القائمة
Criteria for reviewing implementation plans against quality standards
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
DaliORM patterns, type-safe query builders, schema definitions, migrations, and SurrealDB integration
Commit, push, branch, and manage version control with GitButler. Use for: commit my changes, check what changed, create a PR, push my branch, view diff, create branches, stage files, edit commit history, squash commits, amend commits, undo commits, pull requests, merge, stash work. Replaces git - use 'but' instead of git commit, git status, git push, git checkout, git add, git diff, git branch, git rebase, git stash, git merge. Covers all git, version control, and source control operations.
Implements advanced TypeScript type systems, creates custom type guards, utility types, and branded types, and configures tRPC for end-to-end type safety. Use when building TypeScript applications requiring advanced generics, conditional or mapped types, discriminated unions, monorepo setup, or full-stack type safety with tRPC.
Use when writing unit/integration tests for Vite projects - configure vitest.config.ts, write test suites with describe/it, create mock implementations with vi.fn and vi.mock, set up code coverage thresholds, and run tests in parallel
Internal logic and data flow philosophy (The 5 Laws of Elegant Defense). Understand deeply to ensure code guides data naturally and prevents errors.
Comprehensive code review methodology with severity classification and confidence thresholds
| name | plan-review |
| description | Criteria for reviewing implementation plans against quality standards |
Load this skill when reviewing implementation plans (not code).
Systematic plan review focused on 3 quality categories: Citation Quality, Completeness, and Actionability. Structure is pre-validated by plan_save—focus on whether the plan provides actionable implementation guidance.
Note: Saved plans are structurally validated by
plan_savebefore storage. Format compliance (YAML frontmatter, status markers, CURRENT marker, numbering) is guaranteed. Focus your review on the quality aspects below.
| Requirement | Check |
|---|---|
| Decisions reference sources | ref:delegation-id format used |
| No unsubstantiated claims | Architectural decisions cite research |
| Research phases show refs | Completed research tasks include citations |
| Citations are verifiable | IDs match actual delegation outputs |
Red Flags:
- in Source column→ ref:id| Requirement | Check |
|---|---|
| Goal is specific | Measurable outcome, not vague intent |
| Phases are logical | Sequential, with clear progression |
| Edge cases considered | Error handling, failure modes addressed |
| Notes section present | Key decisions and observations documented |
| Context & Decisions table | Captures architectural choices with rationale |
Goal Quality Examples:
| Requirement | Check |
|---|---|
| Tasks are specific | Clear what file/component is affected |
| No ambiguous tasks | Avoids "investigate" or "figure out" without scope |
| Dependencies clear | Sequential tasks show logical order |
| Implementation path obvious | Developer can start without clarification |
Actionability Examples:
src/auth/jwt.ts with sign/verify functions" (specific file)UserService.create()" (clear scope)| Severity | Icon | Criteria | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 🔴 | Missing citations for key decisions, no clear goal, unactionable tasks | Must fix before execution |
| Major | 🟠 | Vague tasks, incomplete phases, missing edge case handling | Should fix |
| Minor | 🟡 | Missing notes, unclear dependencies, incomplete rationale | Nice to fix |
| Nitpick | 🟢 | Style preferences, wording suggestions | Optional |
Structure your plan review as:
## Plan Review
### Files Reviewed
- `PLAN.md` (or plan content from `plan_read`)
### Overall Assessment
APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION
### Summary
2-3 sentence overview of plan quality.
### Issues
#### 🔴 Critical
- [Issue description with specific location]
#### 🟠 Major
- [Issue description with specific location]
#### 🟡 Minor
- [Issue description with specific location]
#### 🟢 Nitpick
- [Suggestion]
### Quality Assessment
| Check | Status |
| ------------------------------- | ----------- |
| Goal is specific and measurable | PASS / FAIL |
| Citations support key decisions | PASS / FAIL |
| Tasks are actionable | PASS / FAIL |
| Edge cases addressed | PASS / FAIL |
### Positive Observations
- [What's done well - always include at least one]
plan_save handles structural validationBefore completing a plan review, verify: