Agent skill

Review Plan

by tobihagemann in tobihagemann/turbo

Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings.

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Review Plan

skills CLI
$ npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill review-plan -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install tobihagemann/turbo review-plan --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/codex/skills/review-plan .claude/skills/review-plan && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
review-plan
GitHub stars
408
Token cost
~2k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,090 words
Files
3 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
81
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings.

  • Works in 2 steps: Resolve the Plan → Run Reviews in Parallel
  • The user asks to review my plan
  • SKILL.md covers Step 1: Resolve the Plan, Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel, Output Format and Rules
  • Calls git

What it does

Review Plan is an agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo. Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Use when the user asks to "review my plan", "check my plan", "critique my plan", or wants feedback on a plan.

Its SKILL.md is about 2k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 3 other files, including reference files (for example `references/plan-scope-review.md` and `references/plan-structure-review.md`).

It sits in Research & Science, covering Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Reusable workflows for planning, building, reviewing, and shipping with Claude Code and Codex. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • The user asks to review my plan
  • Critique my plan
  • Wants feedback on a plan

Example prompts

  • “review my plan”
  • “check my plan”
  • “critique my plan”
  • “/review-plan”

Workflow steps

2 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Resolve the Plan
  2. Run Reviews in Parallel

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 931eda5. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Review Plan loads about 2k tokens when it runs, and up to ~3.9k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 57 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,090 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~57
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~2k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~3.9k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from tobihagemann/turbo at commit 931eda5, republished under its MIT licence (© tobihagemann). 1,090 words, ~1,968 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/review-plan/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 2 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
review-plan
description
Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Use when the user asks to "review my plan", "check my plan", "critique my plan", or wants feedback on a plan.

Review Plan

Review a plan against structure and scope criteria. Runs internal reviews and $peer-review in parallel by default. Returns combined structured findings.

Step 1: Resolve the Plan

  1. Plan text in conversation — use it
  2. Explicit path — read it
  3. Explicit slug — resolve to .turbo/plans/<slug>.md and read it
  4. Single file — Glob .turbo/plans/*.md. If exactly one file exists, use it
  5. Most recent — most recently modified file
  6. Legacy fallback — .turbo/plan.md if .turbo/plans/ does not exist
  7. Nothing found — stop and state that no plan was found to review

When the plan came from a file, state the resolved path before continuing.

Unless the plan came from conversation text, or an explicit path or slug was passed, check whether the resolved plan still describes work that remains to be done. Report a frontmatter status: of done alongside the path.

Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel

Two reference files carry the criteria, one per internal review:

Skip peer review when instructed (e.g., "without peer review", "no peer", "internal only").

When a list of already-adjudicated findings was supplied (one line each: the finding, its verdict, and the recorded reason), include it in every branch prompt, internal and peer, labeled as decisions already reached on proposed revisions rather than as established properties of the plan. Direct each branch to treat a finding as listed when it matches one on both location and substance, to raise such a finding again only on evidence its recorded reason does not already account for, and to judge any other finding at the same location on its own merits.

Pass the plan to every branch, internal and peer, the same way: for a plan that is on disk, name its absolute path and direct the branch to read the file in full; for a plan that exists only as conversation text, include that text.

Run the review branches independently. Launch them with spawn_agent / wait_agent using inherited model defaults, issuing every call in one batch. Do not issue one and await its result before issuing the rest. That is three branches when peer review is active (two internal + one peer), or two branches when peer review is skipped. Every branch prompt must direct it to treat the shared working tree and its git index as read-only and to assess findings by reading and reasoning. Each branch keeps the scratch files it writes, such as its starting git status snapshot, probes, and logs, in a scratch directory of its own, uniquely named under $TMPDIR, and refers to it by absolute path. HEAD stays where it is: read other refs with git show <ref>:<path> rather than git checkout or git switch. For a check that requires mutating code, the branch works in an isolated git worktree created under $TMPDIR and discarded afterward. Refer to that worktree by absolute path in every command and join chained steps with &&, so a failed step cannot leave the rest running in the shared checkout. Run teardown and verification as their own commands. Give that worktree its own dependency install rather than reaching the shared tree's install by any route: removing a worktree deletes through symlinks, and a redirected suite writes into the shared install. When its own install is not possible, the check is left unrun and reported as such. A check that runs in the shared checkout invokes an already-installed runner directly wherever a package-manager wrapper would front it, since such a wrapper reads as read-only while reconciling the shared install before it runs. Confine dependency installs and reconciliation to an isolated worktree. Every test runner the branch starts, in a worktree or in the shared checkout, runs in its own process group under a timeout enforced from outside the runner. Before teardown, the branch stops the process group of every runner it started, since stopping a runner can leave the processes it spawned alive. Afterward the branch verifies that git worktree list no longer shows the worktree, that git status --short shows what it showed at the start, and that HEAD is still on the branch it started on. It also confirms that no process from those groups, and none whose command line names the worktree path, if any, is still running, and reports by PID any process it could not stop. When it cannot list processes, it reports that check as unrun and names those process groups and the worktree path, if any. After any check, in a worktree or in the shared checkout, it verifies that the shared tree's dependency directory still resolves (a destroyed install leaves git status unchanged, since it is gitignored). Damage the branch cannot repair is reported with the exact repair command in place of findings.

Show full SKILL.md (308 more words)Show less
  • Structure branch: The branch prompt must include the plan, passed as above, the path to the structure reference file (~/.agents/skills/review-plan/references/plan-structure-review.md), the output format below, and this directive: read that reference file directly, apply its determination criteria as the bar for a real finding, then report every finding that clears that bar tagged with its priority and with internal (structure). Coverage is the goal at this stage, so surface everything that qualifies and let the priority tags convey severity. The branch must also return the Overall Verdict block for its dimension.
  • Scope branch: Same, with the scope reference file (~/.agents/skills/review-plan/references/plan-scope-review.md) and findings tagged internal (scope).
  • Peer review branch (unless skipping): Spawn a Codex sub-agent and instruct it to read and follow $peer-review from the installed skill directory, with a request describing: (a) the plan under review, passed as above; (b) the criteria live in ~/.agents/skills/review-plan/references/plan-structure-review.md and ~/.agents/skills/review-plan/references/plan-scope-review.md — the reviewer should read both files directly and cover every criterion in one single-pass review, applying each file's determination criteria and priority scale to the findings in that file's domain; (c) the Overall Verdict should use the Readiness: <ready | needs revision> label; (d) the already-adjudicated findings list when one was supplied, framed as described above. The branch prompt must also state explicitly that the sub-agent's final message must contain the verbatim findings text $peer-review produced.

Aggregate findings with attribution (reviewer: "internal" or "peer", each with its "structure" or "scope" dimension). Present them in the output format below.

Then call update_plan to mark this step completed and continue with the next step of the active workflow.

Output Format

Format each finding as:

### [P<N>] <title (imperative, ≤80 chars)>

**Section:** <plan section>
**Reviewer:** <internal | peer> (<structure | scope>)

<one paragraph explaining the issue and its impact>

After all findings, place the Overall Verdict block each internal branch returned for its dimension, then a single combined block for the peer review:

## Overall Verdict: <Structure | Scope>

**Readiness:** <ready | needs revision>

<1-3 sentence assessment>
## Peer Review Verdict

**Readiness:** <ready | needs revision>

<1-3 sentence assessment>

If there are no qualifying findings, state so and explain briefly.

Rules

  • Present findings grouped by priority.

© tobihagemann, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 2 other files (references) in codex/skills/review-plan of tobihagemann/turbo.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/plan-scope-review.md
  • references/plan-structure-review.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 931eda5

Compare with similar skills

Review Plan next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Review Plan compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Review Plan this skilltobihagemann/turbo408—~2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Peer Reviewspacering-net/codeg3.9k17 repos~5.9kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Scholar Evaluationspacering-net/codeg3.9k11 repos~3.2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Academic Paper Writing PipelineImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~16kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Academic Paper ReviewerImbad0202/academic-research-skills51k—~11kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Peer ReviewK-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer2.4k2 repos~3.1kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT

Similar skills

  • Peer Review

    spacering-net/codeg

    Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation.

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 17 repos~5.9k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes
  • Scholar Evaluation

    spacering-net/codeg

    Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and…

    3.9k GitHub starsUsed in 11 repos~3.2k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed
  • Academic Paper Writing Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Runs a 12-agent pipeline that plans, drafts, cites, reviews and formats academic papers, with modes for revision, rebuttals, abstracts and citation checks.

    51k GitHub stars~16k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed
  • Academic Paper Reviewer

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Simulates a journal peer review of a manuscript with a five-seat reviewer panel, an editorial synthesizer and several review modes.

    51k GitHub stars~11k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed
  • Peer Review

    K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer

    Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments.

    2.4k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check: notes
  • Academic Research Pipeline

    Imbad0202/academic-research-skills

    Orchestrates a ten-stage academic workflow from research to finished manuscript, including integrity checks, two rounds of peer review and revision.

    51k GitHub stars~15k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

More from tobihagemann/turbo

All 81 skills in this repo
  • Consult Oracle

    tobihagemann/turbo

    Consult ChatGPT Pro via ChatGPT browser automation for problems that resist standard approaches.

    408 GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Fetch PR Comments

    tobihagemann/turbo

    Fetch and summarize review feedback and conversation from a GitHub PR (unresolved review threads, review bodies, and PR conversation comments) without making changes.

    408 GitHub stars~967 tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Recall Rationale

    tobihagemann/turbo

    Recall why a past change was made by locating the Claude Code transcript that produced it.

    408 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Resolve PR Comments

    tobihagemann/turbo

    Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments.

    408 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Resolve PR Comments

    tobihagemann/turbo

    Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments.

    408 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Assess Technical Debt

    tobihagemann/turbo

    Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, architecture rot, and low-value tests.

    408 GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Review Plan

What does Review Plan do?

Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Review Plan is an agent skill from tobihagemann/turbo. Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings.

When should I use Review Plan?

Review Plan fits situations like: the user asks to review my plan; critique my plan; wants feedback on a plan.

How do I install Review Plan in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill review-plan -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (codex/skills/review-plan in tobihagemann/turbo) into .claude/skills/review-plan in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Review Plan in Codex?

Run `npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill review-plan -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (codex/skills/review-plan in tobihagemann/turbo) into .agents/skills/review-plan in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Review Plan in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add tobihagemann/turbo --skill review-plan -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/review-plan, .gemini/skills/review-plan, .github/skills/review-plan and .opencode/skills/review-plan in your project.

What does Review Plan need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Review Plan needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git).

Does Review Plan access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Review Plan safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Review Plan use?

Review Plan is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Review Plan use?

About 2k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 7.9k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 1.9k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Review Plan?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Review Plan: Peer Review (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Scholar Evaluation (spacering-net/codeg, 3.9k stars), Academic Paper Writing Pipeline (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars) and Academic Paper Reviewer (Imbad0202/academic-research-skills, 51k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Review Plan?

tobihagemann (a GitHub user) maintains it in tobihagemann/turbo, which has 408 GitHub stars. The repository holds 81 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 9, 2026.

Source: tobihagemann/turbo on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.