| name | plan-check |
| description | Adversarially review a plan against its spec before implementation — check that every acceptance criterion is covered, no scope crept in, and parallel tasks have disjoint write-sets. Use after /plan, before /implement. Read-only gate; delegates to the harness-claude:planner agent in a check pass. Non-blocking except on Critical. |
/plan-check — gate the plan before building
Goal: catch a broken plan before an executor acts on it. An ambiguous or incomplete
plan produces an executor that guesses; parallel executors guessing differently about the
same file produce conflicts. Cheaper to fix the plan now than to unwind code later.
This is the plan-phase counterpart to /harness-claude:review — same adversarial stance, one step
earlier. It is read-only: it reports, it does not edit the plan.
Do this
- Load the artifacts:
.claude/planning/<slug>/PLAN.md and SPEC.md (slug is in
.claude/STATE.md). If there's no PLAN.md on disk (trivial/inline work), review the
plan from the conversation instead — the checks are the same.
- Delegate to the
harness-claude:planner agent in a check pass (read-only — pass it
the plan, the spec, and the objective: "find why this plan fails before we build it").
Get back a summary with severities, not a raw dump.
- Check the plan across three dimensions:
- Criteria coverage — does every
AC-n in SPEC.md map to at least one task's
addresses:? Name any uncovered criterion.
- Scope — does any task do work no criterion asked for (scope creep), or is any
in-scope item unplanned? Flag both directions.
- Task independence — for tasks meant to run in parallel (same wave / no
depends_on between them), are the write-sets pairwise disjoint? Are
depends_on edges acyclic and complete (no task reads another's output without
declaring it)? Overlapping write-sets or a missing edge is a correctness bug.
- Red-team it: assume the plan already failed in execution and ask why. Attack hidden
assumptions, not just the obvious risks.
- If findings warrant a revision, hand them back to
/harness-claude:plan and re-check — loop ≤ 3
times (per rules/agents.md), then accept or escalate to the user.
Output
A findings list, most-severe first, each with a severity:
| Severity | Meaning | Action |
|---|
| Critical | The plan cannot satisfy a criterion, or parallel tasks collide on a file | BLOCK — fix the plan before /harness-claude:implement |
| High | Likely bug or significant gap | Fix before building |
| Medium | Maintainability / clarity concern | Fix when reasonable |
| Low | Minor suggestion | Optional |
If nothing survives, say so plainly — a clean plan is a valid result.
State
Patch .claude/STATE.md: phase: plan-check, status: done (or blocked if a Critical
stands), next_skill: /implement.
Exit criterion
No Critical finding remains (High/Medium/Low may be noted and carried). Then
/harness-claude:implement.
