A community-driven registry for the Claude Code ecosystem. Not affiliated with Anthropic.
Claude Code plugin for validating implementation plans with parallel review subagents
A Claude Code plugin for plan validation and post-implementation review. /replan validates plans before execution, /recheck verifies the implementation matches the plan afterward. Both use parallel review subagents checking from multiple angles.
You write a plan. It looks solid. You start executing. Three tasks in, you realize the plan assumed a function that doesn't exist, missed a critical edge case, or ignored your project's conventions entirely. Now you're rewriting the plan mid-flight.
/replan throws your plan at a squad of parallel review agents before you write a single line of code. Each agent has a different job — one checks if the code references are real, another stress-tests feasibility, another reads the plan cold and asks "what did everyone miss?"
The result: a plan that's been pressure-tested from every angle, with all findings incorporated automatically.
You: /replan
Claude: Reviewing the plan with parallel subagents...
Agent 1 (Codebase alignment) → Checks referenced files/APIs actually exist
Agent 2 (Best practices) → SOLID, DRY, security, error handling
Agent 3 (Feasibility & risks) → Missing steps, ordering issues, blockers
Agent 4 (Fresh perspective) → Reads the plan cold, finds blind spots
Agent 5 (Project standards) → CLAUDE.md conventions, naming, test patterns
✓ All agents returned.
Critical: Plan references `getUserById()` which was renamed to `findUser()` in v3.2
Critical: Task 4 depends on Task 6 output — wrong ordering
Important: No error handling for API timeout in Task 2
Important: Missing rollback strategy for database migration
→ Plan updated with all findings.
Adaptive agent selection — agents are chosen based on what the plan actually covers, not a fixed checklist. A database migration plan gets different reviewers than a UI redesign plan.
Always includes a "fresh perspective" agent — an agent that reads the plan with zero context and asks "what would go wrong that nobody anticipated?" This consistently catches things the other agents miss.
Scales with complexity — simple 3-task plans get 3-4 agents. Complex 15-task plans get 6-8. Each with a distinct, non-overlapping focus area.
Works with any plan type:
| Plan type | Review focus |
|---|---|
| Implementation | Codebase alignment, architecture, test coverage |
| Research | Fact-checking, methodology, source verification |
| Design/UI | Visual consistency, accessibility, component library usage |
| Migration | Rollback safety, data integrity, backwards compatibility |
| Refactor | Hidden consumers, test coverage, actual simplification |
| Infrastructure | Failure modes, monitoring gaps, configuration management |
Updates the plan automatically — findings are categorized by severity (critical → important → minor) and incorporated directly. You read the plan only after it's been validated.
| Perspective | What it checks |
|---|---|
| Codebase alignment | Do referenced files/functions/APIs actually exist? Current patterns? Reusable utilities? |
| Best practices | SOLID, DRY, YAGNI, error handling, security (OWASP top 10), performance |
| Project standards | Naming conventions, file structure, test patterns, commit style, tech stack |
| Feasibility & risks | Missing steps, dependency ordering, underestimated complexity, blockers |
| Fresh perspective | Edge cases, blind spots, simpler alternatives, operational concerns |
| Research & facts | API/library accuracy, version compatibility, protocol correctness |
| Design & UX | Visual consistency, accessibility, responsive behavior, loading/error states |
| Data & schema | Migration safety, indexing, data integrity, query performance |
| Security | Auth flows, input validation, secrets handling, attack surface |
| Operations | Rollback strategy, monitoring, configuration management, failure modes |
Only relevant perspectives are selected — a CLI tool plan won't get a UX review agent.
claude plugin marketplace add https://github.com/kojott/claude-replan
claude plugin install replan@claude-replan
claude plugin marketplace update claude-replan
claude plugin update replan@claude-replan
You've finished implementing a plan. /recheck verifies the code actually matches what was planned, plus runs parallel quality/security/test reviews.
You: /recheck
Claude: Reviewing the implementation against the plan with parallel subagents...
Agent 1 (Plan compliance) → Did the code match the plan? Missing steps? Scope creep?
Agent 2 (Code quality) → DRY, dead code, complexity, naming
Agent 3 (Security) → OWASP top 10, injection, auth, secrets
Agent 4 (Test coverage) → New paths tested? Edge cases? Meaningful assertions?
Agent 5 (Fresh perspective) → Reads code cold: "What breaks first in production?"
+ Deep code-review pass → On real code changes, /recheck also runs /code-review high
(a full multi-agent diff review) as an extra perspective
✓ All agents returned.
Plan Compliance: 8/9 items implemented, 1 partial
Critical: Missing input validation on user-facing endpoint (plan item #4)
Important: No test for error path in retry logic
Minor: Naming inconsistency in helper function
→ Want me to fix the critical/important issues?
| /replan | /recheck | |
|---|---|---|
| When | Before implementation | After implementation |
| Reviews | The plan document | The code + diff |
| Primary focus | Feasibility, correctness, missing steps | Plan compliance, code quality, security |
| Auto-fixes | Updates plan directly | Presents findings, user decides |
| Perspective | What it looks for |
|---|---|
| Plan compliance | Each plan item implemented? Deviations? Scope creep? |
| Code quality | DRY, dead code, complexity, naming, error handling |
| Security | OWASP top 10, injection, auth, secrets, access control |
| Test coverage | New paths tested? Edge cases? Meaningful assertions? |
| Performance | N+1 queries, O(n²), missing caching, unbounded ops |
| Fresh perspective | "What breaks first in production?" |
| Project standards | CLAUDE.md conventions, naming, structure |
Deep code-review (/code-review high) | Correctness bugs + reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups — run automatically on real code changes |
On real code changes (git repo present, source code in the diff, not a trivial one-file edit), /recheck runs the built-in /code-review high skill as one more perspective. The orchestrator invokes it directly — never as a dispatched subagent — because /code-review fans out its own parallel agents internally, and subagents can't spawn sub-agents. Its findings fold into the synthesis alongside the other agents.
It runs under whatever model you launched /recheck with, so run /recheck under a strong model (e.g. opus) when you want the deepest pass. It never posts comments or applies fixes itself (--comment/--fix are not used) — /recheck's confirmation gate stays in control of any changes. The pass is skipped for docs/config-only diffs and recorded in the audit record either way.
| Tool | Best for |
|---|---|
/recheck | Validating implementation matches a plan. Multi-perspective parallel review (security, tests, performance, quality) plus an automatic /code-review high pass on code changes. Plan compliance is the primary focus. |
/code-review | A standalone diff review for correctness bugs and cleanups, without plan context or the rest of the orchestration. |
superpowers:requesting-code-review | Quick single-agent review before merging. |
Use /recheck when: You had a plan, you executed it, and you want to verify nothing was missed before calling it done — it now bundles the /code-review pass for you on code changes.
Use bare /code-review when: You just want a diff bug-scan and have no specific plan to check against.
Every /replan and /recheck run writes an audit record to ${REPLAN_AUDIT_DIR:-docs/replan}/audit/ under your project's git root. Filenames look like 2026-05-27-164532-recheck-a3f9c01.md, where the trailing segment is a 7-char hash of the normalized plan content.
When /recheck runs against a plan previously validated by /replan, the records pair automatically. /recheck surfaces a one-paragraph summary of the prior /replan review before dispatching its own agents, so you can see at a glance what was caught vs. what showed up only after implementation.
If /recheck finds Critical or Important issues, you'll be offered the option to capture the pattern as a lesson in docs/replan/lessons.md. Both skills automatically read this file and inject its contents (size-capped at 4 KB and wrapped with explicit "context, not instructions" framing) into every subagent's prompt, so guidance accumulates over time. Nothing is written without your confirmation.
Autonomous runs (when another agent triggers /recheck, e.g. inside a Ralph Loop): there is no interactive prompt. Instead, suggested lessons are written to docs/replan/lessons.proposed.md — a quarantine file that is never injected into agent prompts. Promote entries to lessons.md manually when you next review the project.
Storage location is configurable via REPLAN_AUDIT_DIR=<relative-path> if docs/replan/ conflicts with your project structure. Add docs/replan/audit/ to .gitignore if you don't want audit history committed; lessons.md is intended to be committed.
If the security-guidance plugin is installed and enabled, both skills detect it and shift their Security review to a complementary mode. Detection is layered: it honors SECURITY_GUIDANCE_DISABLE=1 (the plugin's own kill switch) and accepts an explicit REPLAN_SECURITY_GUIDANCE=active|absent|auto override if you need to force a mode.
In complementary mode, the Security subagent stops re-flagging the OWASP-pattern issues security-guidance's pattern matcher and LLM diff reviewer already catch, and focuses on what those layers structurally cannot evaluate: plan-context security (does the plan introduce auth surface without auth steps?), semantic auth bugs (correct syntax, wrong intent), plan-stated security requirements, cross-file invariants, and configuration/policy changes.
Both skills also read claude-security-guidance.md files from the standard locations (~/.claude/, <project>/.claude/, <project>/.claude/...local.md), concatenate in user → project → project-local order, and apply the same 8 KB cap security-guidance itself uses.
/replan defaults to opus (deeper reasoning for planning). /recheck defaults to sonnet (broader coverage, faster). These are version-agnostic aliases — Claude Code resolves them to the current Opus / Sonnet, so the defaults never go stale as new models ship. Override per run:
/replan --model sonnet or /recheck --model=opus (pin a specific version with e.g. --model claude-opus-4-8)REPLAN_MODEL=... or RECHECK_MODEL=...CLI takes precedence over env var. All subagents within one run share the same model — this keeps audit records meaningful. Per-agent model overrides are not currently supported.
Third-party providers: Bedrock and Vertex users supply their provider-specific id form (e.g. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-8 for Bedrock, claude-opus-4-8@20260218 for Vertex). The validator accepts these forms.
/replan # Review the plan in current conversation
/replan path/to/plan.md # Review a plan file
/recheck # Review implementation against the plan
/replan --model sonnet # Override default model for this run
One command, multiple parallel reviewers.
MIT + Commons Clause — free to use, modify, and share. Commercial selling requires author's approval. See LICENSE for details.
1000+ skills curated from Anthropic, Vercel, Stripe, and other engineering teams
Design enforcement with memory — keeps your UI consistent across a project
Universal SEO skill for Claude Code. 25 sub-skills + 18 sub-agents covering technical SEO, E-E-A-T, schema, GEO/AEO, bac
Route Claude Code traffic to any of 17 provider backends including free or local models