PlanGate 計画整合性チェック

PlanGate 計画整合性チェック is a skill for Claude Code from s977043/river-review. It costs 44 tokens per session (2,548 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A checker that compares project planning documents with one another. It checks whether the product requirements, implementation plan, task list, and test cases describe the same work.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for checking pbi-input, plan, todo, and test-cases artifacts before implementation begins.
Why use it?
It finds missing requirements, conflicting plans, uncovered acceptance conditions, and tasks that do not match the agreed scope before coding starts.

Skill for Claude Code

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

Part of the river-review plugin — 138 skills, 18 commands, 5 agents, 3 hooks shipped together

Good fit It is for checking pbi-input, plan, todo, and test-cases artifacts before implementation begins.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity
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 s977043/river-review --skill plangate-plan-integrity
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/s977043/river-review

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install river-review, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 138 skills, 18 commands, 5 agents, 3 hooks.

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 PlanGate 計画整合性チェック

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity/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 PlanGate 計画整合性チェック

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 44 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,548 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 $0.00044 $0.02548
Opus 5 $0.00022 $0.01274
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.00510
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00255

Measured 7d ago against content hash 145d216dc8f4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

PlanGate 計画整合性チェック 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 7d 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/upstream/plangate-plan-integrity/SKILL.md · 146 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Pattern declaration

Primary pattern: Reviewer Secondary patterns: Inversion Why: PlanGate の計画成果物(pbi-input / plan / todo / test-cases)を横断的に突き合わせて整合性の欠落を指摘し、不足時は実行を止めるゲートとして機能する。

Goal / 目的

  • PlanGate が生成する計画アーティファクト間の整合性の欠落(PBI と計画の不一致、受け入れ条件とテストケースの抜け、TODO と計画のズレ)を実装着手前に検出する。
  • 下流(midstream/downstream)の skill が健全な計画を前提に動けるよう、計画側の穴を早期に可視化する。

Non-goals / 扱わないこと

  • 実装コードそのものの品質レビュー(midstream skill の責務)。
  • テストコードの実装妥当性(downstream skill の責務)。
  • PBI の事業価値や優先度の妥当性判断(人間の責務)。
  • PlanGate 固有のディレクトリ構成や内部コマンドへの依存判定(pages/reference/artifact-input-contract.md に従い artifact-driven で判断)。

Pre-execution Gate / 実行前ゲート

このスキルは以下の条件がすべて満たされない限りNO_REVIEWを返す。

  • 入力 artifact に plan が存在する(pages/reference/artifact-input-contract.md の ID に準拠)
  • 入力 artifact に pbi-input / todo / test-cases のいずれか1つ以上が存在する
  • 差分または fullFile のいずれかの inputContext が利用可能である

ゲート不成立時の出力: NO_REVIEW: plangate-plan-integrity — 計画アーティファクト(plan + 関連1つ以上)が揃っていない

Gateと抑制条件の違い:

  • Gate = 計画成果物が揃わなければ整合性判定は不可能なので実行しない。
  • 抑制条件 = 実行した上で個別の指摘を抑える。

False-positive guards / 抑制条件

  • plan が "TBD" / "未決" として未決事項を明示的に宣言している項目は、欠落ではなく「未決の明示」として扱い指摘しない。
  • todo / test-cases に「次フェーズで追記」と期限付きで明記されたスコープ外項目は指摘しない。
  • PlanGate 外のワークフローで任意 artifact を省略している場合、欠損そのものを blocker とせず artifact-input-contract.md の「欠損時」挙動に従う。

Rule / ルール

計画アーティファクトを以下の観点で突き合わせる。1観点=1指摘が目安。

1. PBI ↔ plan の整合

  • pbi-input の目的・対象ユーザー・受け入れ条件が plan に反映されているか。
  • plan の作業範囲が pbi-input のスコープを逸脱または不足していないか。
  • pbi-input に書かれた制約(非機能要件、依存、期限)が plan で考慮されているか。

2. plan ↔ todo の整合

  • plan の設計判断・タスクが todo にタスク分解されているか。
  • todoplan に無いタスクが紛れ込んでいないか(スコープクリープ)。
  • 依存順序・マイルストーンが矛盾していないか。

3. 受け入れ条件 ↔ test-cases の覆域

  • pbi-input / plan の受け入れ条件(Given-When-Then 等)が test-cases にカバーされているか。
  • 正常系だけでなく代表的な異常系(権限なし / 入力不備 / データなし / タイムアウト / 競合)が test-cases に含まれているか。
  • test-cases に受け入れ条件と紐づかない過剰なケースが含まれていないか。

4. 未決事項の明示

  • plan / todo / test-cases のいずれかに未決事項がある場合、決定者・期限・判断材料が書かれているか。

Read the full file on GitHub · 146 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. 7d ago First seen · 146 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 145d216dc8f4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

PlanGate 計画整合性チェック is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,548 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 2026-09-03.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

brooks-sweep

Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…

hyhmrright/brooks-lint · 178 tokens

brooks-test

Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…

hyhmrright/brooks-lint · 161 tokens

pre-pr-audit

Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…

sd0xdev/sd0x-harness · 95 tokens

spike-consumer-adversarial

OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIALID and data path.

testdouble/han · 0 tokens

code-standards

Apply a disciplined engineering workflow to any code change. Use whenever implementing a feature, fixing a bug, or refactoring — before writing code, not after. Walks orient → baseline → smallest change → test → verify → self-review, and enforces language-agnostic hard gates (don't mass-reformat, keep the linter and…

tamdogood/builder-essential-skills · 94 tokens

loop-test

A local experiment for designing repeating checks with Claude Code’s loop command. It covers both fixed intervals and checks that schedule themselves again after each run.

restarter/lets-workflow · 112 tokens