cvg-plan-review-feedback

cvg-plan-review-feedback is a skill for Claude Code from gomilesf/convergo. It costs 31 tokens per session (686 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A workflow for handling blocking comments from a plan review. It checks whether each comment is valid before changing the planning documents.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to re-check a plan against the original goal, acceptance rules, and code evidence, then update only the plan materials that need correction.
Why use it?
It prevents developers from treating every review comment as an unquestioned edit request. It also stops when an important decision is missing.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the convergo plugin — 11 skills shipped together

Good fit Use it to re-check a plan against the original goal, acceptance rules, and code evidence, then update only the plan materials that need correction.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add gomilesf/convergo --skill cvg-plan-review-feedback
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gomilesf/convergo

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install convergo, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 11 skills.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for cvg-plan-review-feedback

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for cvg-plan-review-feedback

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gomilesf/convergo/cvg-plan-review-feedback.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 31 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 686 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00031 $0.00686
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.00343
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00137
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00069

Measured 10d ago against content hash e2b99137e9ad, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

cvg-plan-review-feedback scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

plugins/claude/skills/cvg-plan-review-feedback/SKILL.md · 99 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Plan Review Feedback

Use this skill in the planner session after a plan reviewer returns blocker findings.

The input is the reviewer blocker findings appended to the prompt, plus the original planning goal, source prompt, current plan, behavior contract if present, and relevant codebase evidence.

Do not treat reviewer findings as an edit list. First decide whether each finding is valid under the accepted goal and current code reality, then revise only plan-owned artifacts.

If the task context provides no coordination channel (standalone use), the coordination channel is the user: stop and ask directly.

Process

1. Reload planning authority

Read:

  • original user goal, issue, acceptance criteria, and non-goals,
  • current plan document,
  • behavior contract or linked design notes, if present,
  • relevant codebase evidence for each reviewer finding,
  • exact reviewer blocker findings.

2. Evaluate each blocker

For each finding, decide whether it is:

  • Valid plan gap: the plan misses a required surface, lifecycle, invariant, matrix cell, ownership boundary, or verification gate.
  • Source-backed contract gap: the source authority defines the behavior, but the plan or contract failed to capture it.
  • Decision-required contract gap: neither the plan nor source authority defines the behavior clearly enough to proceed.
  • Reviewer clarification needed: the finding cannot be mapped to concrete plan or code evidence after re-reading the relevant context.
  • Invalid or out of scope: the finding is stale, already covered, contradicts the accepted goal, or asks for work outside the agreed scope.

3. Revise only planner-owned artifacts

For valid plan gaps and source-backed contract gaps:

  • update the plan, contract, surfaces, invariant matrix, slices, or verification gates as needed,
  • keep the revision scoped to the accepted goal,
  • preserve reviewer finding ids or exact wording so re-review can check them.

For decision-required contract gaps:

Read the full file on GitHub · 99 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 10d ago First seen · 99 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A e2b99137e9ad

Subscribe to this mod's changes

cvg-plan-review-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository gomilesf/convergo (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 686 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

review-video-with-pingfusi

Have any video reviewed by a real human, through iterative pingfusi review rounds. Use when asked to "review this video", "check the rendered video", "does this video match the prompt/brief", "what do people think of this ad/trailer/demo", or after rendering a Remotion composition or AI-generated clip that no test can…

alex-durango/pingfusi · 136 tokens

beautify-with-pingfusi

Beautify or redesign an existing website through iterative pingfusi review rounds with a real human reviewer. Use when asked to "beautify this website," "make this page look professional," "polish this UI/design," "improve the visual design," or finish an AI-built page when there is no reference site to match. Do not…

alex-durango/pingfusi · 95 tokens

fix-with-pingfusi

Fix or polish an existing website clone/draft using pingfusi review rounds. Use when the user says "fix it with pingfusi", "polish this clone", "make this match the original", or asks to finish/verify a draft built by any tool (ditto, lovable, v0, hand-written) until the review passes.

alex-durango/pingfusi · 78 tokens

pixel-perfect-clone

Clone, copy, or replicate a website/page pixel-perfect using pingfusi. Use when the user asks to clone a site or page with pingfusi, copy a webpage's design, replicate a page, or make a pixel-perfect copy of a URL. Drives the full enforced pipeline - capture, numeric gates, behavior reproduction, and review rounds…

alex-durango/pingfusi · 93 tokens

pingfusi-review

Use Pingfusi proactively whenever a coding agent reaches a question it cannot settle with code, automated tests, documentation or search, or a local browser and needs real human judgment or real-world verification. Trigger even when the user does not mention Pingfusi for subjective choices about copy, design, clarity…

alex-durango/pingfusi · 0 tokens

agentic-delivery-playbook

Coding Agent Preflight for non-trivial coding work in Pi: classify direct/lightweight/full, lock goal/non-goals/risks/evidence, require approval when needed, and coordinate Pi goals/subagents with truthful routing. Use when ambiguity, risk, scope, or reviewability justifies a delivery contract; skip clear small direct…

arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook · 77 tokens