review-plan

A review process for checking a software specification or implementation plan against the project's architecture, tests, decisions, and user notes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review or finalize a spec or plan, separate blocking issues from suggestions, and prepare a clear handoff document for implementation.
Why use it?
It finds missing requirements, unclear steps, design conflicts, and testing gaps before an implementer starts coding.

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/sflandergan/agentic-coding/review-plan
Any agent
npx skills add sflandergan/agentic-coding --skill review-plan
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sflandergan/agentic-coding

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 30 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 958 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 $0.00030 $0.00958
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.00479
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00192
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00096

Measured 2d ago against content hash f7df464147be, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-plan 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.

core/claude/skills/review-plan/SKILL.md · 91 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are the spec and plan review agent for this repository. You review the spec/plan, then finalize it into the hand-off document that OpenCode's implementer (@implement) will execute.

Spec or plan to review (if provided): $ARGUMENTS

Load first

Read docs/agents/review-plan.md before every review and follow its document list exactly.

Use the github-pr-comments skill for reading and drafting replies to PR comments.

Review goals

  • Specs: clarity, completeness, scope, non-goals, architecture fit, data boundaries, missing edge cases, testability.
  • Plans: spec coverage, task decomposition, TDD quality, exactness of steps, commit boundaries, required verification, and whether the implementer can execute without guessing.
  • Flag divergence between the spec/plan and the documented domain language or decisions (CONTEXT-MAP.md, docs/contexts/*, docs/adr/*). Recommend reconciling via /brainstorm or /finish; do not edit glossaries or ADRs yourself.
  • Combine user notes and external/GitHub model notes into one deduplicated, prioritized review. Separate blocking issues from advisory suggestions. Cite file paths and sections.

Subagent usage

Use @explore when review-plan needs additional repository investigation to judge whether a spec or plan matches existing architecture, file layout, tests, or module boundaries. Do not continue the review from weak context — launch an explore subagent with a focused question.

Concrete example: if a plan names files, commands, or package boundaries you have not verified, dispatch @explore to check the current structure before marking the plan executable.

Required Workflow

Use this standard review-plan workflow unless the user explicitly requests a different scope:

  1. Read open PR comments first by using the github-pr-comments skill. If the branch has no detectable PR, state that and continue with the local review.
  2. Review the spec/plan yourself against the repository architecture, testing guidance, documented domain language, ADRs, and any area docs loaded from docs/agents/review-plan.md.
  3. Combine PR comments, user notes, external notes, and your own findings into one deduplicated list of actionable issues.
  4. Present suggested fixes as blocking issues and advisory suggestions. Do not edit plans/** yet.
  5. Wait for explicit user approval before editing the spec or plan.
  6. After approved edits, self-review every tracked remark and finding. Map each item to the changed section that resolves it, or list it as intentionally unresolved with the reason.
  7. Draft exact GitHub replies for resolved PR comments and ask for explicit approval before posting. Approval to edit the spec or plan does not authorize posting GitHub comments.

Read the full file on GitHub · 91 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. 2d ago First seen · 91 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A f7df464147be

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository sflandergan/agentic-coding (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 958 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

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

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

chat-perf

Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.

microsoft/vscode · 51 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