plan-eng-review
by garrytanplan-eng-review is an interactive engineering plan review skill for locking down architecture, data flow, edge cases, test coverage, performance, and rollout risk before coding begins. Use the plan-eng-review skill when you have a design doc or implementation plan and want sharper feedback than a generic review prompt.
This skill scores 78/100, which means it is a solid listing candidate for directory users. The repository gives a credible, triggerable workflow for engineering-plan review, with enough operational detail to help an agent start with less guesswork than a generic prompt, though users should expect some rough edges from placeholder markers and minimal install-time scaffolding.
- Clear use cases and triggers: the description names architecture review, engineering review, and plan/design-doc review before coding.
- Strong operational depth: the body is large and structured with many headings, workflow, constraints, and practical guidance signals, suggesting real review procedure rather than a stub.
- Interactive agent leverage: it is explicitly marked interactive, supports AskUserQuestion, and includes opinionated recommendations plus voice trigger aliases.
- Install-time clarity is not polished: there is no install command, and support files like references, rules, resources, or readme are absent.
- Repository contains placeholder markers (todo/wip/placeholder), so parts of the workflow may be incomplete or in transition.
Overview of plan-eng-review skill
plan-eng-review is an interactive engineering plan review skill for locking down architecture before code is written. It is best for managers, tech leads, and agents that need a sharper review than a generic “looks good” prompt: data flow, edge cases, test coverage, performance, and implementation risks all get surfaced early.
What plan-eng-review is for
Use the plan-eng-review skill when you already have a design doc, implementation plan, or proposed architecture and want a structured review before coding begins. The job-to-be-done is not brainstorming; it is pressure-testing the plan so later execution has fewer surprises.
Why this skill is different
The plan-eng-review skill is opinionated and interactive. It is built to ask questions, challenge weak assumptions, and push toward a tighter plan rather than simply summarizing the input. That makes it useful when you need decision quality, not just commentary.
Best-fit scenarios
plan-eng-review for Code Review is a misfit if the code is already written and you mainly need line-level feedback. It fits better when you are about to start implementation, are choosing between approaches, or need to confirm the architecture is safe enough to proceed.
How to Use plan-eng-review skill
Install and activate plan-eng-review
For a plan-eng-review install, add the skill through your gstack/skills workflow and then invoke it in a planning conversation. The repository does not provide a custom install command inside SKILL.md, so the key step is making sure the skill is available in your agent environment and routed for plan-review tasks.
Give it a complete plan, not a vague request
The plan-eng-review usage pattern works best when you provide the plan text, plus enough context to judge tradeoffs. Good inputs include:
- the goal and success criteria
- the proposed architecture or sequence of steps
- key constraints, dependencies, and deadlines
- non-goals
- known risks or open questions
A weak prompt is: “review this plan.” A stronger one is: “Review this migration plan for backend auth. Focus on data flow, rollback safety, test gaps, and whether the rollout sequence can fail safely.”
Read these files first
For a fast plan-eng-review guide, start with SKILL.md and SKILL.md.tmpl. Those two files are the only visible sources in the repo tree and they define the real workflow. If you are adapting the skill to another environment, inspect the preamble, trigger logic, and any prompt templates before relying on it in production.
Workflow that gets better results
Use the skill in this order:
- Paste the plan or summarize it clearly.
- State what kind of review you want: architecture, edge cases, test strategy, performance, or rollout risk.
- Let the skill challenge assumptions interactively.
- Revise the plan, then rerun the review if the scope changed materially.
The biggest quality gain comes from giving it an actual draft to critique, not asking it to invent a plan from scratch.
plan-eng-review skill FAQ
Is plan-eng-review only for managers?
No. It is useful for EMs, staff engineers, reviewers, and agents that need to validate implementation plans before coding. If you are responsible for reducing rework, the plan-eng-review skill is relevant.
How is this different from a normal prompt?
A normal prompt can ask for feedback, but plan-eng-review is designed as a reusable review workflow with interactive questioning and stronger bias toward architecture and execution risk. That usually produces more consistent plan-eng-review usage across different plans.
Is it beginner-friendly?
Yes, if the user can provide a rough plan and answer follow-up questions. It is not beginner-friendly if the goal is “just tell me what to build” without any design context.
When should I not use it?
Do not use plan-eng-review for Code Review when the codebase already exists and you need implementation bugs, refactor suggestions, or style feedback. Use it when the decision is still at the plan stage and the main risk is choosing the wrong design.
How to Improve plan-eng-review skill
Give it sharper inputs
The best improvement to plan-eng-review is specificity. Include boundaries, interfaces, expected scale, and what failure would look like. For example, say whether the plan must preserve backward compatibility, support partial rollout, or fit within a fixed latency budget.
Ask for the right review lens
If you want a stronger plan-eng-review guide outcome, name the lens explicitly: “review for data consistency,” “review for migration safety,” or “review for testability.” That helps the skill focus on the decisions that matter instead of giving generic architectural notes.
Watch for common failure modes
The most common failure mode is under-specifying the plan and then treating the review like a brainstorming session. Another is ignoring interactive questions and moving straight to execution. plan-eng-review works best when you answer the challenge points and update the plan before proceeding.
Iterate after the first pass
After the first review, paste the revised plan and ask for a second pass focused on what changed. That is where the plan-eng-review skill saves the most time: it helps you converge on an implementation-ready plan with fewer hidden assumptions and fewer late-stage surprises.