longranger2/claude-gpt-workflow/plan-review

Plan Review Skill

Purpose

When the user runs /plan-review {plan-file-path}, start the "adversarial plan iteration" workflow:

1. I (Claude Code) ask Codex to perform a critical review of the specified plan.
2. I read the review produced by Codex and evaluate whether its suggestions are sound.
3. I revise the plan based on valid suggestions and write changes back to the original plan file.
4. If the review status is NEEDS_REVISION, I automatically ask Codex to review again.
5. Repeat until consensus is reached as MOSTLY_GOOD or APPROVED.

Usage

/plan-review plans/my-feature-plan.md

Session Reuse

After each Codex invocation, extract session_id=xxx from the script output and save it as the session ID for the current task. In later Codex calls for the same task, pass --session <id> to reuse context so Codex remembers prior review history and can stay consistent across multiple rounds.

My Workflow (Claude Code)

Step 1: Determine the Review File

Derive the review file path from the plan file name:

• plans/auth-refactor.md → reviews/auth-refactor-review.md
• Rule: reviews/{plan-file-name-without-.md}-review.md

If the review file already exists, this is not the first round, so Codex must track the resolution status of issues from the previous round.

Step 2: Ask Codex to Review the Plan

Use the /codex skill and give Codex the following instruction:

Read the contents of {plan-file-path} and review it critically as an independent third-party reviewer.
 
Requirements:
- Raise at least 10 concrete and actionable improvement points
- Each issue must include: issue description + exact location/reference in the plan + improvement suggestion
- Use severity levels: Critical > High > Medium > Low > Suggestion
- If {review-file-path} already exists, read it first and track the resolution status of previous issues in the new round
 
Analysis dimensions, choosing the relevant ones based on the plan type:
- Architectural soundness: overdesign vs underdesign, module boundaries, single responsibility
- Technology choices: rationale, alternatives, compatibility with the existing project stack
- Completeness: missing scenarios, overlooked edge cases, dependency and impact scope
- Feasibility: implementation complexity, performance risks, migration and compatibility concerns
- Engineering quality: whether it follows the Code Quality Hard Limits in `CLAUDE.md`
- User experience: interaction flow, error/loading states, i18n when relevant
- Security: authentication, authorization, data validation when relevant
 
Append the current review round to {review-file-path}, creating the file if it does not exist.
Separate rounds with `---` and append new rounds at the end of the file. Use this format:
 
---
 
## Round {N} — {YYYY-MM-DD}
 
### Overall Assessment
{2-3 sentence overall assessment}
**Rating**: {X}/10
 
### Previous Round Tracking (R2+ only)
| # | Issue | Status | Notes |
|---|-------|--------|-------|
 
### Issues
#### Issue 1 ({severity}): {title}
**Location**: {location in the plan}
{issue description}
**Suggestion**: {improvement suggestion}
... (at least 10 issues)
 
### Positive Aspects
- ...
 
### Summary
{Top 3 key issues}
**Consensus Status**: NEEDS_REVISION / MOSTLY_GOOD / APPROVED
 
Key principle: be a critical reviewer, not a yes-man. Every issue must be specific enough that someone knows how to revise the plan.

When the review file is created for the first time, add this header at the top:

# Plan Review: {plan title}
 
**Plan File**: {plan-file-path}
**Reviewer**: Codex

Step 3: Read the Review and Revise the Plan

After Codex finishes, I read the latest review round in the review file:

1. Evaluate each issue raised by Codex one by one.
2. Adopt valid suggestions and revise the plan file.
3. If rejecting an unreasonable suggestion, optionally note the reason briefly in the plan.
4. Update the original plan file directly instead of creating a new file.

Step 4: Decide Whether to Continue Iterating

Use the Consensus Status provided by Codex:

Step 5: Wrap Up

After the iteration is complete, report the following to the user:

• How many review rounds were completed
• Which major areas were improved
• The final plan file path
• The review log file path

File Convention

• One review file per plan: reviews/{topic}-review.md
• {topic} is the plan file name without .md
• Append all rounds to the same file and separate them with ---
• Example: plans/auth-refactor.md -> reviews/auth-refactor-review.md