Loading...
Loading...
Use when the user says "/plan-review", "plan review", or "PRD review" and provides a plan file path that needs critical review and iterative refinement with Codex.
npx skill4agent add longranger2/claude-gpt-workflow plan-review/plan-review {plan-file-path}NEEDS_REVISIONMOSTLY_GOODAPPROVED/plan-review plans/my-feature-plan.mdsession_id=xxx--session <id>plans/auth-refactor.mdreviews/auth-refactor-review.mdreviews/{plan-file-name-without-.md}-review.md/codexRead the contents of {plan-file-path} and review it critically as an independent third-party reviewer.
Requirements:
- Raise at least 10 concrete and actionable improvement points
- Each issue must include: issue description + exact location/reference in the plan + improvement suggestion
- Use severity levels: Critical > High > Medium > Low > Suggestion
- If {review-file-path} already exists, read it first and track the resolution status of previous issues in the new round
Analysis dimensions, choosing the relevant ones based on the plan type:
- Architectural soundness: overdesign vs underdesign, module boundaries, single responsibility
- Technology choices: rationale, alternatives, compatibility with the existing project stack
- Completeness: missing scenarios, overlooked edge cases, dependency and impact scope
- Feasibility: implementation complexity, performance risks, migration and compatibility concerns
- Engineering quality: whether it follows the Code Quality Hard Limits in `CLAUDE.md`
- User experience: interaction flow, error/loading states, i18n when relevant
- Security: authentication, authorization, data validation when relevant
Append the current review round to {review-file-path}, creating the file if it does not exist.
Separate rounds with `---` and append new rounds at the end of the file. Use this format:
---
## Round {N} — {YYYY-MM-DD}
### Overall Assessment
{2-3 sentence overall assessment}
**Rating**: {X}/10
### Previous Round Tracking (R2+ only)
| # | Issue | Status | Notes |
|---|-------|--------|-------|
### Issues
#### Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
**Location**: {location in the plan}
{issue description}
**Suggestion**: {improvement suggestion}
... (at least 10 issues)
### Positive Aspects
- ...
### Summary
{Top 3 key issues}
**Consensus Status**: NEEDS_REVISION / MOSTLY_GOOD / APPROVED
Key principle: be a critical reviewer, not a yes-man. Every issue must be specific enough that someone knows how to revise the plan.# Plan Review: {plan title}
**Plan File**: {plan-file-path}
**Reviewer**: CodexConsensus Status| Status | My Action |
|---|---|
| Revise the plan, then automatically ask Codex to review again and return to Step 2 |
| Revise the plan, then tell the user the plan is mostly mature and ask whether another review round is needed |
| Tell the user the plan has passed review and is ready for implementation |
reviews/{topic}-review.md{topic}.md---plans/auth-refactor.mdreviews/auth-refactor-review.md