Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

plan-quality-verifier

Verifies implementation plan quality across 8 dimensions (requirement-coverage, task-completeness, dependency-validity, scope-sanity, artifact-wiring, risk-assessment, testability, estimation-quality) and returns pass/fail with per-dimension scores.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (10)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • commands/plan-quality-verifier.md121 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs270 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs387 B
  • references/research-requirements.md1.7 KB
  • rules/plan-quality-verifier.md1.5 KB
  • schemas/input.schema.json639 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json1.4 KB
  • scripts/main.cjs2.1 KB
  • templates/implementation-template.md195 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Plan Quality Verifier

Purpose

Score an implementation plan across 8 quality dimensions and gate execution on a minimum threshold. Returns { pass, score, dimensions } where pass is true when overall score ≥ 60/100.

When to Use

Invoke this skill before handing off a plan to executing agents:

Skill({ skill: 'plan-quality-verifier' });

Use when:

  • A planner agent has finished drafting an implementation plan
  • The router wants to gate execution behind a quality check
  • An architect needs to validate a submitted plan before approval
  • A developer receives a plan and wants to sanity-check it before starting

Iron Law

NO PLAN EXECUTES WITHOUT PASSING QUALITY VERIFICATION FIRST

A plan that scores < 60/100 must be revised before spawning executing agents.

Workflow

Step 1: Load the plan content

Read the plan file:

cat .claude/context/plans/<plan-file>.md

Expected output: Raw markdown text of the plan.

Step 2: Run the verifier

const { verifyPlan } = require('.claude/lib/validation/plan-quality-verifier.cjs');
const planContent = require('fs').readFileSync('<plan-path>', 'utf8');
const result = verifyPlan(planContent);
console.log(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));

Expected output:

{
  "pass": true,
  "score": 72,
  "dimensions": [
    { "name": "requirement-coverage", "score": 8 },
    { "name": "task-completeness", "score": 7 },
    { "name": "dependency-validity", "score": 9 },
    { "name": "scope-sanity", "score": 6 },
    { "name": "artifact-wiring", "score": 7 },
    { "name": "risk-assessment", "score": 8 },
    { "name": "testability", "score": 7 },
    { "name": "estimation-quality", "score": 9 }
  ]
}

Verify: result.pass === true and result.score >= 60.

Step 3: Interpret results

ResultAction
pass: trueProceed — hand off plan to executing agents
pass: falseBlock — return feedback to planner with failing dimensions
Score 60-69Marginal pass — flag low-scoring dimensions for improvement in next iteration
Score < 40Hard block — plan needs significant rework before re-evaluation

Step 4: Report failing dimensions

When pass: false, format feedback:

Plan quality check FAILED (score: {{score}}/100)

Failing dimensions (score < 6):
{{#each dimensions where score < 6}}
- {{name}}: {{score}}/10 — needs improvement
{{/each}}

Action required: Revise the plan and re-run verification.

Dimension Reference

DimensionWhat it MeasuresGood Signals
requirement-coverageAre all stated requirements addressed by tasks?Keywords: requirement, feature, user story
task-completenessDo tasks have clear ownership and deliverables?Keywords: implement, create, update, agent
dependency-validityAre task dependencies explicit and cycle-free?Keywords: depends, blocked by, after, before
scope-sanityIs the plan scope realistic and bounded?Phase/wave structure, bounded scope language
artifact-wiringAre output artifacts explicitly listed per task?Keywords: artifact, output, file, deliverable
risk-assessmentAre risks identified with mitigations?Keywords: risk, mitigation, fallback, contingency
testabilityAre acceptance criteria and test hooks defined?Keywords: test, verify, acceptance, criteria
estimation-qualityAre effort/time estimates provided?Keywords: estimate, hours, days, effort, wave

Enforcement Hooks

Input validated against schemas/input.schema.json before execution. Output contract defined in schemas/output.schema.json.

Anti-Patterns

  • Never skip verification to "save time" — a bad plan costs more to fix mid-execution
  • Never treat a marginal pass (60-69) as a strong pass — flag and iterate
  • Never modify verifier scoring thresholds per-project — the 60/100 gate is standard
  • Never run verifier on a partial/draft plan — only run on complete plans

Memory Protocol

Before starting:

Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md for past plan quality issues and common failures.

After completing:

  • Failed plan with specific dimension scores → Append to .claude/context/memory/issues.md
  • New plan pattern discovered → Append to .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

Related Skills

  • plan-generator — Generates plans that should pass this verifier
  • verification-before-completion — Gates task completion (complements plan gating)
  • tdd — TDD methodology that complements testability dimension scoring

Implementation Reference

  • Verifier lib: .claude/lib/validation/plan-quality-verifier.cjs
  • Tests: tests/lib/validation/plan-quality-verifier.test.cjs
  • Schema: .claude/skills/plan-quality-verifier/schemas/input.schema.json

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio42Updated Jul 14, 2026

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio42Updated Jul 14, 2026

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio42Updated Jul 14, 2026

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio42Updated Jul 14, 2026

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio42Updated Jul 14, 2026

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio42Updated Jul 14, 2026

See all skills by oimiragieo

Report a problem with this skill