本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(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(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

oimiragieo のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する