hrdtbs Plan Self-Review
Use this skill immediately after creating or updating a plan. Catching logical gaps, ambiguous steps, or missing dependencies early prevents cascading failures during execution. Self-reviewing your plan helps you approach the problem methodically and reduces the likelihood of needing major revisions later.
Review Steps
- Score Plan (100pt): Evaluate the plan based on the following criteria:
- Clarity (25): Are the steps clear and easy to follow? Do they specify which files and tools will be used?
- Comprehensiveness (25): Does the plan cover all necessary aspects of the task? Are there any unaddressed edge cases?
- Feasibility (25): Are the steps achievable with the available tools and context? Do you have enough information to execute them?
- Consistency (25): Are there any logical contradictions or missing elements? Do the steps follow a logical sequence?
- List Deficiencies: Create a prioritized task list (
- [ ]) of any gaps, omissions, or ambiguities found in the plan. - Improve: Edit the plan to resolve the identified deficiencies. Update the plan using the appropriate tool.
- Final Check: Perform a final check to confirm no logical contradictions or missing elements remain.
Output Format
Present your review using the following structure:
Self-Evaluation Score: [Score]/100
- Clarity: [Score]/25
- Comprehensiveness: [Score]/25
- Feasibility: [Score]/25
- Consistency: [Score]/25
Deficiencies
- [Deficiency 1]
- [Deficiency 2]
Improvements Made
- [Briefly describe the improvements made to the plan]
Final Check
- [Confirm that the plan is now logically sound and complete]
Examples
Example 1: Reviewing a plan for adding a new API endpoint
Initial Plan:
- Create new endpoint.
- Update tests.
Self-Review Output:
Self-Evaluation Score: 40/100
- Clarity: 10/25 (Missing details on which file to edit and what the endpoint does)
- Comprehensiveness: 10/25 (Missing documentation update, error handling details)
- Feasibility: 10/25 (Too vague to execute without further clarification)
- Consistency: 10/25 (Logically sound but lacks concrete steps)
Deficiencies
- Specify the exact file and route for the new endpoint
- Add error handling requirements
- Identify which test file needs to be updated and what test cases to add
- Include a step to update the API documentation
Improvements Made
- Updated the plan to specify the target file (
src/api/users.js) and route (POST /users). - Added a sub-step for implementing input validation and error handling.
- Specified the test file (
tests/api/users.test.js) and explicitly required testing the error cases. - Added a step to update
docs/api.md.
Final Check
- The revised plan is now clear, comprehensive, and specifies exact files and actions. It is logically sound and ready for execution.