본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(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(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

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

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

oimiragieo/agent-studio422026년 7월 14일 업데이트

oimiragieo의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고