Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From dev-workflow
Use when reviewing a plan document for quality, completeness, and sprint-readiness — after plan-docs generation, when the user mentions plan review, review my plan, document review, or invokes /plan-review.
npx claudepluginhub infraspecdev/tesseract --plugin dev-workflowHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/dev-workflow:plan-reviewThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Dispatch parallel expert reviewer agents against a plan document to produce a scored analysis with prioritized recommendations and an enhanced plan.
Guides technical evaluation of code review feedback: read fully, restate for understanding, verify against codebase, respond with reasoning or pushback before implementing.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Dispatch parallel expert reviewer agents against a plan document to produce a scored analysis with prioritized recommendations and an enhanced plan.
/plan-review| Agent | File | Weight | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud Architect | agents/cloud-architect-reviewer.md | 1.0 | Infrastructure, scalability, HA, ops readiness |
| Security Engineer | agents/security-engineer-reviewer.md | 1.0 | Security, threat modeling, testability |
| DX Engineer | agents/dx-engineer-reviewer.md | 1.0 | Clarity, actionability, software architecture |
| Cost/FinOps | agents/cost-finops-reviewer.md | 0.7 | Cost awareness, right-sizing, env tiering |
| Agile Coach | agents/agile-coach-reviewer.md | 0.7 | Sprint-readiness, story quality, dependencies |
digraph persona_selection {
rankdir=TB;
node [shape=box];
read [label="Read plan, extract keywords"];
has_stories [label="Plan has stories?" shape=diamond];
force_dx_ac [label="Force-include\nDX Engineer + Agile Coach"];
count_triggers [label="Count trigger keyword\nmatches per agent"];
enough [label="3+ agents selected?" shape=diamond];
add_next [label="Add next-closest\nagent by trigger count"];
announce [label="Announce selection\nto user with reasons"];
read -> has_stories;
has_stories -> force_dx_ac [label="yes"];
has_stories -> count_triggers [label="no"];
force_dx_ac -> count_triggers;
count_triggers -> enough;
enough -> announce [label="yes"];
enough -> add_next [label="no"];
add_next -> enough;
}
Selection rules:
Read each selected agent's markdown file from agents/ and scoring.md, then launch all agents in parallel using the Agent tool. See templates.md for the dispatch prompt structure.
Use subagent_type matching the agent name (e.g., dev-workflow:cloud-architect-reviewer) when available, otherwise general-purpose.
After all agents return:
scoring.mdscoring.md thresholdsscoring.mdWrite to review/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<topic-slug>/:
analysis.md — scored evaluation with consolidated recommendationsplan.md — enhanced version of original plan with feedback appliedSee templates.md for output formats and enhanced plan rules.
Do NOT proceed until the user explicitly confirms.
After writing output files, present the user with three options:
plan.mdplan.md first, re-read before applyingThe user may also edit analysis.md, ask for changes to specific recommendations, or reject recommendations. Wait for explicit confirmation before overwriting anything.
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Dispatching all 5 agents for a simple app plan with no infra | Follow trigger keyword matching — skip Cloud Architect and Cost/FinOps if no infra keywords |
| Grading infra points F on a non-infrastructure plan | Only activated personas grade — don't penalize for out-of-scope concerns |
| Applying enhanced plan without user review | Always wait for Step 5 confirmation — never auto-apply |
| Repeating scoring logic instead of referencing scoring.md | All grade math lives in scoring.md — reference it, don't inline it |
| Generating plan.md in different format than original | HTML in → HTML out, markdown in → markdown out |
| Softening grades because the user is under time pressure | Grade what the plan SAYS — missing info is F regardless of deadline |
| Giving partial credit for implied or assumed information | Grade only what is explicitly documented — "they probably meant X" is not in the plan |