plan-review
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChinesePlan Review Skill
Plan Review Skill
Purpose
用途
When the user runs , start the "adversarial plan iteration" workflow:
/plan-review {plan-file-path}- I (Claude Code) ask Codex to perform a critical review of the specified plan.
- I read the review produced by Codex and evaluate whether its suggestions are sound.
- I revise the plan based on valid suggestions and write changes back to the original plan file.
- If the review status is , I automatically ask Codex to review again.
NEEDS_REVISION - Repeat until consensus is reached as or
MOSTLY_GOOD.APPROVED
当用户运行时，启动「对抗式计划迭代」工作流：
/plan-review {plan-file-path}- 我（Claude Code）请求Codex对指定计划进行批判性审查。
- 我读取Codex生成的审查结果，评估其建议是否合理。
- 根据有效的建议修订计划，并将更改写回原计划文件。
- 如果审查状态为，我会自动请求Codex再次审查。
NEEDS_REVISION - 重复上述步骤，直到达成或
MOSTLY_GOOD的共识。APPROVED
Usage
使用方法
/plan-review plans/my-feature-plan.md/plan-review plans/my-feature-plan.mdSession Reuse
会话复用
After each Codex invocation, extract from the script output and save it as the session ID for the current task. In later Codex calls for the same task, pass to reuse context so Codex remembers prior review history and can stay consistent across multiple rounds.
session_id=xxx--session <id>每次调用Codex后，从脚本输出中提取并保存为当前任务的会话ID。在后续针对同一任务的Codex调用中，传递参数以复用上下文，这样Codex就能记住之前的审查历史，确保多轮审查的一致性。
session_id=xxx--session <id>My Workflow (Claude Code)
我的工作流（Claude Code）
Step 1: Determine the Review File
步骤1：确定审查文件
Derive the review file path from the plan file name:
- →
plans/auth-refactor.mdreviews/auth-refactor-review.md - Rule:
reviews/{plan-file-name-without-.md}-review.md
If the review file already exists, this is not the first round, so Codex must track the resolution status of issues from the previous round.
从计划文件名推导审查文件路径：
- →
plans/auth-refactor.mdreviews/auth-refactor-review.md - 规则：
reviews/{plan-file-name-without-.md}-review.md
如果审查文件已存在，说明这不是第一轮审查，Codex必须跟踪上一轮问题的解决状态。
Step 2: Ask Codex to Review the Plan
步骤2：请求Codex审查计划
Use the skill and give Codex the following instruction:
/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:
---使用 Skill，并向Codex提供以下指令：
/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}
Round {N} — {YYYY-MM-DD}
Overall Assessment
Overall Assessment
{2-3 sentence overall assessment}
Rating: {X}/10
{2-3 sentence overall assessment}
Rating: {X}/10
Previous Round Tracking (R2+ only)
Previous Round Tracking (R2+ only)
| # | Issue | Status | Notes |
|---|
| # | Issue | Status | Notes |
|---|
Issues
Issues
Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
Location: {location in the plan}
{issue description}
Suggestion: {improvement suggestion}
... (at least 10 issues)
Location: {location in the plan}
{issue description}
Suggestion: {improvement suggestion}
... (at least 10 issues)
Positive Aspects
Positive Aspects
- ...
- ...
Summary
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.
When the review file is created for the first time, add this header at the top:
```markdown{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.
当首次创建审查文件时，在顶部添加以下标题：
```markdownPlan Review: {plan title}
Plan Review: {plan title}
Plan File: {plan-file-path}
Reviewer: Codex
undefinedPlan File: {plan-file-path}
Reviewer: Codex
undefinedStep 3: Read the Review and Revise the Plan
步骤3：读取审查结果并修订计划
After Codex finishes, I read the latest review round in the review file:
- Evaluate each issue raised by Codex one by one.
- Adopt valid suggestions and revise the plan file.
- If rejecting an unreasonable suggestion, optionally note the reason briefly in the plan.
- Update the original plan file directly instead of creating a new file.
Codex完成审查后，我会读取审查文件中的最新一轮审查结果：
- 逐一评估Codex提出的每个问题。
- 采纳有效建议并修订计划文件。
- 如果拒绝不合理的建议，可在计划中简要注明原因。
- 直接更新原计划文件，而非创建新文件。
Step 4: Decide Whether to Continue Iterating
步骤4：决定是否继续迭代
Use the provided by Codex:
Consensus 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 |
根据Codex提供的执行操作：
Consensus Status| 状态 | 我的操作 |
|---|---|
| 修订计划，然后自动请求Codex再次审查，返回步骤2 |
| 修订计划，然后告知用户计划已基本成熟，并询问是否需要再进行一轮审查 |
| 告知用户计划已通过审查，可进入实施阶段 |
Step 5: Wrap Up
步骤5：收尾
After the iteration is complete, report the following to the user:
- How many review rounds were completed
- Which major areas were improved
- The final plan file path
- The review log file path
迭代完成后，向用户报告以下内容：
- 完成了多少轮审查
- 主要改进了哪些领域
- 最终计划文件路径
- 审查日志文件路径
File Convention
文件约定
- One review file per plan:
reviews/{topic}-review.md - is the plan file name without
{topic}.md - Append all rounds to the same file and separate them with
--- - Example: ->
plans/auth-refactor.mdreviews/auth-refactor-review.md
- 每个计划对应一个审查文件：
reviews/{topic}-review.md - 是计划文件名（不含
{topic}后缀）.md - 所有审查轮次都追加到同一文件中，用分隔
--- - 示例：->
plans/auth-refactor.mdreviews/auth-refactor-review.md