Results for “plan-review”

Use when building or planning a Supabase Edge Function for authenticated server logic, webhooks, background triggers, third-party integrations, or privileged operations. Trigger on requests to create or review edge functions in a Supabase system.

Use when planning an IEEE VIS project timeline from area fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the two-phase review, the conditional-accept second round, the IEEE TVCG camera-ready, the Graphics Replicability Stamp, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a visualization paper and honest handling of the annual cycle and the second-round revision window.

Reviews a product document (PRD, spec, design brief) BEFORE implementation to surface holes — undefined edge cases, missing states, policy gaps — by attacking what the document is SILENT about (things unwritten, and things written only for the happy path). Acts as a strict "sign-off manager," ruling Approve / Conditional / Reject and producing a polite, forwardable question list. Works for planners/PMs (self-review before sharing), engineers (blocking questions before coding), and designers (screen states with no mockup). Use whenever the user wants a spec/PRD/plan/brief checked for readiness or gaps, or says "review this spec", "find holes in this PRD", "poke holes in this", "is this plan good to build?", "can I start implementing this?", "what states/edge cases am I missing?", "what should I ask the PM before coding?", "run devil", or pastes/links a planning document and asks whether it's ready to act on. Do NOT use it to: write or draft a new spec, summarize or translate a document, estimate/break down tic

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

App Store Optimization for mobile launches (iOS App Store, Google Play). Use when preparing a mobile app launch, optimizing app store listings, planning screenshot sequences, writing app store copy, doing keyword research for app stores, planning preview videos, managing reviews, or A/B testing app store assets. Relevant for Expo/React Native apps going to stores. Not for web-only products.

Turn a vague research direction into a problem-anchored, elegant, frontier-aware, implementation-oriented method plan via iterative GPT-5.4 review. Use when the user says "refine my approach", "帮我细化方案", "decompose this problem", "打磨idea", "refine research plan", "细化研究方案", or wants a concrete research method that stays simple, focused, and top-venue ready instead of a vague or overbuilt idea.

Create a Product Requirements Document using a comprehensive 8-section template covering problem, objectives, segments, value propositions, solution, and release planning. Use when writing a PRD, documenting product requirements, preparing a feature spec, or reviewing an existing PRD.

Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.

Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.

Create a Product Requirements Document using a comprehensive 8-section template covering problem, objectives, segments, value propositions, solution, and release planning. Use when writing a PRD, documenting product requirements, preparing a feature spec, or reviewing an existing PRD.

Agent profile for design AI/ML features, retrieval, model calls, structured outputs, cost controls, evals, and fallbacks. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

Agent profile for design and implement backend services, API logic, data access, jobs, auth boundaries, and error handling. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

Agent profile for coordinate mobile app architecture across iOS, Android, Expo/React Native, offline states, permissions, and releases. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. 10 modes (full/plan/outline/revision/revision-coach/abstract/lit-review/format-convert/citation-check/disclosure). 6 paper types, 5 citation formats, bilingual abstracts, LaTeX/DOCX-via-Pandoc/PDF output. Style Calibration + Writing Quality Check + Anti-Patterns with IRON RULE markers. Triggers: write paper, academic paper, guide my paper, parse reviews, AI disclosure, 寫論文, 學術論文, 引導我寫論文, 審查意見.

Manages the organisational DPIA register tracking all Data Protection Impact Assessments across the enterprise. Covers DPIA lifecycle management, status tracking, review scheduling, Art. 35(11) periodic reassessment, and supervisory authority reporting. Implements a centralised register linking DPIAs to RoPA entries, risk registers, and mitigation plans. Keywords: DPIA register, DPIA tracking, Art. 35(11), review schedule, DPIA lifecycle, centralised register, DPIA portfolio management.

Agent profile for evaluate and implement no-code/low-code workflows, forms, automations, Airtable/Sheets/Zapier-like patterns. Use when Codex needs a specialist agent perspective for planning, implementation, review, debugging, validation, or handoff in this domain.

Use when designing a new system, choosing between architectural patterns, planning how components will connect, evaluating scalability and reliability trade-offs, or reviewing an existing system for structural problems. For system design, service boundaries, database design, API structure, monolith vs microservices decisions, and architecture decision records (ADRs). Activate when user says "how should I structure this", "design the system", "is this architecture right", or "plan the backend".

Live developer experience audit. Uses the browse tool to actually TEST the developer experience: navigates docs, tries the getting started flow, times TTHW, screenshots error messages, evaluates CLI help text. Produces a DX scorecard with evidence. Compares against /plan-devex-review scores if they exist (the boomerang: plan said 3 minutes, reality says 8). Use when asked to "test the DX", "DX audit", "developer experience test", or "try the onboarding". Proactively suggest after shipping a developer-facing feature. (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "dx audit", "test the developer experience", "try the onboarding", "developer experience test".

Evaluates a local pre-trade checklist before manual order entry, blocking planless, oversized, revenge-risk, market-regime-blocked, or circuit-breaker-blocked entries while journaling the decision for later review.

Use to plan an ITCS campaign end to end on its single annual cycle — backward from the early-September deadline through the no-rebuttal review, the November notification, the LIPIcs camera-ready, and the January conference with its Graduating Bits session.

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research.

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Use when planning a CVPR submission campaign end to end, covering the November abstract/paper/supplement deadline chain, coauthor reviewer-duty scheduling, the January rebuttal sprint, February decisions, camera-ready and June conference logistics, and the resubmission ladder across ICCV, ECCV, and the next CVPR.

Use when planning or managing a full OSDI cycle — the December title-registration and submission deadlines on HotCRP, the silent no-rebuttal review window, March notification, the May artifact deadline, June shepherded final papers, and the July conference — including rejection retargeting to SOSP or NSDI.

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

Manages persistent coding sessions across multiple AI coding engines including Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, Cursor, and OpenCode, with support for multi-agent councils, cross-session messaging, deep planning, parallel code review, and autonomous workspace iteration.

Use when planning an ACM CHI submission cycle end to end — the single September deadline, two-round review with a five-week revise-and-resubmit window, December decisions, the TAPS and publication-ready chain, and the May conference — with owners and risk buffers for each stage.

Read-only audit of a codemod or bulk mechanical transform for behavior-preservation — compiles/lints is not same-behavior. Use when "did this codemod break anything", "audit this bulk refactor", or before merging a mass find-replace. Diff quality → audit-code-review. SQL → plan-data-integrity.

Conduct a design interview, generate 5 distinct UI variations in a temporary route, collect real click-to-comment feedback on the live rendered variants via human-review, and produce an implementation plan. Use when the user wants to explore UI design options, redesign an existing component/page, or create new UI with multiple genuinely different approaches to compare — before writing production code or committing to a direction. For a lighter, single-component variant picker with no interview, use `prototype` instead. For reviewing a UI that's already real (not exploring new directions), use `visual-review`. Source: adapted from github.com/0xdesign/design-plugin's design-lab skill (interview + 5-variant structure), with feedback collection replaced by this repo's own `visual-review` skill (human-review) instead of a bespoke overlay component.

Build an evidence-backed ECC install plan for a specific repo by sorting skills, commands, rules, hooks, and extras into DAILY vs LIBRARY buckets using parallel repo-aware review passes. Use when ECC should be trimmed to what a project actually needs instead of loading the full bundle.

Build an evidence-backed ECC install plan for a specific repo by sorting skills, commands, rules, hooks, and extras into DAILY vs LIBRARY buckets using parallel repo-aware review passes. Use when ECC should be trimmed to what a project actually needs instead of loading the full bundle.