| name | review-plan |
| description | Independent review of a plan against its requirements, scope, and completeness. Produces a structured review with severity-rated findings. Use after create-plan to validate quality before execution. |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | {"opencode":">=0.1"} |
| metadata | {"category":"review","phase":"planning"} |
Skill: Review Plan
This skill provides an independent quality gate for plans created via create-plan.
A fresh reviewer (with no authoring context) evaluates the plan against structured criteria. The review is persisted as a plan artifact for traceability.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- A plan has been created via
create-plan and you want to validate it before proceeding.
- You want a second opinion on plan quality (scope clarity, DoD, testing strategy, etc.).
- The user explicitly requests a plan review.
Do not use this skill to:
- Review implementation plans (use
review-implementation-plan).
- Review completed implementations (use
review-implementation).
- Fix or rewrite the plan (the reviewer only reports findings; the primary decides how to act).
Review Focus
The primary specifies the review focus when delegating. The default focus is functional and technical findings — correctness, feasibility, completeness of the solution.
Review posture
No Gold-Plating. No Adversarial Reviewing. No Scope Creep. Report only
evidence-backed problems that affect correctness, security, acceptance, or the
reviewed objective. Do not hunt for gotchas, invent improvements, or turn a
review into a search for work. This does not mean overlooking real defects.
Formal criteria (DoD compliance checklists, NFR conformance, reference consistency, documentation cleanup) are secondary. Only include formal findings when they reveal real problems — not as standard checkboxes to fill. A review cluttered with formal nitpicking buries the findings that matter.
The primary passes the focus via {{focus}} in the delegation prompt. If no focus is specified, use the default.
Execution Model
Roles
Why delegate-strong (not doc-explorer)
The reviewer must approach the plan without authoring context — fresh eyes catch what familiarity misses. delegate-strong provides the judgment depth needed to evaluate scope, consistency, and completeness. Writing docs or selected plan artifacts belongs to the relevant authoring workflow, not the review workflow.
Routing Matrix (Who does what)
- Writes:
plans/<name>/reviews/plan-review.md
- Does NOT write:
plans/<name>/plan.md, plans/<name>/phases/**, or any other plan artifact.
- Primary: owns the decision of whether to act on findings.
- delegate-strong/general: performs the review and writes the review artifact.
Workflow
1) Prepare references
Primary gathers:
- Review focus from the delegation prompt
plans/<name>/plan.mdplans/<name>/phases/ (all phase docs)
2) Delegate
Primary delegates to delegate-strong (or general) using tpl-review-plan-prompt.md.
Provide:
- Plan path
- Phases directory path
- Review output path:
plans/<name>/reviews/plan-review.md
- Review focus (freetext — what to prioritize)
3) Receive summary
Subagent returns:
- Overall verdict (Ready / Needs Revision / Major Gaps)
- Finding count by severity
- Top 3 findings
4) Act on findings
Primary decides:
- Ready: Proceed to
author-and-verify-implementation-plan.
- Needs Revision: Update plan via
update-plan, then optionally re-review.
- Major Gaps: Discuss with user before proceeding.
Plans remain conversation-owned by the primary. Resume the same reviewer task_id for clarification of findings instead of creating a new delegate, but apply plan changes through update-plan. review-fix is reserved for implementation plans and implementations.
Output Contract
The review artifact plans/<name>/reviews/plan-review.md MUST:
- Follow the canonical template headings and frontmatter keys.
- Include a clear Overall Assessment with verdict and reasoning.
- Rate every finding with a severity (Critical / Major / Minor / Note).
- Include a Findings Summary table consolidating all findings.
- Address Real-World Testing explicitly (present, absent, or waived).
Rules
- The reviewer must approach the plan without prior context. Do not include plan content in the delegation prompt — the reviewer reads it themselves.
- Findings are advisory. The primary decides whether and how to act.
- Do not rewrite or modify the plan during review — only produce the review artifact.
- Retain the reviewer
task_id until finding clarification is complete.
- Ensure the
reviews/ directory exists before delegating (create if needed).
- A review that finds zero issues is likely not thorough enough — flag this to the user.
Templates
tpl-plan-review.md — Canonical review output format with embedded review criteriatpl-review-plan-prompt.md — Primary → reviewer delegation prompt
