feat: add reviewed planning skill

create-plan/references/plan-quality-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Plan Quality Checklist
+
+Apply before final delivery and after material revisions. Require evidence, not intent.
+
+## Dependencies and evidence
+
+- [ ] `subagent` was active; `doctor` had no blocking error.
+- [ ] `list` confirmed executable `context-builder`, `planner`, and `reviewer`; `researcher` was confirmed when required.
+- [ ] Every foreground or forced-async child reached an observed terminal state before its output was used.
+- [ ] Required research and independent review completed safely.
+- [ ] Outcome, in-scope behavior, material non-goals, constraints, and approach are unambiguous.
+- [ ] Material ambiguity was answered by the user or remains an explicit blocking gate.
+- [ ] Key local files appear in the evidence table with path, relevance, and plan impact.
+- [ ] External claims cite inspected, authoritative, version-matched sources.
+- [ ] Every material finding affects a decision, task, check, non-goal, or open gate.
+
+## Tasks and readiness
+
+- [ ] Final status is `Ready for implementation` only when no material gate remains; otherwise it is `Blocked`.
+- [ ] Stable-ID tasks contain concrete **Change** bullets, not prose blobs.
+- [ ] Starting paths and symbols are useful but non-exhaustive.
+- [ ] Tests name the behavior they protect.
+- [ ] Verification uses exact commands and expected success signals.
+- [ ] Dependencies, migration/operator steps, risks, and recovery are present when material.
+- [ ] Tasks are flat unless real sequencing, migration, or release boundaries require phases.
+- [ ] Each task was challenged for a smaller alternative; speculative machinery and scope are absent.
+- [ ] Final acceptance covers repository gates, end-to-end behavior, deferrals, and the observable end state.
+- [ ] Template guidance, empty optional fields, duplicated rationale, and review ledgers were removed.
+
+## Review and delivery
+
+- [ ] Fresh reviewers covered feasibility, validation, and simplicity in proportion to risk.
+- [ ] Every finding was dispositioned as `Accept`, `Validate`, `Reject`, `Ask user`, or `Block`.
+- [ ] Accepted material changes were independently re-reviewed.
+- [ ] All commissioned reviewers reported `Clear`, or the plan is blocked/escalated without claiming closure.
+- [ ] The parent inspected critical evidence and owns the final synthesis.
+- [ ] Only `.plans/<kebab-name>.md` was written by this workflow, excluding explicitly retained dependency diagnostics.
+- [ ] Delivery reports the path, decisions and gates, review closure, validation strategy, fallbacks, and remaining risks.