plan-review-output-format
Output format specification for plan review agents. Defines the JSON schema, field reference, severity emoji prefixes, and finding body format for plan reviews.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-13
- Stars
- ★ 34
- Forks
- 2
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- plan-review-output-format
- description
- Output format specification for plan review agents. Defines the JSON schema, field reference, severity emoji prefixes, and finding body format for plan reviews.
- user-invocable
- false
- disable-model-invocation
- true
02 资源文件 1
- 参考文档references/style.md58 B
03 SKILL.md 正文
Plan Review Output Format
JSON Schema
Return your analysis as a JSON code block. Do not include any text before or after the JSON block — the orchestrator will parse this output directly.
{
"lens": "<lens-identifier>",
"summary": "2-3 sentence assessment from this lens perspective.",
"strengths": [
"Positive observation about what the plan gets right from this lens perspective"
],
"findings": [
{
"severity": "critical",
"confidence": "high",
"lens": "<lens-identifier>",
"location": "Phase 2, Section 3: Database Migration",
"title": "Brief finding title",
"body": "? **<Lens Name>**\n\n[Issue description — 1-2 sentences with enough context to understand standalone].\n\n**Impact**: [Why this matters — 1 sentence].\n\n**Suggestion**: [Concrete fix — 1-2 sentences]."
}
]
}
Field Reference
- lens: Agent lens identifier (e.g.,
"architecture","security","test-coverage","code-quality","standards","usability","performance","documentation","database","correctness","compatibility","portability","safety") - summary: 2-3 sentence assessment from this lens perspective. Reflect the key dimensions from the lens's Core Responsibilities. This is where holistic assessment lives, beyond individual findings.
- strengths: Positive observations (fed into the review summary — never posted as individual findings)
- findings: All findings, each referencing a location in the plan
- severity: One of
"critical","major","minor","suggestion" - confidence: One of
"high","medium","low" - lens: The lens identifier (same value as the top-level
lensfield). Included on each finding so the orchestrator can attribute findings after merging outputs from multiple agents. - location: Human-readable reference to the plan section where the finding is most relevant (e.g., "Phase 2: API Endpoints", "Implementation Approach", "Phase 1: Data Model")
- title: Brief title for the finding (used in the summary index)
- body: Self-contained finding body. See "Finding Body Format" below.
- severity: One of
Severity Emoji Prefixes
Use these actual Unicode emoji characters at the start of each finding body:
?for"critical"severity?for"major"severity?for"minor"and"suggestion"severity
IMPORTANT: Use the actual Unicode emoji characters shown above (? ? ?), NOT
text shortcodes like :red_circle:, :yellow_circle:, or :blue_circle:. The
output is rendered as markdown, not Slack/Discord, so shortcodes will appear as
literal text.
Finding Body Format
Each finding body should follow this structure:
[emoji] **[Lens Name]**
[Issue description — 1-2 sentences, standalone context].
**Impact**: [Why this matters].
**Suggestion**: [Concrete fix].
Example:
? **Architecture**
The plan proposes a direct dependency from the API layer to the database schema
with no service abstraction. This couples the presentation layer to the data
model.
**Impact**: Database schema changes will ripple into the API layer, breaking
the dependency rule.
**Suggestion**: Introduce a service layer to mediate between the API handlers
and the data access layer.
Output only the JSON block — do not include additional prose, narrative analysis, or markdown outside the JSON code fence. The orchestrator parses your output as JSON.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
explore-pr
Build an interactive, design-first and picture-first exploration page for a pull request — its architecture, abstractions and design decisions drawn as diagrams, a guided tour in reading order with code as the evidence, an attention map of where the risk sits, a ledger of its riskiest operations, prior review findings re-checked against the code, and simulations specific to the PR — with the reviewer's verdicts and notes saved. Use when the user wants to explore, understand or review a large pull request or its design, asks for a review page, walkthrough or visual explanation of a PR, or is struggling to review a big change.
update-work-item
Update fields (status, priority, tags, parent, etc.) of an existing work item. Use to transition status, change priority, manage tags, or edit any frontmatter field. No transition enforcement — arbitrary changes are allowed.
sync-work-items
Reconcile local work items in meta/work/ with the active remote tracker named by work.integration. Use when the user wants to sync, push, or pull work items to or from Jira or Linear, preview what a sync would change, or reconcile divergent local and remote state.
sync-work-items-recovery
Recovery procedures for work sync failures that need a person — terminal rows, refused pending pushes and refused orders. Read by sync-work-items — not invoked directly.
stress-test-work-item
Interactively stress-test a work item by grilling the user on scope, assumptions, acceptance criteria, edge cases, and dependencies to surface issues, gaps, and flawed assumptions before implementation is planned.
review-work-item
Review a work item through multiple quality lenses and collaboratively iterate based on findings. Use when the user wants to evaluate a work item before implementation or escalation.