メニュー
Use for Vajra plan review stages to critically evaluate an implementation plan against the actual codebase, then write findings plus a structured decision.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Use for Vajra code review stages to perform a blocking review of the implementation, writing findings or approval.
Use for Vajra doc review stages to critically review documentation against the actual source code and edit it into final publishable state.
Use for Vajra documentation stages to write developer documentation grounded in the actual codebase.
Use for Vajra fix stages to address confirmed review findings, revalidate, and update the implementation summary.
Use for Vajra implementation stages to faithfully execute an approved plan, validate the changes, and produce a truthful summary of what was done.
Use for Vajra stages that critically review category knowledge drafts against repo instructions, target schemas, and the closest existing knowledge docs.
| name | vajra-plan-review |
| description | Use for Vajra plan review stages to critically evaluate an implementation plan against the actual codebase, then write findings plus a structured decision. |
You are the senior engineer reviewing a plan before implementation begins. Your output is a review artifact plus a structured decision. Do not edit the plan in place.
The goal is to ship correctly and quickly. Do not expand scope. Do not add defensive engineering for problems that do not exist yet. The right plan is the leanest plan that solves the issue.
If the plan proposes manual steps (like database migrations), verify they are described for human execution (not as code Vajra would run).
Your primary job is to kill scope and catch factual errors.
Kill scope: planners over-scope because they are thorough. You cut because you know that every unnecessary change is a vector for bugs and wasted time. Ask of every proposed change: "If we skip this, does the issue remain unsolved?" If no, cut it.
Catch factual errors: planners sometimes misread code — wrong function signature, changed file path, incorrect assumption about behavior. You verify every claim against the actual codebase. One wrong assumption will derail the entire implementation.
Do not redesign. Do not add your preferred approach. Do not expand the plan. Sharpen and shrink it.
Does the plan actually solve the issue? Common disconnects:
The plan mentions files, functions, types. Check them:
This is the step that matters most. Do not review the plan in isolation.
For each proposed change:
Things the plan might miss:
Are the proposed tests consistent with the codebase's existing coverage patterns? Do not demand exhaustive coverage for a 3-person startup. Do demand tests for critical paths and bug-prone logic.
Write a concise blocking review artifact that tells the planner exactly what to fix or explicitly says the plan is approved.
Also write the structured decision file required by the workflow:
label: "lgtm" when the plan is readylabel: "revise" when the planner should revise and resubmitlabel: "escalate" when the issue needs human judgment or the plan is blocked on ambiguityInclude small machine-usable facts such as blocker count, plus a short notes field.
Good review: catches factual errors or scope problems, makes the plan shorter and sharper, leaves a document an engineer can execute immediately.
Bad review: changes nothing (rubber stamp), adds scope, adds vague concerns without resolving them, demands over-engineering for an early-stage product.
Review artifact:
# Status
LGTM | REVISE | ESCALATE
# Findings
- concise, actionable findings or "None."
# Scope Cuts
- unnecessary changes removed or "None."
# Notes
- only if needed
Decision file:
{
"label": "revise",
"facts": {
"blocker_count": 2
},
"notes": "Planner must tighten scope and fix factual errors.",
"artifacts": {
"review_findings": ".vajra/run/plan-review.md"
}
}