tobihagemann/review-plan
claude/skills/review-plan/SKILL.md
Review a planning artifact (plan, shells, or spec) by running internal and peer reviews in parallel and returning combined findings. Use when the user asks to "review my plan", "review my shells", "review my spec", "check my plan", "check my shells", "check my spec", "critique my plan", "critique my shells", "critique my spec", or wants feedback on a planning artifact.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add tobihagemann/turbo review-planInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: May 22, 2026, 4:11 AM143.1s4 files scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- review-plan
- description:
- Review a planning artifact (plan, shells, or spec) by running internal and peer reviews in parallel and returning combined findings. Use when the user asks to \"review my plan\", \"review my shells\", \"review my spec\", \"check my plan\", \"check my shells\", \"check my spec\", \"critique my plan\", \"critique my shells\", \"critique my spec\", or wants feedback on a planning artifact.
Review Plan
Review a planning artifact against type-specific criteria. Runs internal review and /peer-review in parallel by default. Returns combined structured findings.
Step 1: Determine Artifact Type and Resolve
Determine Artifact Type
- Explicit argument — If the user specified a type (e.g., "review shells", "review spec"), use it. No argument defaults to plan.
- Conversation context — If artifact text or a path is already in context, infer the type.
- Auto-detect — Check
.turbo/for existing artifacts. If multiple types exist, pick the one with the most recently modified file.
Resolve the Artifact
Plan (default)
- Plan text in conversation — use it
- Explicit path — read it
- Explicit slug — resolve to
.turbo/plans/<slug>.md - Single file — Glob
.turbo/plans/*.md. If exactly one file exists, use it - Most recent — most recently modified file
- Legacy fallback —
.turbo/plan.mdif.turbo/plans/does not exist - Nothing found — stop and state that no artifact was found to review
Shells
- Shell text in conversation — use it
- Explicit spec slug — Glob
.turbo/shells/<slug>-*.md - Explicit spec path — derive slug from filename, glob as above
- Single spec — Glob
.turbo/specs/*.md. If exactly one, derive slug and glob for shells - Most recent spec — most recently modified spec, derive slug and glob
- Nothing found — stop and state that no artifact was found to review
For shells, read each shell file and parse its YAML frontmatter (spec, depends_on). Read the source spec from the spec field.
Spec
- Spec text in conversation — use it
- Explicit path — read it
- Explicit slug — resolve to
.turbo/specs/<slug>.md - Single file — Glob
.turbo/specs/*.md. If exactly one, use it - Most recent — most recently modified
- Legacy fallback —
.turbo/spec.mdif.turbo/specs/does not exist - Nothing found — stop and state that no artifact was found to review
If multiple candidates exist, pick the most recently modified.
Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel
Read the reference file for the resolved type:
- Plan — references/plan-review.md
- Shells — references/shells-review.md
- Spec — references/spec-review.md
Skip peer review when the caller asked (e.g., "without peer review", "no peer", "internal only"). For shells, the internal review focuses on structural wiring and skips the project context read.
Use the Agent tool to launch all agents below in a single assistant message so they run concurrently. Each Agent call uses model: "opus" and does not set run_in_background. That is two Agent tool calls when peer review is active (one internal + one peer), or one Agent tool call when peer review is skipped.
- Internal Agent: Pass the artifact text and the reference file's content; the subagent reads project context (CLAUDE.md, relevant codebase files) before applying criteria, then returns findings in the output format below.
- Peer review Agent (unless skipping): Launch an Agent tool call whose prompt instructs the subagent to invoke
/peer-reviewvia the Skill tool with a request describing: (a) the artifact under review; (b) the criteria live in~/.claude/skills/review-plan/references/<type>-review.mdfor the resolved type from Step 1 — the reviewer should read that file directly and use its priority scale; (c) the Overall Verdict should use theReadiness: <ready | needs revision>label. The prompt must also state explicitly that the subagent's final assistant message must contain the verbatim findings text/peer-reviewproduced.
Aggregate findings with attribution (reviewer: "internal" or "peer"). Present them in the output format below.
Then use the TaskList tool and proceed to any remaining task.
Output Format
Return findings as a numbered list. For each finding:
### [P<N>] <title (imperative, ≤80 chars)>
**Section:** <plan section, shell number(s), or spec section>
**Reviewer:** <internal | peer>
<one paragraph explaining the issue and its impact>
After all findings, add:
## Overall Verdict
**Readiness:** <ready | needs revision>
<1-3 sentence assessment>
If there are no qualifying findings, state so and explain briefly.
Rules
- Present findings grouped by priority.
Related Skills
tobihagemann/finalize
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Run the post-implementation quality assurance workflow including tests, code polishing, review, and commit. Use when the user asks to "finalize implementation", "finalize changes", "wrap up implementation", "finish up", "ready to commit", or "run QA workflow".
331SKILL.mdUpdated May 9, 2026
tobihagemann/understand-change
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Teach the user to deeply understand a change through interactive tutoring: restating understanding, drilling into why/what/how, and quizzing until mastery. The active counterpart to a one-shot explanation. Use when the user asks to "understand this change", "teach me this change", "help me understand what changed", "walk me through this change", "make sure I understand this", "quiz me on this", or "teach me what we did".
319SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 4, 2026
tobihagemann/understand-change
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Teach the user to deeply understand a change through interactive tutoring: restating understanding, drilling into why/what/how, and quizzing until mastery. The active counterpart to a one-shot explanation. Use when the user asks to "understand this change", "teach me this change", "help me understand what changed", "walk me through this change", "make sure I understand this", "quiz me on this", or "teach me what we did".
319SKILL.mdUpdated Jun 4, 2026
tobihagemann/update-pr
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Update an existing GitHub pull request's title and description to reflect the current state of the branch. Use when the user asks to "update the PR", "update PR description", "update PR title", "refresh PR description", or "sync PR with changes".
319SKILL.mdUpdated May 9, 2026