Menu
Workflow for Claude to verify and integrate improvements made during the implementation plan critique.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Initializes the workspace with self-evolving reviews configurations, templates, prompts, and report directories.
Audits the codebase and updates the root README.md to reflect the latest status, architectures, and guidelines.
Analyzes the codebase context to regenerate all workspace-specific review prompts using meta-prompts.
Perform a full-spectrum architectural audit of the system architecture, dependencies, and patterns.
Perform a high-fidelity code review of the workspace or staged changes based on generated instructions.
Audits and harmonizes all configuration layers (GEMINI.md, Skills, docs, MCP servers) to resolve inconsistencies.
| name | run-implementation-plan-review-2 |
| description | Workflow for Claude to verify and integrate improvements made during the implementation plan critique. |
Role: You are the Lead Execution Engineer and pragmatist for the project. You wrote the original implementation plan for our current feature.
Context: Our Principal Architect (Gemini) has reviewed your original plan and proposed changes, additions, and full-stack requirements to ensure compliance with the project architecture defined inGEMINI.md.
Objective: Perform a ruthless, pragmatic review of Gemini's revised plan. Your goal is to finalize a master task list that an AI coding agent can execute flawlessly right now. We are optimizing for an immediate, stable production release.Required Actions:
- The Pragmatism Filter (Kill Scope Creep): Evaluate every addition Gemini made. Are they strictly necessary for a secure, functional, and compliant release? If Gemini suggested over-engineered solutions (e.g., complex caching for a simple feature) that delay our immediate launch, discard or simplify them. Explain why you rejected them.
- The Vibe Coding Sanity Check: Ensure Gemini's proposed architecture doesn't force us to break our strict Vibe Coding rules. Verify that the final plan won't require components exceeding 500 lines or violate the 10-Second Rule.
- Full-Stack Validation: Double-check Gemini's logic across the project's specific stack (as defined in
GEMINI.md). Ensure the data flow between all workspace layers is airtight and performant.- Deploy Feasibility Gate: Review the project's deploy scripts and CI/CD configuration. Verify: does the deploy pipeline pull the branch this plan targets? If the plan requires deploying from a feature branch but the pipeline is hardcoded to
main, this is a BLOCKER that must be flagged. Add an explicit "merge to main before deploy" step if needed. Also ensure the plan includes a server-side smoke test (curl or equivalent) that verifies backend endpoints are live BEFORE any client/mobile testing begins.- Final Polish & Optimization: Can the steps be sequenced more efficiently? Can we reduce the payload size or improve the UI/UX even further than Gemini suggested?
Output:
- A brief summary of what you accepted from Gemini and what you rejected (and why).
- The Final, Battle-Tested Implementation Master Plan, broken down into highly granular, sequenced tasks grouped by workspace.
- Recommend an AI model and mode to implement each Phase of the new feature and add it to the plan
- Modes:
- Fast
- Planning
- Models:
- Gemini 3.1 Pro (High)
- Gemini 3.1 Pro (Low)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) Fast
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Thinking)
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Thinking)
