# Vibe Plan Review > Use when the user asks to review, confirm, walk through, or pre-check a saved Markdown implementation plan before implementation; interactively reviews plan items one at a time and manages localized item-level decisions. - Skill: `adhi-jp/vibe-plan-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add adhi-jp/vibe-plan-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/adhi-jp/vibe-plan-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: adhi-jp (https://skillmd.com/u/adhi-jp) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/adhi-jp/vibe-plan-review --- # Vibe Plan Review ## Overview Review a saved Markdown implementation plan with the user before implementation begins. The goal is to surface requirement mismatches, ordering problems, missing work, ambiguity, risks, and unverifiable items while preserving user control over every plan item decision. At review start, resume after interruption, target change, reflection, completion, or a blocker that prevents further review — even before the first item — include the binding information that Review Binding Output defines: the target plan, the requirements source or limited-confidence no-spec status, and the persistence state. Report binding information not yet established as such, and give a persistence path only when persistence exists or is being selected. ### Effect And Write Boundaries For every consolidation block this package carries, here and in its references: where this package declares a stricter or narrower rule in its own text, that declaration controls. For every gate and schema block this package carries, here and in its references: this package may state which of its phases the block applies to; it may not change the block's inputs, outcomes, or fields. **Write nothing beyond what the phase's own effect class and its declared boundary permit.** - Declare exactly one effect class for every workflow phase, in that phase's own text. - In a read-only phase, read and report; make chat the deliverable — findings, alignment, or direction. - In a read-only phase, edit no source, test, config, doc, or other file, and run no command that mutates runtime or repository state. - In a read-only phase, never stage, commit, tag, push, change versions, delete data, or start services. - In a read-only phase, write a file only when the current user explicitly asks for a saved artifact. - In an artifact-only phase, create or update the artifact it owns: the requirements spec, the plan, the plan-review state, the instruction files, or the text artifacts the request names. - In an artifact-only phase, write the supporting paths its own text declares: - the text it was asked to revise (comments, docstrings, docs); - a confirmed reflection into the bound plan; - an ignore file it previewed and the user confirmed; - a narrowly confirmed configuration edit its text names; - a decision record or findings report its own text declares. - In an artifact-only phase, leave those verified changes in the working tree. - In an artifact-only phase, never implement executable behavior, never edit application code or tests as implementation, never produce an artifact another phase owns, and never perform release work. - Never let an artifact-only phase's artifact authorize same-turn implementation. - In a state-changing phase, edit files and run commands inside the scope its own text declares — the unit it implements, the repair it proves, the fixes it applies, the round it integrates, or the commit it executes. - In a state-changing phase, keep its edits to the smallest verified unit of that scope. - In a state-changing phase, leave paths outside the scope, pre-existing working-tree changes the phase did not make, and runtime or external state beyond the scope unwritten unless the current user selects them. - Keep every irreversible or outward-facing operation under its own consent. This phase reviews the saved plan and never executes it; it stops after item review and the final plan-reflection confirmation workflow. The artifact it owns is the temporary review-state file that §Review State Persistence names and places; its declared supporting paths are the target plan file, written only as the confirmed reflection that §Reflection Into The Plan governs, and the record directories named under §Durable Records. ### Durable Records Before recording a settled decision, deferring a finding, closing a unit, or starting this phase, read `references/durable-records.md`. This phase writes `docs/decisions/` and `docs/reports/findings/`, or the repository's existing record directory, as declared supporting paths. ### Read-Only-Phase Write Gate **Never write a path your phase's effect class and recorded `allowed_paths` do not permit.** - With no user-installed hook enforcing this gate, this wording is the whole gate. - Count as a write any file-edit or file-write tool call, and any shell command that writes a path — redirection, `sed -i`, `tee`, a heredoc, `mv`, `cp`, `rm`, `git checkout --`. - In a read-only phase, write only an explicitly requested saved artifact whose canonical path is recorded in `allowed_paths`; otherwise write no file. - In an artifact-only phase, write only the artifact it owns, the supporting paths its own text declares, and the scratch root recorded for the unit. - Refuse a write outside that boundary in the phase itself and report it as a boundary stop. - Report a denied write verbatim as a boundary stop; never retry it through another tool. - Return `deny` only for a fresh, valid, session-bound `read-only` or `artifact-only` record whose canonical target lies outside every `allowed_paths` entry and recorded directory. - Name the target path in that reason and quote the recorded `phase`, `effect_mode`, and `allowed_paths`. - Return `allow` in every other case: a target inside `allowed_paths`, an `effect_mode` of `state-changing` or `none`, or a record absent, malformed, stale, foreign, session-unbound, conflicting, or identity-mismatched. - Never return `ask` from this gate. - Never let an invalid record state produce `deny`, so the refusal never rests on unverified host behavior. Example: in an artifact-only phase whose `allowed_paths` holds only the artifact it owns, a write to that artifact is inside the boundary; a write to a source file is outside it, and with a fresh, valid, session-bound record the gate returns `deny`. Exception: writing the router's own record — `.plans/vibe-sessions/.json` or its rename temp file — is `allow` at any `effect_mode`, not a phase write; judge every other path there like any other path, and `allowed_paths` does not widen. This gate applies to the plan-review phase. ### Commit Selection **Never let a document-only phase select a commit.** - Leave the phase's verified artifact changes in the working tree. - Never let invocation, conventional path placement, tracked status, a successful review, audit, or verification, reflection consent, or artifact completion select history work. - Never stage, commit, push, prepare releases, change versions, or rewrite history in the phase itself while it drafts. - Let only an explicit current user request select a commit. - Scope that commit to the artifact the phase owns. - Follow the commit-execution workflow's checks for it — file-set review, message transport, stored-message verification, and the push and history boundaries — whether a visible commit-execution specialist performs it or the phase performs it itself under those same checks. - Never let the artifact itself authorize implementation, push, release preparation, a version change, or a history rewrite. A commit the current user explicitly requests is routed to a later commit-execution workflow and is never performed by this phase. Its target is the reflected plan file; the temporary review-state file is not committed, and its cleanup remains a separate user decision. ### Runtime Language Runtime responses should match the user's language. Before rendering item-review output, interpreting item decisions, selecting review-state persistence, reflecting decisions into the plan, or summarizing review results, read `references/localized-labels.md` and use its exact localized labels, numeric choice identifiers, and decision semantics. Preserve non-sensitive file paths, commands, identifiers, and review-state paths exactly. Credential-like literal values are governed by §Sensitive Content Handling and are never reproduced for exactness. ## Sensitive Content Handling **Redact secret-like literals before any text crosses an output boundary.** - Count as an output boundary rendering, persistence, forwarding to another agent or backend, ledger projection, quoted snippets, summaries, and tool arguments. - Never let a requirement to read, quote, preserve, summarize, or reflect content authorize reproducing the value. - Detect these classes: - `apikey`: known-prefix API keys and access tokens. - `jwt`: three-part JWT-like tokens. - `private-key`: PEM private-key headers and matching footers. - `url-auth`: credentials embedded in `http` or `https` URLs. - `secret-context`: high-entropy text co-occurring with key, token, secret, password, api key, bearer, or session-secret context. - `env-secret`: env-style assignment names ending in key, token, secret, password, or pwd. - Replace each match with `[REDACTED:]`. - When one span matches several classes, let the most specific structural class win. - Give `env-secret` for a secret-named environment assignment and `apikey` for a recognized API-key prefix precedence over generic `secret-context`. - Preserve non-secret wording and the anchors needed to verify the finding — paths, line numbers, symbols, commands, API names, field names, and identifiers. - Count the redactions and render a compact footer when any occurred. Plan, requirements-spec, source, and temporary-review content are all in scope for that redaction, as is any commit message this phase drafts or hands to the commit workflow, and the plan item anchor is one of the anchors preserved for verification alongside the path and line. A suspected credential that matches none of the typed classes above is still treated as secret-like here and redacted under the same rules with a `credential` type. When a sensitive literal is found: - Treat a live-looking credential committed to or embedded in the plan as a blocker. Ask the user to remove it and rotate or revoke it through an appropriate secure process; do not request that the value be pasted into the conversation. - Do not copy a sensitive source line into the temporary review file. Record only the redacted location, classification, decision state, and required remediation. - Do not reflect an item containing a sensitive literal by regenerating or copying that literal. Do not reflect any decisions into the original plan while a suspected sensitive literal remains anywhere in the target plan or temporary review state. Ask the user to sanitize it through an appropriate secure process or explicitly confirm a non-secret environment-variable or secret-store reference, then re-read the sanitized artifact before reflection. Never include the old value in patch context or tool arguments. If distinguishing a credential from a non-secret identifier is uncertain, redact the value in outputs and ask about the intended secure reference without showing the candidate value. Redaction does not authorize implementation, rotation, revocation, or access to an external secret store. ## Required Inputs The primary target is a saved Markdown implementation plan file. If the user does not provide a local path or otherwise identify one specific saved plan, ask for the plan file before starting review. Treat summaries, chat excerpts, issue descriptions, and pasted snippets as context only. The saved plan file controls the review. ## Phase Boundary Use this skill only after an implementation plan exists and before implementation starts. Do not name or require any neighboring workflow as a prerequisite or next step. When review is complete, report the reviewed state and stop at the user's next decision point. ## Review Binding Output Show the target plan, requirements source or limited-confidence no-spec status, and persistence state at review start, resume, target change, reflection, completion, and any blocker that prevents further review. When a temporary review file already exists or is being selected, give its exact path as that persistence state; when review state stays in conversation, say so and give no path. Do not repeat a binding block on every same-session item response when nothing changed. ## Start Of Review Before reviewing items: 1. Read the target plan file. 2. Identify whether the plan explicitly references a corresponding requirements spec path. 3. If an explicit requirements spec path exists, read that file. 4. If no explicit path exists, look for an obvious same-goal requirements spec in `docs/specs/` and `specs/` at the workspace root and in the plan's directory. 5. If no corresponding requirements spec can be identified in any of those locations, continue only with explicitly limited requirement-alignment confidence. 6. Identify plan items using the item extraction rules below. 7. Select persistence before the first item only when the user requests it, cross-session continuation is expected, context-loss risk is material, or an established project convention requires it. If a corresponding requirements spec exists, it is requirement evidence for the review. If the requirements spec and implementation plan conflict, stop the review, state the conflict, and ask whether the requirements or the plan should be corrected. Do not continue item review while the conflict controls the item. If the plan lacks information needed to review it, stop the review, state what is missing, and ask how to complete the plan. Do not invent missing behavior, requirements, acceptance criteria, test paths, data handling, or user experience. ## Source And Code Inspection Default to minimal source and code inspection. Read only the files needed to check the current plan item unless the user asks for deeper investigation or the item has high implementation impact. High implementation impact includes changes that could affect data handling, permissions, security posture, releases, migrations, external contracts, destructive writes, or broad user experience. When deeper inspection is needed, explain why the item needs it before expanding the read scope. ## Item Extraction Prefer explicit task or checklist items in the saved plan. If the plan is organized by headings rather than checkboxes, review the smallest executable sections in file order. If item boundaries are ambiguous, stop and ask the user whether to use the detected sections or revise the plan structure first. Do not silently choose a more convenient item granularity. Keep item identity stable during review. If you propose splitting, merging, or reordering items, present the proposal as a recommendation and wait for the user's decision before treating it as part of the executable plan. ## Per-Item Review Read `references/localized-labels.md` before the first per-item review in a session. Review one item at a time. For each item, check: - Requirement alignment. - Implementation order and dependency sequencing. - Missing work. - Ambiguity. - Risks. - Verifiability. The user's item decision is the source of truth. AI judgment guides the decision but does not override it. Write a held or revise decision that qualifies under the durable-records contract as a decision record once settled; plan reflection keeps its consent. Render each user decision option with the stable numeric identifiers defined in `references/localized-labels.md`. Accept either the canonical localized decision label or an unambiguous numeric identifier for the current item decision. Store, count, summarize, and reflect the decision as its canonical localized label, not as the numeric identifier. If a user's reply contains conflicting labels or identifiers, ask which decision they intend before continuing. ## Review State Persistence Keep review state in conversation by default. Persist a temporary review file only when the user asks, cross-session continuation is expected, context loss is a material risk, or an established project convention already owns such state. Do not use item-count or decision-count thresholds. When persistence is selected, store the file beside the plan as `..review.md` and record the target, requirements source, item list, position, canonical decisions, blockers, and concise continuation context. Apply sensitive-content rules before every write. If an existing file is mismatched, unparseable, externally edited, or ownership is unclear, stop and ask before overwriting or deleting it. At that mismatch blocker, state the exact current target, the exact derived review-state path, and the recorded conflicting target, then ask whether to resume the old review, replace the state for the current plan, or preserve it and continue without using it. ## Reflection Into The Plan After all detected items have been reviewed, ask for explicit confirmation before modifying the original implementation plan. The confirmation must state how decisions will be reflected according to `references/localized-labels.md`. Before asking for that confirmation, make the reflection record explicit: - State that item review is complete and reflection has not happened yet. - Explain all four localized decision outcomes, including that a `削除` item is removed only after this reflection confirmation. - State that review-history annotations, per-item judgment logs, and chat discussion notes stay out of executable plan content. - State that deleting the temporary review file is a separate decision asked only after successful reflection. Do not reflect review results into the original plan without this explicit confirmation. A general request to review the plan is not reflection consent. Reflected plans should contain executable plan content plus unresolved held items. Remove review-history annotations, per-item judgment logs, and chat discussion notes from the executable plan. Apply §Sensitive Content Handling before reflection and verification. A reflected plan must not newly contain or reproduce a sensitive literal from the source plan, requirements spec, temporary review file, source inspection, or conversation. If the pre-reflection scan still finds one, stop before any original-plan write. After successful reflection, ask whether to delete the temporary review file. Honor a user instruction to keep it. If the file has unexpected changes or ownership is unclear, preserve it and report the reason. After successful reflected-plan verification, leave the plan changes uncommitted unless the current user explicitly asks for a commit. Temporary review-file cleanup remains a separate user decision. ## Stop Conditions Stop and ask for user direction when: - No saved Markdown implementation plan file is identified. - The target plan file cannot be read. - A corresponding requirements spec exists but cannot be read. - The requirements spec and implementation plan conflict. - Plan information needed for review is missing. - Item boundaries are ambiguous. - A preexisting temporary review file is mismatched, unparseable, externally edited, or has unclear ownership. - A suspected sensitive literal remains in the target plan or temporary review state when reflection is requested. - The user asks to change scope beyond reviewing and reflecting the saved plan. - The user asks to start implementation, tests, release preparation, or other work outside plan review. When stopping, state the blocker, the evidence that triggered it, the effect on review, and the closest next user decision. ## Completion Summary When the review workflow completes, summarize: - Target plan path. - Requirements spec path or limited-confidence no-spec status. - Number of items reviewed. - Decisions by count for the four canonical user decision labels, not their numeric identifiers. - Unresolved blockers or held items. - Whether the original plan was reflected after explicit confirmation. - Whether the temporary review file was created, kept, or deleted. - Whether the reflected plan changed and whether an explicit commit request remains pending. - That implementation was not started.