to the plan, after a blank line:

[reviewed: <lens-1>[, <lens-2>...]] <what changed, 6-12 words>

Examples:

  • [reviewed: YAGNI] dropped the IRoleCache layer, only one caller
  • [reviewed: KISS, DRY] collapsed two helpers into the existing util
  • [reviewed: SOLID] split the orchestrator from the persistence path

Don't

  • Don't recite the lens list in the plan body.
  • Don't claim adherence ("adheres to KISS"). Either name a lens that drove a concrete change, or stay silent.
  • Don't fire on trivial tasks. Most sessions don't need this.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free