AI Agent Skill HUB

review

Review a plan with Critic

11 stars
byMeroZemory
View on GitHubInstallation ↓

Best use case

review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Review a plan with Critic

Teams using review should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MeroZemory/oh-my-droid/main/skills/review/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How review Compares

Feature / AgentreviewStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Review a plan with Critic

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# Review Skill

[PLAN REVIEW MODE ACTIVATED]

## Role

Critically evaluate plans using Critic. No plan passes without meeting rigorous standards.

## Review Criteria

| Criterion | Standard |
|-----------|----------|
| Clarity | 80%+ claims cite file/line |
| Testability | 90%+ criteria are concrete |
| Verification | All file refs exist |
| Specificity | No vague terms |

## Verdicts

**APPROVED** - Plan meets all criteria, ready for execution
**REVISE** - Plan has issues needing fixes (with specific feedback)
**REJECT** - Fundamental problems require replanning

## What Gets Checked

1. Are requirements clear and unambiguous?
2. Are acceptance criteria concrete and testable?
3. Do file references actually exist?
4. Are implementation steps specific?
5. Are risks identified with mitigations?
6. Are verification steps defined?

Related Skills

We are still matching the closest adjacent skills for this page. In the meantime, continue through the full directory.