Check Your Plan

Validate AI-generated implementation plans before execution to catch hallucinations, pattern violations, and scope creep.

<when_to_use>

When to Use

Invoke when user says:

• •"check your plan"
• •"validate this plan"
• •"review the plan"
• •"is this plan good"
• •After Claude presents an implementation plan
• •Before starting significant implementation work

Different from check-your-code/work: check-your-code and check-your-work review written code. check-your-plan reviews the PLAN before code is written. </when_to_use>

Workflow Overview

For Phase 2 details: references/phase-2-plan-validators.md For Phase 3 details: references/phase-3-devil-advocate.md For report format: templates/plan-assessment.md </workflow>

Agent Summary

Phase 2 (5 Parallel)

Phase 3 (Devil's Advocate)

Severity Classification

P0 requires evidence: "File X doesn't exist" not just "might be wrong" </severity>

<approval_gates>

Approval Gates

</approval_gates>

Phase 1: Plan Discovery

1. •

   Locate the plan to validate:

   • •Check for plan file path in conversation context
   • •Look in .claude/plans/ for recent plan files
   • •If no plan file, check if plan was stated inline in conversation
2. •

   Extract plan content and metadata:

   • •Files to be modified
   • •Steps/tasks count
   • •Dependencies mentioned
3. •

   If plan >50 lines, use AskUserQuestion to confirm scope

Phase 2: Plan Validation (5 Parallel)

Launch ALL 5 agents in a single message with multiple Task calls. See references/phase-2-plan-validators.md for agent prompts.

Provide each agent:

• •Full plan content
• •Original user request (from conversation context)
• •Relevant pattern file content (load from claude-patterns/)

Phase 3: Devil's Advocate

Launch 1 agent to challenge ALL findings from Phase 2. See references/phase-3-devil-advocate.md for agent prompt.

Provide:

• •All findings from Phase 2
• •Plan content for context verification

Output: Validated findings with status (CONFIRMED/DOWNGRADED/DISMISSED/UPGRADED)

Phase 4: Report + User Decision

1. •Generate report using templates/plan-assessment.md
2. •Present findings grouped by severity (P0, P1, P2, P3)
3. •Use AskUserQuestion:

{
  questions: [
    {
      question: "How would you like to proceed with this plan?",
      header: "Action",
      options: [
        {
          label: "Revise plan",
          description:
            "Update plan to address P0/P1 findings before implementing",
        },
        {
          label: "Proceed as-is",
          description: "Accept the plan and start implementation",
        },
        {
          label: "Start over",
          description: "Request a completely new plan approach",
        },
      ],
      multiSelect: false,
    },
  ];
}

<key_checks>

Key Validation Checks

Completeness (The "70% Problem")

• •Are hard parts (error handling, edge cases, testing) as detailed as easy parts?
• •Does plan address ALL original requirements?
• •Are there vague steps like "implement the business logic"?

Pattern Compliance

• •TanStack Query for data fetching (not useState + service calls)
• •Zod schemas in src/types/forms/ (not handwritten interfaces)
• •mutateAsync in modal forms (not mutate())
• •contactFilters.ts for contact filtering (not inline filters)
• •notifyApi for notifications (not direct useToast)
• •organization_id filter on all queries

Feasibility (Hallucination Detection)

• •Do referenced files actually exist?
• •Do referenced functions have correct signatures?
• •Are dependencies at correct versions?
• •Are API endpoints real?

Risk Assessment

• •Missing security considerations?
• •No error handling for failure scenarios?
• •No rollback plan for data mutations?
• •No testing strategy?

Scope Discipline

• •Does plan stay focused on original request?
• •Signs of over-engineering (abstractions for one-time ops)?
• •Signs of scope creep (unrelated "improvements")?

</key_checks>

What This Skill Does NOT Check

• •Runtime behavior (requires execution)
• •Actual code quality (use check-your-code after implementation)
• •Bug detection (use check-your-work after implementation)
• •Test coverage (use test runner)
• •Build errors (use typecheck/lint)

For comprehensive quality: check-your-plan (before) + check-your-code + check-your-work (after) </limitations>

<quick_reference>

Quick Reference

Pattern files checked for compliance:

• •CLAUDE.md
• •tanstack-query-patterns.md
• •zod-form-patterns.md
• •react-typescript-antipatterns.md
• •modal-form-patterns.md
• •notification-patterns.md
• •settings-patterns.md

Common P0 findings:

• •Hallucinated file path: src/services/foo.ts doesn't exist
• •Hallucinated API: useAccounts() hook doesn't exist
• •Missing dependency: Plan uses package not in package.json

Common P1 findings:

• •useState + service call pattern (should use TanStack Query)
• •Handwritten interface (should use Zod schema)
• •Missing org_id filter (security violation) </quick_reference>

References

• •references/phase-2-plan-validators.md - All 5 validator agents
• •references/phase-3-devil-advocate.md - Challenge agent
• •templates/plan-assessment.md - Report format </references>

<version_history>

Version History

• •

  v1.1.0 (2025-01-18): AI optimization updates

  • •Add blockquote summary after title
  • •Eliminate vague pronouns ("Those skills" → explicit skill names)
• •

  v1.0.0 (2025-01-12): Initial release

  • •4-phase workflow with 5 parallel validators
  • •Devil's advocate challenge phase
  • •P0-P3 severity aligned with codebase patterns
  • •Based on research: 3 Cs framework, 70% problem detection, hallucination checking

</version_history>