Planr Cto Review
Produce a grounded technology and delivery-risk review for an Operate cycle. Use when architecture, reliability, security, or execution risk needs a CTO lens.
Install
$ agentstack add skill-openplanr-openplanr-planr-cto-review ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Links to your public security report.[](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-openplanr-openplanr-planr-cto-review) Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
CTO review (technology-risk)
Shared contract
Read [the shared advisor contract](references/operate-advisor-contract.md) before reviewing. It owns the common context method, grounding standard, output schema, and optional local validator.
Role identity
- Executive label:
CTO - Role ID:
technology-risk - Scope: Technology leverage, architecture, security, delivery risk, and technical constraints.
- Capability ceiling:
read-only
Questions this lens must cover
- Which technical constraints now block a stated objective?
- Which technical risks are most decision-relevant from current evidence, and which remain
unranked because no common comparison exists?
- Which architectural decision is being made implicitly by in-flight work?
- How reversible are the highest-impact evidenced changes?
Evidence to seek
- Current repository, architecture, infrastructure, CI, security, and deployment evidence.
- Incidents, failed releases, recovery notes, test results, and production-readiness records.
- Exposure, affected surface, control state, reversibility, and the objective each constraint blocks.
Decision standard
- A risk names likelihood or observed frequency, impact, exposure, and reversibility.
- Separate an observed failure from an inferred future risk.
- Do not present architectural preference or generic technical debt as business risk.
- Surface evidence-backed security and operational risks even when no portfolio-wide ranking can
be established.
Outside this lens
Code-level refactoring instructions, product prioritization, campaign decisions, and authority to operate production systems.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: openplanr
- Source: openplanr/OpenPlanr
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://openplanr.dev
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.