check-plan-done — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited check-plan-done (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
⚠️ DEPRECATED — Use /plan instead. All functionality has been merged into the ultimate /plan skill.
Check -> Plan -> Review -> Do -> Verify
Use this skill when the user wants one workflow that can:
This skill is the merged successor to:
omoc-plan-swarm/biometrics-plan/biometrics-workIt preserves the strong parts of those sources and removes the weak ones:
Infer one of these modes before doing any work:
plan-onlyplan-and-executeresume-approved-planIf the mode is unclear, pick the safest reasonable default from the user request. Only ask at the approval gate when the next action is destructive, irreversible, security-sensitive, or billing-sensitive.
gh issue create or sin-github-issues) before executing. Update the issue during execution, and close it when done.Before planning, answer these questions:
If the answer to all three is yes, skip to Stage 4: Execute in resume-approved-plan mode. Otherwise, create a fresh plan.
Run both tasks in parallel.
Use a focused research task to gather current implementation guidance.
task({
subagent_type: "librarian",
run_in_background: true,
load_skills: [],
description: "Best-practice research for: [TOPIC]",
prompt: `
Research this implementation topic.
TOPIC: [insert task description]
DATE: [today's date]
Deliver:
1. Current best practices
2. Stable production-ready choices
3. Anti-patterns to avoid
4. Constraints that matter during execution
Output: concise markdown with concrete findings and sources when relevant.
No filler.
`
})task({
subagent_type: "explore",
run_in_background: true,
load_skills: [],
description: "Context analysis for: [TOPIC]",
prompt: `
Analyze the local codebase or project context for this task.
TASK: [insert task description]
PATH: [project path]
Deliver:
1. Current structure and relevant surfaces
2. Existing patterns to preserve
3. Gaps or debt that affect the task
4. Integration points that can break
5. Validation commands or checks already used by the project
Output: concise markdown with file references when applicable.
No filler.
`
})Do not proceed unless:
If one branch is weak, rerun only that branch once with a tighter prompt.
Synthesize one execution-ready plan.
task({
category: "deep",
load_skills: [],
run_in_background: false,
description: "Create plan for: [TOPIC]",
prompt: `
Create an execution-ready plan from these findings.
TASK: [insert task description]
BEST PRACTICES: [paste research output]
LOCAL CONTEXT: [paste explore output]
Use this exact structure:
# Plan: [Title]
Mode: [plan-only | plan-and-execute | resume-approved-plan]
Created: [date]
## Summary
[what, why, expected result]
## Current State
[strengths, weaknesses, critical gaps]
## Decisions
[what to use, what to avoid, why]
## Phases
### Phase 1: [name] -- CRITICAL
- [ ] Task (effort: S/M/L, deps: ..., validation: ...)
### Phase 2: [name] -- HIGH
- [ ] Task (effort: S/M/L, deps: ..., validation: ...)
### Phase 3: [name] -- OPTIONAL
- [ ] Task (effort: S/M/L, deps: ..., validation: ...)
## Risks
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
## Done Criteria
- [ ] Criterion
## Sources
- [ ] Reference link or source path
## Dependencies
- [ ] Dependent issue ID or blocker
RULES:
- every task must be concrete and actionable
- every task must include validation
- Phase 1 must be the smallest critical path
- maximum 3 phases
`
})Do not proceed unless the plan includes:
If anything is missing, fix the plan before review.
Run one hard review, then integrate the feedback yourself.
task({
category: "artistry",
load_skills: [],
run_in_background: false,
description: "Critical review of plan for: [TOPIC]",
prompt: `
Review this plan critically.
PLAN:
[paste plan]
Check:
1. Critical gaps
2. False assumptions
3. Priority errors
4. Scope realism
5. Technical soundness
6. New debt introduced by the plan
Output:
## Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION
## Issues
### CRITICAL
- ...
### HIGH
- ...
### LOW
- ...
## Suggested Changes
[concrete rewrites]
Be direct. No praise. No filler.
`
})APPROVED, continueNEEDS REVISION, revise once yourself and re-check locallyIf the mode is plan-only, return the approved plan here and stop.
If execution mode is active, ask one targeted approval question here before execution if the action is destructive, irreversible, security-sensitive, or billing-sensitive.
If the project is a Git repository, the agent MUST persist the approved plan to GitHub using the Issue Architect before execution begins.
Use the one-shot control-plane command to convert the approved plan into a roadmap and create the GitHub board:
node ~/dev/sin-solver-control-plane/packages/cli/src/index.mjs issues \
--plan <path_to_saved_plan.md> \
--repo <owner/repo> \
--phase <phase_id> \
--dry-runThen remove --dry-run for the real creation pass.
This automatically:
plan-to-roadmap.mjsissue-architect.mjscheck-plan-done phase structure in GitHub issue formThis creates:
If you need manual control, you can still run the two scripts separately.
Roadmap JSON structure:
{
"labels": [{ "name": "epic", "color": "6f42c1", "description": "..." }],
"masterTracker": { "title": "[Master] Phase X: ...", "summary": "..." },
"epics": [{
"id": "XA", "title": "[Epic] ...", "priority": "P0",
"labels": ["epic", "phase:x"], "context": "...",
"scope": ["..."], "acceptanceCriteria": ["..."],
"governanceGates": ["sin doctor must pass"],
"sources": ["[Link](url)"], "dependsOn": ["#NN"],
"subIssues": [{
"title": "[XA-1] ...", "priority": "P0",
"labels": ["phase:x"], "tasks": ["..."],
"acceptanceCriteria": ["..."]
}]
}]
}Schema: ~/dev/sin-solver-control-plane/contracts/issue-architect-roadmap.schema.json Example: ~/dev/sin-solver-control-plane/roadmaps/example-phase4.json
~/.config/opencode/scripts/sin-github-ceo.sh <plan.md> "<Epic Title>"~/.config/opencode/scripts/install-ceo-git-hooks.sh~/.config/opencode/scripts/sync-github-board.shOutput the created Master Epic URL to the user and declare King CEO Mode active.
Turn the approved plan into a live task loop.
Execution rules:
~/.config/opencode/scripts/sync-github-board.sh after major completions to keep the local board fresh. Add a comment to the GitHub Sub-Task with gh issue comment <ID>.Do not create an unbounded orchestration loop. Use a bounded task loop with clear pass/fail checkpoints.
Before stopping, verify:
~/.config/opencode/scripts/sync-github-board.sh one last time.Return:
If the work is not actually done, continue the loop instead of giving a premature finish message.
An Enterprise-grade agent ensures knowledge outlives the task.
gh issue close <ID> --comment "...".If the project has a GitHub Wiki:
~/.config/opencode/scripts/sync-github-wiki.sh <path_to_saved_plan.md>https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/wiki/_new, create an initial page, then re-run.boulder.jsongo fmt or go vetThe contract of this skill is simple:
That is what /check-plan-done means.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.