MCAF: Human Review Planning
Trigger On
- a large AI-generated code drop needs a human review plan
- the reviewer cannot inspect every line and needs prioritization
- the user asks which files are highest risk before doing manual review
- the user names a generated folder and wants a saved review plan for it
Value
- produce a concrete project delta: code, docs, config, tests, CI, or review artifact
- reduce ambiguity through explicit planning, verification, and final validation skills
- leave reusable project context so future tasks are faster and safer
Do Not Use For
- normal small pull-request review
- automated bug finding without creating a human review sequence
Inputs
- the target folder, feature area, or bounded context under review
- the main user journeys or operational flows involved
- any known architecture context, adjacent entities, or existing system rules
- any exact output path the user wants for the saved plan
Quick Start
- Read the nearest
AGENTS.md and confirm scope and constraints.
- Run this skill's
Workflow through the Ralph Loop until outcomes are acceptable.
- Return the
Required Result Format with concrete artifacts and verification evidence.
Workflow
- Read enough of the target area and its immediate boundaries to understand the generated code before planning review.
- Map the natural flow of operations first:
- sign up or authentication
- create
- update
- register or configure
- execute primary business action
- complete, archive, or finalize
- Use that flow to derive the most efficient human review sequence.
- Use the reviewer's domain knowledge as a force multiplier:
- compare the generated code against known architecture and existing entities
- look for places where the new feature should behave like nearby existing flows
- prioritize boundaries where generated code may drift from established system rules
- Identify high-risk review zones:
- entry points and orchestration layers
- persistence and state transitions
- cross-boundary integrations
- permissions, validation, and invariants
- side effects such as email, payments, jobs, or notifications
- Produce two separate outputs:
- prioritized review flow
- prioritized files or modules to inspect
- Present both outputs in chat.
- If the user asks for a durable artifact, save the plan to the exact docs path they requested; otherwise use
docs/AREA/HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md.
Deliver
- a prioritized human review sequence
- a prioritized list of files or modules to inspect first
- both sections presented separately in chat
- a saved
HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md when requested
Validate
- the plan is grounded in actual code reading, not only the folder names
- the review order follows actual user or system flows
- high-risk files are explained, not only listed
- priorities account for likely mismatch against existing architecture or analogous entities
- the plan helps a human skip low-value line-by-line review
- the saved plan is readable without extra chat context
Ralph Loop
Use the Ralph Loop for every task, including docs, architecture, testing, and tooling work.
- Plan first (mandatory):
- analyze current state
- define target outcome, constraints, and risks
- write a detailed execution plan
- list final validation skills to run at the end, with order and reason
- Execute one planned step and produce a concrete delta.
- Review the result and capture findings with actionable next fixes.
- Apply fixes in small batches and rerun the relevant checks or review steps.
- Update the plan after each iteration.
- Repeat until outcomes are acceptable or only explicit exceptions remain.
- If a dependency is missing, bootstrap it or return
status: not_applicable with explicit reason and fallback path.
Required Result Format
status: complete | clean | improved | configured | not_applicable | blocked
plan: concise plan and current iteration step
actions_taken: concrete changes made
validation_skills: final skills run, or skipped with reasons
verification: commands, checks, or review evidence summary
remaining: top unresolved items or none
For setup-only requests with no execution, return status: configured and exact next commands.
Load References
- read
references/review-plan-format.md for the output shape
- read
references/risk-signals.md when deciding what deserves human attention first
Example Requests
- "Plan a human review for this 40K-line AI-generated feature."
- "I cannot review every file. Tell me what to inspect first."
- "Trace the signup-to-completion flow and save a HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md."
- "Look through the generated folder, give me two separate prioritized review lists, and save them under docs for this area."
1---2name: mcaf-human-review-planning3description: Plan a human review for a large AI-generated code drop by reading the target area, tracing the natural user and system flows, identifying the riskiest boundaries, and prioritizing the files a human should inspect first. Use when the codebase is too large to review line-by-line and you need a practical review sequence plus a prioritized file list.4---56# MCAF: Human Review Planning78## Trigger On910- a large AI-generated code drop needs a human review plan11- the reviewer cannot inspect every line and needs prioritization12- the user asks which files are highest risk before doing manual review13- the user names a generated folder and wants a saved review plan for it1415## Value1617- produce a concrete project delta: code, docs, config, tests, CI, or review artifact18- reduce ambiguity through explicit planning, verification, and final validation skills19- leave reusable project context so future tasks are faster and safer2021## Do Not Use For2223- normal small pull-request review24- automated bug finding without creating a human review sequence2526## Inputs2728- the target folder, feature area, or bounded context under review29- the main user journeys or operational flows involved30- any known architecture context, adjacent entities, or existing system rules31- any exact output path the user wants for the saved plan3233## Quick Start34351. Read the nearest `AGENTS.md` and confirm scope and constraints.362. Run this skill's `Workflow` through the `Ralph Loop` until outcomes are acceptable.373. Return the `Required Result Format` with concrete artifacts and verification evidence.3839## Workflow40411. Read enough of the target area and its immediate boundaries to understand the generated code before planning review.422. Map the natural flow of operations first:43 - sign up or authentication44 - create45 - update46 - register or configure47 - execute primary business action48 - complete, archive, or finalize493. Use that flow to derive the most efficient human review sequence.504. Use the reviewer's domain knowledge as a force multiplier:51 - compare the generated code against known architecture and existing entities52 - look for places where the new feature should behave like nearby existing flows53 - prioritize boundaries where generated code may drift from established system rules545. Identify high-risk review zones:55 - entry points and orchestration layers56 - persistence and state transitions57 - cross-boundary integrations58 - permissions, validation, and invariants59 - side effects such as email, payments, jobs, or notifications606. Produce two separate outputs:61 - prioritized review flow62 - prioritized files or modules to inspect637. Present both outputs in chat.648. If the user asks for a durable artifact, save the plan to the exact docs path they requested; otherwise use `docs/AREA/HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md`.6566## Deliver6768- a prioritized human review sequence69- a prioritized list of files or modules to inspect first70- both sections presented separately in chat71- a saved `HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md` when requested7273## Validate7475- the plan is grounded in actual code reading, not only the folder names76- the review order follows actual user or system flows77- high-risk files are explained, not only listed78- priorities account for likely mismatch against existing architecture or analogous entities79- the plan helps a human skip low-value line-by-line review80- the saved plan is readable without extra chat context8182## Ralph Loop8384Use the Ralph Loop for every task, including docs, architecture, testing, and tooling work.85861. Plan first (mandatory):87 - analyze current state88 - define target outcome, constraints, and risks89 - write a detailed execution plan90 - list final validation skills to run at the end, with order and reason912. Execute one planned step and produce a concrete delta.923. Review the result and capture findings with actionable next fixes.934. Apply fixes in small batches and rerun the relevant checks or review steps.945. Update the plan after each iteration.956. Repeat until outcomes are acceptable or only explicit exceptions remain.967. If a dependency is missing, bootstrap it or return `status: not_applicable` with explicit reason and fallback path.9798### Required Result Format99100- `status`: `complete` | `clean` | `improved` | `configured` | `not_applicable` | `blocked`101- `plan`: concise plan and current iteration step102- `actions_taken`: concrete changes made103- `validation_skills`: final skills run, or skipped with reasons104- `verification`: commands, checks, or review evidence summary105- `remaining`: top unresolved items or `none`106107For setup-only requests with no execution, return `status: configured` and exact next commands.108109## Load References110111- read `references/review-plan-format.md` for the output shape112- read `references/risk-signals.md` when deciding what deserves human attention first113114## Example Requests115116- "Plan a human review for this 40K-line AI-generated feature."117- "I cannot review every file. Tell me what to inspect first."118- "Trace the signup-to-completion flow and save a HUMAN_REVIEW_PLAN.md."119- "Look through the generated folder, give me two separate prioritized review lists, and save them under docs for this area."