plan-review by longranger2/claude-gpt-workflow
npx skills add https://github.com/longranger2/claude-gpt-workflow --skill plan-review当用户运行 /plan-review {计划文件路径} 时,启动"对抗性计划迭代"工作流:
NEEDS_REVISION,我会自动请求 Codex 再次评审。MOSTLY_GOOD 或 APPROVED 的共识。/plan-review plans/my-feature-plan.md
每次调用 Codex 后,从脚本输出中提取 session_id=xxx 并保存为当前任务的会话 ID。在后续针对同一任务的 Codex 调用中,传递 --session <id> 以复用上下文,这样 Codex 就能记住之前的评审历史,并在多轮评审中保持一致。
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
根据计划文件名推导出评审文件路径:
plans/auth-refactor.md → reviews/auth-refactor-review.mdreviews/{计划文件名(不含 .md)}-review.md如果评审文件已存在,说明这不是第一轮评审,因此 Codex 必须跟踪上一轮问题的解决状态。
使用 /codex 技能,并给予 Codex 以下指令:
Read the contents of {plan-file-path} and review it critically as an independent third-party reviewer.
Requirements:
- Raise at least 10 concrete and actionable improvement points
- Each issue must include: issue description + exact location/reference in the plan + improvement suggestion
- Use severity levels: Critical > High > Medium > Low > Suggestion
- If {review-file-path} already exists, read it first and track the resolution status of previous issues in the new round
Analysis dimensions, choosing the relevant ones based on the plan type:
- Architectural soundness: overdesign vs underdesign, module boundaries, single responsibility
- Technology choices: rationale, alternatives, compatibility with the existing project stack
- Completeness: missing scenarios, overlooked edge cases, dependency and impact scope
- Feasibility: implementation complexity, performance risks, migration and compatibility concerns
- Engineering quality: whether it follows the Code Quality Hard Limits in `CLAUDE.md`
- User experience: interaction flow, error/loading states, i18n when relevant
- Security: authentication, authorization, data validation when relevant
Append the current review round to {review-file-path}, creating the file if it does not exist.
Separate rounds with `---` and append new rounds at the end of the file. Use this format:
---
## Round {N} — {YYYY-MM-DD}
### Overall Assessment
{2-3 sentence overall assessment}
**Rating**: {X}/10
### Previous Round Tracking (R2+ only)
| # | Issue | Status | Notes |
|---|-------|--------|-------|
### Issues
#### Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
**Location**: {location in the plan}
{issue description}
**Suggestion**: {improvement suggestion}
... (at least 10 issues)
### Positive Aspects
- ...
### Summary
{Top 3 key issues}
**Consensus Status**: NEEDS_REVISION / MOSTLY_GOOD / APPROVED
Key principle: be a critical reviewer, not a yes-man. Every issue must be specific enough that someone knows how to revise the plan.
当首次创建评审文件时,在文件顶部添加以下标题:
# Plan Review: {plan title}
**Plan File**: {plan-file-path}
**Reviewer**: Codex
Codex 完成后,我阅读评审文件中的最新一轮评审:
使用 Codex 提供的 Consensus Status:
| 状态 | 我的操作 |
|---|---|
NEEDS_REVISION | 修订计划,然后自动请求 Codex 再次评审,并返回步骤 2 |
MOSTLY_GOOD | 修订计划,然后告知用户计划已基本成熟,并询问是否需要另一轮评审 |
APPROVED | 告知用户计划已通过评审,可以开始实施 |
迭代完成后,向用户报告以下信息:
reviews/{主题}-review.md{主题} 是计划文件名(不含 .md)--- 分隔plans/auth-refactor.md -> reviews/auth-refactor-review.md每周安装量
84
代码仓库
GitHub 星标数
45
首次出现
13 天前
安全审计
安装于
codex83
gemini-cli80
opencode77
github-copilot76
claude-code75
cline75
When the user runs /plan-review {plan-file-path}, start the "adversarial plan iteration" workflow:
NEEDS_REVISION, I automatically ask Codex to review again.MOSTLY_GOOD or APPROVED./plan-review plans/my-feature-plan.md
After each Codex invocation, extract session_id=xxx from the script output and save it as the session ID for the current task. In later Codex calls for the same task, pass --session <id> to reuse context so Codex remembers prior review history and can stay consistent across multiple rounds.
Derive the review file path from the plan file name:
plans/auth-refactor.md → reviews/auth-refactor-review.mdreviews/{plan-file-name-without-.md}-review.mdIf the review file already exists, this is not the first round, so Codex must track the resolution status of issues from the previous round.
Use the /codex skill and give Codex the following instruction:
Read the contents of {plan-file-path} and review it critically as an independent third-party reviewer.
Requirements:
- Raise at least 10 concrete and actionable improvement points
- Each issue must include: issue description + exact location/reference in the plan + improvement suggestion
- Use severity levels: Critical > High > Medium > Low > Suggestion
- If {review-file-path} already exists, read it first and track the resolution status of previous issues in the new round
Analysis dimensions, choosing the relevant ones based on the plan type:
- Architectural soundness: overdesign vs underdesign, module boundaries, single responsibility
- Technology choices: rationale, alternatives, compatibility with the existing project stack
- Completeness: missing scenarios, overlooked edge cases, dependency and impact scope
- Feasibility: implementation complexity, performance risks, migration and compatibility concerns
- Engineering quality: whether it follows the Code Quality Hard Limits in `CLAUDE.md`
- User experience: interaction flow, error/loading states, i18n when relevant
- Security: authentication, authorization, data validation when relevant
Append the current review round to {review-file-path}, creating the file if it does not exist.
Separate rounds with `---` and append new rounds at the end of the file. Use this format:
---
## Round {N} — {YYYY-MM-DD}
### Overall Assessment
{2-3 sentence overall assessment}
**Rating**: {X}/10
### Previous Round Tracking (R2+ only)
| # | Issue | Status | Notes |
|---|-------|--------|-------|
### Issues
#### Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
**Location**: {location in the plan}
{issue description}
**Suggestion**: {improvement suggestion}
... (at least 10 issues)
### Positive Aspects
- ...
### Summary
{Top 3 key issues}
**Consensus Status**: NEEDS_REVISION / MOSTLY_GOOD / APPROVED
Key principle: be a critical reviewer, not a yes-man. Every issue must be specific enough that someone knows how to revise the plan.
When the review file is created for the first time, add this header at the top:
# Plan Review: {plan title}
**Plan File**: {plan-file-path}
**Reviewer**: Codex
After Codex finishes, I read the latest review round in the review file:
Use the Consensus Status provided by Codex:
| Status | My Action |
|---|---|
NEEDS_REVISION | Revise the plan, then automatically ask Codex to review again and return to Step 2 |
MOSTLY_GOOD | Revise the plan, then tell the user the plan is mostly mature and ask whether another review round is needed |
APPROVED | Tell the user the plan has passed review and is ready for implementation |
After the iteration is complete, report the following to the user:
reviews/{topic}-review.md{topic} is the plan file name without .md---plans/auth-refactor.md -> reviews/auth-refactor-review.mdWeekly Installs
84
Repository
GitHub Stars
45
First Seen
13 days ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykFail
Installed on
codex83
gemini-cli80
opencode77
github-copilot76
claude-code75
cline75
AI Elements:基于shadcn/ui的AI原生应用组件库,快速构建对话界面
67,500 周安装
内部沟通AI技能:自动生成3P更新、公司通讯、FAQ回复等内部沟通内容
1,100 周安装
开发者成长分析技能:基于Claude聊天历史识别编码模式与改进领域
1,200 周安装
Connect技能:让Claude AI连接1000+应用执行真实操作,告别纯文本生成
1,200 周安装
Anthropic品牌风格指南技能 - 获取官方品牌标识、颜色、字体和视觉设计规范
1,100 周安装
Ant Design 最佳实践指南:React 组件库使用决策、主题配置与性能优化
1,200 周安装
Day 5 Fetch & Digest:内容获取与消化技能教程 - 学习API调用、字幕提取与Quiz-First学习法
1,100 周安装