Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From code
Plan quality auditing with completeness scorecard, antipattern risk detection, and readiness checks. Use when auditing implementation plans, evaluating plan completeness, checking error handling strategy, assessing naming and readability pre-checks, reviewing testing strategy, evaluating tradeoff documentation, or running plan-audit on a software project. Covers the 10-point completeness scorecard, code quality pre-checks, antipattern risk assessment, and build-readiness decision.
npx claudepluginhub smileynet/line-cook --plugin code-spiceHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/code:code-plan-auditThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
| # | Check | Severity |
Evaluates implementation plans before execution using checklists for security, testing, architecture, error handling, and code quality. Provides structured feedback saved to work directory.
Interactively reviews implementation plans before coding, challenging scope creep, architecture, quality, tests, and performance with mandatory user checkpoints and opinionated recommendations.
Validates implementation plans against codebase reality, architecture, quality, risks, and conventions before execution using four parallel specialized reviewers.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
| # | Check | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem clearly stated with concrete requirements | Critical |
| 2 | Acceptance criteria are testable (not vague adjectives) | Critical |
| 3 | Error handling strategy defined (propagate, recover, or fail) | Critical |
| 4 | Key tradeoffs identified and documented | Warning |
| 5 | Testing strategy chosen (unit/integration/E2E proportions) | Warning |
| 6 | Dependencies and integration points identified | Warning |
| 7 | Naming conventions and readability approach consistent | Warning |
| 8 | Security boundaries identified (input validation, auth, data exposure) | Warning |
| 9 | Scope bounded — deferred items explicitly listed | Note |
| 10 | Existing solutions checked (libraries, shared code, prior art) | Note |
Scoring: 10/10 = ready to build. 7-9 = minor gaps, address before starting. 4-6 = return to planning. <4 = needs fundamental design work.
Five tests every plan item must pass before implementation:
| Test | Pass Criteria |
|---|---|
| Verb Test | Active verbs (create, validate, transform), not vague ("handle", "manage", "deal with") |
| Scope Test | Clear boundaries — you know when each task is done |
| Test Test | Testable acceptance criteria, not adjectives ("fast", "clean", "robust") |
| Dependency Test | Clear ordering — no hidden assumptions about what runs first |
| Edge Case Test | At least: empty input, invalid input, concurrent access (if applicable) |
| Signal | Question | If No |
|---|---|---|
| Naming intent | Does the plan use domain-specific names? | Clarify domain vocabulary before coding |
| Layer clarity | Are abstraction layers described? | Define boundaries before coding |
| Single responsibility | Can each component be described in one sentence without "and"? | Split components |
| Question | If Missing |
|---|---|
| Which errors are expected vs. unexpected? | Define: "not found" is expected; "DB down" is unexpected |
| Where are system boundaries? | Map validation points |
| What's the recovery strategy for each failure mode? | Decide: retry, fallback, propagate, or fail fast |
| Are error messages actionable for the caller? | Plan error types and messages |
| Signal | Question | If No |
|---|---|---|
| Single concern | Does each module handle one distinct problem? | Reassess responsibilities |
| Dependency direction | Do dependencies flow one way? | Identify circular risks |
| Interface boundaries | Are public APIs defined separately from implementation? | Design contracts first |
| Testability | Can each component be tested without complex setup? | Redesign for dependency injection |
| Antipattern | Symptom in Plan | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| The Fog | Adjectives without verbs ("robust auth", "clean API") | Critical |
| The Wishlist | Describes the final vision, no phased delivery | Warning |
| The Monolith | Everything in one component, no separation | Warning |
| The Oracle | Assumes perfect knowledge of future requirements | Warning |
| The Clone | "Like X but..." without understanding X's design decisions | Warning |
| Missing Error Story | Happy path only — no error handling, no edge cases | Critical |
| Plan Signal | Predicts | Prevention |
|---|---|---|
| No domain types mentioned | Primitive obsession | Plan dedicated types for constrained values |
| "Handle errors" without specifics | Silent failure | Define error categories and recovery per boundary |
| Single class/module for multiple concerns | God object | Split responsibilities before coding |
| "Optimize for performance" without metrics | Premature optimization | Define performance targets with measurement plan |
| Interface defined before second use case | Premature abstraction | Start concrete, extract interface when needed |
| # | Question | If No |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Can you state what the code does in one sentence? | STOP — Define the problem and deliverable |
| 2 | Do acceptance criteria pass the Test Test? | STOP — Rewrite criteria as verifiable assertions |
| 3 | Is error handling strategy defined for each system boundary? | STOP — Map boundaries and failure modes |
| 4 | Is the testing approach proportional to the risk? | STOP — Define test levels and critical paths |
| 5 | Is at least one design tradeoff documented with alternatives? | STOP — Record reasoning for key decisions |
All five "Yes" -> READY TO BUILD. Start with the highest-risk component.
Run this 60-second check before writing any code: