Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to managedcode/dotPilot. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/managedcode/dotPilot/main/.codex/skills/mcaf-human-review-planning/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/managedcode/dotPilotWrote 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.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-human-review-planning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-human-review-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-human-review-planning/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-human-review-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-human-review-planning.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00076 | $0.01195 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
mcaf-human-review-planning 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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to dotnet-mcaf-human-review-planning — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MCAF: Human Review Planning
Trigger On
- a large AI-generated code drop needs a human review plan
- the reviewer cannot inspect every line and needs prioritization
- the user asks which files are highest risk before doing manual review
- the user names a generated folder and wants a saved review plan for it
Value
- produce a concrete project delta: code, docs, config, tests, CI, or review artifact
- reduce ambiguity through explicit planning, verification, and final validation skills
- leave reusable project context so future tasks are faster and safer
Do Not Use For
- normal small pull-request review
- automated bug finding without creating a human review sequence
Inputs
- the target folder, feature area, or bounded context under review
- the main user journeys or operational flows involved
- any known architecture context, adjacent entities, or existing system rules
- any exact output path the user wants for the saved plan
Quick Start
- Read the nearest
AGENTS.mdand confirm scope and constraints. - Run this skill's
Workflowthrough theRalph Loopuntil outcomes are acceptable. - Return the
Required Result Formatwith concrete artifacts and verification evidence.
Workflow
- Read enough of the target area and its immediate boundaries to understand the generated code before planning review.
- Map the natural flow of operations first:
- sign up or authentication
- create
- update
- register or configure
- execute primary business action
- complete, archive, or finalize
- Use that flow to derive the most efficient human review sequence.
- Use the reviewer's domain knowledge as a force multiplier:
- compare the generated code against known architecture and existing entities
- look for places where the new feature should behave like nearby existing flows
- prioritize boundaries where generated code may drift from established system rules
- Identify high-risk review zones:
- entry points and orchestration layers
- persistence and state transitions
- cross-boundary integrations
- permissions, validation, and invariants
- side effects such as email, payments, jobs, or notifications
- Produce two separate outputs:
- prioritized review flow
- prioritized files or modules to inspect
- Present both outputs in chat.
- If the user asks for a durable artifact, save the plan to the exact docs path they requested; otherwise use
docs/AREA/HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 124 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 0bd6efbe19d2
mcaf-human-review-planning is a skill published in the GitHub repository managedcode/dotPilot (25 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,195 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to dotnet-mcaf-human-review-planning, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
doubt-driven-review
In-flight adversarial check on a non-trivial decision BEFORE it stands — distinct from post-hoc review of a finished diff. Use on "stress-test this decision", "are we sure about this", "verify before commit", "poke holes in this", when working in unfamiliar code, or before an irreversible step (migration, prod deploy…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
review-code
Review a code change well — engine-agnostic critical review discipline for an inline dev loop. Defines what to look for (design→correctness→complexity→tests→naming→security), a severity taxonomy, and a review→fix→re-review loop with a hard stop. Use on "review this code", "review my diff", "is this change good"…
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
goga-review-plan
Verify execution plan completeness and correctness.