plan-review-loop

Solid

Run a review loop on an implementation plan — author or locate the plan, get an independent multi-lane review (zero-context executability, grounding against the repo and source spec, task structure), then address findings with judgment. Use when a plan is written and needs adversarial review before execution, or when asked to "review the plan", "check this plan", or "plan review loop". Supports superpowers plans (docs/superpowers/plans/), planning-with-files task_plan.md, and any other plan format; the source spec is reviewed transitively via the traceability lane. For code review loops, see the review-loop plugin.

Code & Development 3 stars 0 forks Updated 4 days ago MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 82/100

Stars 20%
20
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Plan Review Loop Adversarial review loop for implementation plans, modeled on the review-loop plugin's implement → independent review → address cycle, but targeting **plans** instead of code. A plan defect costs an hour of review now or a day of wrong implementation later. **Core principle:** A plan is only as good as its worst instruction executed by someone with zero context. Reviewers must never have seen the planning conversation — fresh context is the independence guarantee. ## Lifecycle ``` setup → locate-or-author → independent review → address with judgment → [confirm] → cleanup ``` State lives in `.claude/plan-review-loop.local.md`. Reviews are written to `reviews/plan-review-<id>.md`. On any tooling error, fail open: report the problem and continue without the loop rather than trapping the user. **Enforcement:** the inkstone stop hook (`hooks/stop-hook.sh`) will not let the session stop while this loop's state file says the review is incomplete, findings are undispositioned, or a required confirmation round is pending. Keep the state file's `phase:` accurate as you progress — it is the contract with the hook. **Coexistence with the original review-loop plugin:** the setup block below refuses to start while a code review loop (`.claude/review-loop.local.md`) is active, and the stop hook defers entirely to that plugin whenever its state file exists. Run doc loops and code loops sequentially, never concurrently. ## Phase 0 — Setup If the argument is `cancel`...

Details

Author
augchan42
Repository
augchan42/inkstone
Created
5 months ago
Last Updated
4 days ago
Language
HTML
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Listed

loop-plan-review

Independent read-only review of a candidate implementation plan BEFORE the harness publishes it — judge whether the iteration-0 plan faithfully serves the approved product contract and whether its milestones are real, iteration-sized work in this repository. Invoked by loop.sh at iteration 0 after the planner's candidate passes deterministic validation.

0 Updated 2 days ago
Aitne-sh
Code & Development Listed

review-loop

Review an explicit plan/code/PR SHA delta with a risk-scaled panel, fix one complete finding batch, validate the changed delta, and emit a durable review receipt. Defaults to one reviewer, adds targeted lenses for sensitive work, caps normal finding-bearing rounds, and avoids re-reading already certified branch history. Only invoke as `$review-loop` / `/review-loop`, or when a delivery skill calls it. Works identically under Codex and Claude Code.

0 Updated 2 days ago
comment-hq
Code & Development Listed

review-loop

Dispatches a multi-agent review team over the work in this session, runs an execution-grounded check (lint/test/build), validates findings through a falsifier stage, addresses load-bearing issues, and re-reviews until clean or budget hits. On the terminal verdict, always records a commit-pinned verdict comment on the branch's open PR (if one exists), so the review leaves a trail. Invoked manually as /review-loop or automatically by the Stop hook after real work outside plan mode. Use `--mode claim` to review a non-code analytical conclusion (a research finding or comparison verdict) by sending reviewers back to its primary sources to falsify it.

0 Updated today
BryceEWatson