Criteria for reviewing implementation plans against quality standards
Load this skill when reviewing implementation plans (not code).
Systematic plan review focused on 3 quality categories: Citation Quality, Completeness, and Actionability. Structure is pre-validated by plan_save—focus on whether the plan provides actionable implementation guidance.
Note: Saved plans are structurally validated by plan_save before storage.
Format compliance (YAML frontmatter, status markers, CURRENT marker, numbering) is guaranteed.
Focus your review on the quality aspects below.
| Requirement | Check |
|---|---|
| Decisions reference sources | ref:delegation-id format used |
| No unsubstantiated claims | Architectural decisions cite research |
| Research phases show refs | Completed research tasks include citations |
| Citations are verifiable | IDs match actual delegation outputs |
Red Flags:
- in Source column→ ref:id| Requirement | Check |
|---|---|
| Goal is specific | Measurable outcome, not vague intent |
| Phases are logical | Sequential, with clear progression |
| Edge cases considered | Error handling, failure modes addressed |
| Notes section present | Key decisions and observations documented |
| Context & Decisions table | Captures architectural choices with rationale |
Goal Quality Examples:
| Requirement | Check |
|---|---|
| Tasks are specific | Clear what file/component is affected |
| No ambiguous tasks | Avoids "investigate" or "figure out" without scope |
| Dependencies clear | Sequential tasks show logical order |
| Implementation path obvious | Developer can start without clarification |
Actionability Examples:
src/auth/jwt.ts with sign/verify functions" (specific file)UserService.create()" (clear scope)| Severity | Icon | Criteria | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 🔴 | Missing citations for key decisions, no clear goal, unactionable tasks | Must fix before execution |
| Major | 🟠 | Vague tasks, incomplete phases, missing edge case handling | Should fix |
| Minor | 🟡 | Missing notes, unclear dependencies, incomplete rationale | Nice to fix |
| Nitpick | 🟢 | Style preferences, wording suggestions | Optional |
Structure your plan review as:
## Plan Review
### Files Reviewed
- `PLAN.md` (or plan content from `plan_read`)
### Overall Assessment
APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | NEEDS_DISCUSSION
### Summary
2-3 sentence overview of plan quality.
### Issues
#### 🔴 Critical
- [Issue description with specific location]
#### 🟠 Major
- [Issue description with specific location]
#### 🟡 Minor
- [Issue description with specific location]
#### 🟢 Nitpick
- [Suggestion]
### Quality Assessment
| Check | Status |
|-------|--------|
| Goal is specific and measurable | PASS / FAIL |
| Citations support key decisions | PASS / FAIL |
| Tasks are actionable | PASS / FAIL |
| Edge cases addressed | PASS / FAIL |
### Positive Observations
- [What's done well - always include at least one]
plan_save handles structural validationBefore completing a plan review, verify: