| name | review-plan |
| description | Read-only audit of a finished (or near-finished) plan suite. Compares the suite's index.md goal and per-chunk acceptance criteria against the actual git diff since the suite was created, and reports goal alignment, coverage gaps, drift (changes not traceable to any chunk), and status-sanity issues (chunks marked done whose criteria don't appear satisfied). Use when the user invokes /review-plan, or asks "is the plan actually done?", "did we deliver what the plan promised?", "is the suite status honest?", or wants a final check before declaring a plan suite complete. |
/review-plan
Audit a plan suite produced by /deep-plan against the work that's actually landed in the codebase. Answer: did the diff deliver what the plan promised, and is the suite's recorded status honest?
plan-tracker shows what the suite says. review-plan checks whether the suite is telling the truth.
Operating mode
Strictly read-only. Use only Read, Glob, Grep, and read-only Bash (ls, find, cat, git log, git diff, git show, git status). Never edit the suite, the chunk files, or the code. Never update statuses or commit. The output is one report printed to the conversation.
Usage
/review-plan (with optional path to a suite directory or index.md).
A suite is any directory under the plans directory (resolved from .claude/plans-config.json → plansDir, default .claude/plans) containing an index.md. Single-chunk suites are reviewed identically to multi-chunk ones.
If no path is given, discover suites under the plans directory and use the only one. If multiple, call AskUserQuestion with up to 4 most-recently-modified suites. If AskUserQuestion is unavailable, fall back to plain text: print the candidate suites as a numbered list (most-recently-modified first) and wait for the user to reply with a number or path.
Phases
Phase 1 — Read the suite
Read index.md (suite name, goal, chunk table) and every chunk file it references (frontmatter status, Files Changed, Acceptance Criteria).
If the index lists a chunk file that doesn't exist, or a chunk file is malformed (missing required sections per PLAN-FORMAT.md), record it as a structural finding and continue — don't bail.
If the index status and the chunk-frontmatter status disagree for any chunk, flag it as a status-sanity issue.
Phase 2 — Determine the diff baseline
Try in order, and state which one you used in the report:
- Creation commit.
git log --diff-filter=A --follow --format=%H -- <suite>/index.md | tail -1. Use that commit's parent as baseline. If index.md is uncommitted, baseline is HEAD and include uncommitted state via git status --porcelain + git diff.
- Timestamp fallback. If git log is empty, parse the suite directory's
YYYY-MM-DD-HHMMSS-... prefix and use git rev-list -1 --before="<timestamp>" HEAD.
- No git repo. Stop and tell the user this skill needs git history; suggest manual chunk-by-chunk verification instead.
Collect the file list with git diff --name-status <baseline>..HEAD. Read targeted hunks (git diff <baseline>..HEAD -- <path>) when verifying a specific criterion — don't dump the whole diff into context.
Exclude the suite directory itself (<plansDir>/<suite>/**, where <plansDir> is the resolved plans directory) from the drift bucket — suite metadata isn't deliverable code.
Phase 3 — Cross-check
Build four findings buckets.
A. Goal alignment. Read the suite goal. Look at the shape of the diff (which directories, which subsystems). In 2–4 sentences: does the diff plausibly deliver the goal? Be specific — cite files. Note anything the goal implies that you can't see.
B. Coverage. For each chunk, walk its Files Changed and Acceptance Criteria:
- Is each declared file in the diff?
- Is each criterion plausibly satisfied? Spot-check the relevant hunks. If a criterion specifies an interface (function, type, schema field, route, env var), grep for it.
You're not running tests. If a criterion needs runtime verification ("deploys cleanly to staging"), mark it unverifiable from diff.
C. Drift. For each non-suite file in the diff, ask which chunk's Files Changed covers it. If none, group as plausibly related (incidental cleanup tied to a chunk) or unrelated / scope creep. When in doubt, list it and let the user judge — drift is observation, not accusation.
D. Status sanity. For each chunk:
- Recorded
done → criteria plausibly satisfied and files changed? If not, flag.
- Recorded
pending/in-progress → diff already contains its files / satisfies its criteria? If yes, the recorded status lags reality — flag.
- Recorded
blocked → note it; not necessarily an issue.
- Index vs. chunk-frontmatter mismatch → flag (from Phase 1).
Phase 4 — Report
Print one report:
🔎 Plan review: <suite-name>
Path: <suite-dir>
Baseline: <ref> (<reason: creation commit | timestamp fallback | uncommitted>)
Diff: <N> files changed, excluding suite dir
Recorded status: <done>/<total> chunks done
## Goal alignment
<2–4 sentences citing specific files.>
Verdict: ✅ aligned | ⚠️ partial | ❌ off-target
## Coverage gaps
- [chunk-name] <criterion or expected file> — <why missing or unverifiable>
<Or: "All criteria appear satisfied by the diff." if clean.>
## Drift
Plausibly related:
- <path>: <one-line> — likely tied to <chunk-name>
Unrelated / scope creep:
- <path>: <one-line> — no chunk claims this
<Omit either subsection if empty. "No drift detected." if both empty.>
## Status sanity
- <chunk-name>: recorded <status>, but <observation> → suggest <status>
<Or: "All recorded statuses match reality.">
## Structural issues
<Malformed chunks, missing files, index/frontmatter mismatches. Omit if none.>
## Bottom line
<1–3 sentences. Is this suite actually done? Smallest set of follow-ups before it can be honestly closed?>
End your turn after printing. Do not offer to fix anything, update statuses, or suggest commits — the user owns those decisions.
Why each rule exists
- Empty buckets are good. Don't pad. If coverage is clean, say so in one line.
- Every finding cites a chunk, file, or criterion. "Looks incomplete" is not a finding.
- State the baseline explicitly. A wrong comparison window invalidates the whole report; the user needs to sanity-check it.
- Mark runtime-only criteria unverifiable. Don't pretend a code read can confirm "deploys cleanly".
