plan-and-review

name	plan-and-review
description	Use when creating implementation plans that need quality review before execution — 4-phase workflow combining plan creation with automated plan-reviewer validation

Plan and Review

Overview

Create implementation plans and validate them through automated review before execution. This skill combines the writing-plans methodology with plan-reviewer agent dispatch to catch quality issues (missing file paths, vague acceptance criteria, scope gaps, TDD omissions) before any code is written.

Announce at start: "I'm using the plan-and-review skill to create and validate the implementation plan."

Core principle: No plan reaches execution without passing review. Critical/High findings must be resolved first.

The 4 Phases

Phase 1: Create Plan → Phase 2: Review → Phase 3: Revise (if needed) → Phase 4: Approved

Phase 1: Create Plan

Use the writing-plans methodology to create the implementation plan.

1. Invoke the writing-plans skill (superpowers:writing-plans or equivalent)
2. Follow all writing-plans requirements:
   • Bite-sized tasks (2-5 minutes each)
   • Exact file paths for all changes
   • TDD structure (Red-Green-Refactor) for core logic
   • Complete code in plan (no placeholders)
   • Alternatives exploration for non-trivial decisions
3. Save plan to docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

Phase 2: Dispatch Plan Reviewer

Dispatch the plan-reviewer agent as a subAgent to review the plan.

1. Dispatch plan-reviewer using the Agent tool:

   subagent_type: "general-purpose"
   prompt: |
     You are the Plan Reviewer agent. Review the implementation plan at
     docs/plans/<plan-file>.md against the original spec/issue.
   
     Review checklist:
     - File paths: All paths valid (Modify files exist, Create paths have valid parents)
     - Acceptance criteria: Specific, measurable, verifiable (no vague terms)
     - Scope alignment: Plan matches spec — no scope creep, no missing items
     - TDD compliance: Red-Green-Refactor for core logic tasks
     - Backward compatibility: Breaking changes documented with migration steps
   
     Output a severity-rated findings table:
     | Finding | Location | Severity | Recommendation |
   
     End with Review Summary showing counts per severity and verdict:
     APPROVED (Critical=0 AND High=0) or REVISE REQUIRED.
   

2. Collect the review results

Phase 3: Revise Plan (if Critical/High findings)

If the review verdict is REVISE REQUIRED:

1. Read each Critical and High finding
2. Revise the plan to address each finding:
   • Fix invalid file paths
   • Make acceptance criteria specific and testable
   • Add missing spec requirements as tasks
   • Add TDD structure where missing
   • Document breaking changes with migration steps
3. Save the revised plan (overwrite the same file)
4. Re-dispatch plan-reviewer (return to Phase 2)
5. Repeat until verdict is APPROVED

Maximum iterations: 3 revision cycles. If still not approved after 3 cycles, present remaining findings to user for manual resolution.

Phase 4: Plan Approved

When the review verdict is APPROVED:

1. Announce: "Plan approved by plan-reviewer — ready for execution."
2. Present remaining Medium/Low findings as optional improvements
3. Offer execution choice:
   • Subagent-Driven (this session): Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
   • Parallel Session (separate): Use superpowers:executing-plans

When to Use This Skill

• Creating implementation plans for non-trivial features
• Plans that will be executed by other agents or in separate sessions
• When plan quality is critical (e.g., parallel execution with multiple workers)
• When the spec is complex and scope alignment matters

When NOT to Use This Skill

• Single-file changes or trivial fixes
• Plans you will execute yourself immediately in the same session
• Exploratory prototyping where the plan will evolve rapidly

Integration with Parallel Orchestrator

When used within parallel execution workflows:

• The conductor generates worker directives that include plan creation
• Each worker can use this skill to self-validate their plan before ACT mode
• The plan-reviewer findings feed into the conductor's quality gates

Key Principles

• No plan without review — every plan gets at least one review pass
• Severity drives action — Critical/High must be fixed, Medium/Low are optional
• Evidence-based findings — every finding references a specific plan section
• Bounded iteration — maximum 3 revision cycles to prevent infinite loops
• Clear verdict — APPROVED or REVISE REQUIRED, no ambiguity