qstack-plan-adherence-review

A review process for checking whether a QStack HTML plan was followed during implementation. It compares the plan with execution notes, code changes, and test results.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to audit a completed implementation against its plan and produce a requirement-to-evidence review. It does not edit the plan, code, tests, or repository.
Why use it?
It reveals missing requirements and changes that were made without approval, using the actual code and results as the main evidence.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/hani-q/qstack/qstack-plan-adherence-review
Any agent
npx skills add hani-q/qstack --skill qstack-plan-adherence-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hani-q/qstack

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 106 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,058 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
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 $0.00106 $0.02058
Opus 5 $0.00053 $0.01029
Sonnet 5 $0.00021 $0.00412
Haiku 4.5 $0.00011 $0.00206

Measured 2d ago against content hash 823e6376c7ae, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

qstack-plan-adherence-review 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 2d 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.

skills/qstack-plan-adherence-review/SKILL.md · 181 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/qstack-plan-adherence-review

Audit the implementation against the plan. Treat the plan as the contract, the code and test results as ground truth, and the execution record as supporting evidence that must itself be checked.

This is report-only work. Do not edit the plan, execution record, code, tests, or repository instructions. Do not commit or push. Write an adherence-review.md only when the user explicitly asks for a saved artifact; otherwise report in the final response.

Resolve the evidence

  1. Use a plan path supplied by the user.
  2. Otherwise use a plan clearly referenced in the conversation.
  3. Otherwise inspect qstack/compound_engineering/plans/*/plan.html, then legacy compound-engineering/plans/*/plan.html and plan.md. Never select .template/. Use the only plausible candidate; ask when multiple candidates remain.
  4. In the plan directory, prefer execution.md. Also read executor.md and legacy implementation-notes.md when present; do not discard history merely because a newer filename exists.
  5. Read board-events.js beside them when it exists. Run node --check, then skip its required format header and fold the remaining qstackBoardEvent({...}); calls in file order for each card's final status, owner, refs, and files. Stop on broken JavaScript. Agents write the board while they work, so it has the standing execution.md already has here: evidence to be checked against the code, never trusted on its own. When only the retired board.jsonl exists, fold its raw JSON lines without editing it. If both board files exist, report the conflict and trust neither.

Read repository instruction files and the whole authoritative plan. Record the plan status. A draft or proposed plan may be reviewed, but state that it lacked implementation authority.

Determine the implementation range before judging it. Prefer, in order:

  1. a base ref, reviewed fingerprint, or commit range explicitly recorded in the execution record;
  2. a base supplied by the user;
  3. the merge base with the repository's target branch, normally origin/main;
  4. a range reconstructed from plan history and relevant commits.

Read the full file on GitHub · 181 lines

Files

What ships with it

1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

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. 2d ago First seen · 181 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A 823e6376c7ae

Subscribe to this mod's changes

qstack-plan-adherence-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hani-q/qstack (7 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 2,058 once invoked, about $0.0005 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

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

brainstorming

You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

obra/superpowers · 37 tokens

chat-pet-sprite-creation

Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.

microsoft/vscode · 53 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens

agent-host-chat-contributions

Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.

microsoft/vscode · 56 tokens

auto-perf-optimize

Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.

microsoft/vscode · 62 tokens