# Android Plan Review > Kotlin/Compose Android implementation plan reviewer. Runs a supervised multi-domain audit - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-ryanmakesandbreaksstuff-custom-codex-claude-plugins-and-skills-android-plan-review` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/ryanmakesandbreaksstuff) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff](https://github.com/RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff) - **Source:** https://github.com/RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff/Custom-Codex-Claude-Plugins-and-Skills/tree/main/android-plan-review ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-ryanmakesandbreaksstuff-custom-codex-claude-plugins-and-skills-android-plan-review ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Android Plan Review > Reviews implementation plans and architecture proposals. For existing code, use `/supervised-review`. ## Android Anti-Patterns — Quick Reference Flag any of the following the moment they appear in the plan — do not wait for domain reviewers: - **NEVER** accept a plan that calls DAOs directly from a ViewModel — repository layer boundary violation; breaks testability and single-source-of-truth. - **NEVER** accept `GlobalScope` for any operation — unstructured, non-cancellable, guaranteed memory leak vector. - **NEVER** accept user-editable state stored in-memory only with no `SavedStateHandle` — lost on process death, fails Android CTS. - **NEVER** accept `StateFlow` used for one-shot navigation events — re-delivered on resubscription and config change; use `Channel` + `receiveAsFlow()`. - **NEVER** accept `collectAsState` for Flow collection in Composables — use `collectAsStateWithLifecycle` or leaks collection during background. - **NEVER** accept a ViewModel scoped as `@Singleton` in Hilt — survives screen destruction, holds stale UI state indefinitely. - **NEVER** accept PII, auth tokens, or credentials in Logcat — Play Store policy violation; always CRITICAL severity. - **NEVER** accept a Foreground Service plan without explicit `android:foregroundServiceType` — crash on API 34+ (Android 14). - **NEVER** accept `SharedPreferences` for new structured persistence without justification — `DataStore` is the current MAD recommendation. - **NEVER** accept a plan that omits `android:exported` on a component with an intent filter targeting API 31+ — required field, causes install failure. --- ## Required Inputs Load files **only at the phase indicated**. Pre-loading wastes context; the `skeptic.txt` / `domain-reviewer.txt` mutual exclusion is a hard correctness requirement — a reviewer persona contaminated with skeptic instructions will hedge findings instead of committing to them. | File | Load at phase | Do NOT load at | If missing | |---|---|---|---| | `references/prompts/orchestrator.txt` | Start of run | — | Apply `Non-Negotiable Rules` + `Orchestration Sequence` from this SKILL.md | | `references/prompts/lead-engineer.txt` | Start of run | — | Inline: assign 5 domains per catalog below, produce Plan v1, respond to skeptic IDs | | `resources/audit-passes.md` | Step 3 — before reviewer spawn | Start of run | **Refuse to run** — audit cannot proceed without pass definitions | | `resources/severity-guide.md` | Step 3 — before reviewer spawn | Start of run | **Refuse to run** — findings cannot be graded without it | | `references/prompts/domain-reviewer.txt` | Step 3 — before reviewer spawn | Step 5 (**MUST NOT** load alongside skeptic.txt) | Inline the 8 passes from `resources/audit-passes.md` + severity rubric | | `references/prompts/skeptic.txt` | Step 5 — before skeptic spawn | Step 3 (**MUST NOT** load alongside domain-reviewer.txt) | Inline: no artifacts, no solutions, challenge-only, use `SK--###` format | | `references/templates/domain-round-template.md` | Step 5 — before skeptic spawn | — | Use `Skeptic Transcript Contract` section below | | `references/templates/final-report-template.md` | Step 7 — final compile | — | Use `Required Final Output` section below | --- ## Non-Negotiable Rules - Keep all work in a single end-to-end run. No deferred phases. - Domain scopes are disjoint. No plan section falls in two domains. - Skeptic is challenge-only. Skeptic emits no designs, no fixes, no code. - Every finding references a **plan section or line** — vague findings ("needs more thought") are rejected. - Every patch-note change maps to exactly one `SK--###` ID from that domain's transcript. - Final issue list preserves original reviewer finding IDs and any skeptic ID that altered it. - Duplicates merged during consolidation must preserve source-domain traceability. ## NEVER - **NEVER assign a plan section to two domains.** Creates duplicate, conflicting findings. - **NEVER let the skeptic see another domain's findings.** Cross-contamination breaks traceability. - **NEVER spawn domain reviewers sequentially when subagents are available.** Parallel depth is the point. - **NEVER name a domain "misc", "other", or "general".** Unscoped domains produce unchallengeable findings. - **NEVER let the lead invent new findings during refinement.** Skeptic rounds expose gaps; they do not authorize new scope without a triggering `SK--###` ID. - **NEVER skip the skeptic phase for any domain.** Every domain must be adversarially reviewed. - **NEVER emit a patch-note change without its originating `SK--###` ID.** --- ## Orchestration Sequence Execute in this exact order: 1. **Scope phase.** Read the plan document(s) provided by the user. Identify: feature scope, stated tech stack, screen/flow inventory, data model sketches, any constraints noted. 2. **Lead engineer assignment.** Assign the plan sections across the five fixed Android domains below. For each domain, define: - Which plan sections / components it owns (disjoint). - A one-line rationale for why this grouping makes sense for this plan. - Note if a domain has "no planned content" (still receives a skeptic round asking whether the omission is intentional). 3. **Parallel domain reviewers.** **MANDATORY before spawning**: Read `references/prompts/domain-reviewer.txt`, `resources/audit-passes.md`, and `resources/severity-guide.md` in full. Do NOT load `references/prompts/skeptic.txt` at this step. Spawn one `general-purpose` subagent per domain in a **single message** (multiple tool calls). Each subagent prompt includes: - The full `domain-reviewer.txt` persona. - The domain's assigned plan sections. - The 8-pass audit checklist. - The severity rubric. - Output contract: findings table with `id | severity | pass | plan-ref | problem | recommendation`. 4. **Consolidation → Plan v1.** Lead merges raw findings; deduplicates while preserving source-domain IDs. Malformed rows (missing plan-ref or wrong ID format): mark `[MALFORMED]` with source domain; proceed with valid rows. 5. **Per-domain skeptic rounds.** **MANDATORY before skeptic spawn**: Read `references/prompts/skeptic.txt` and `references/templates/domain-round-template.md` in full. Do NOT reload `domain-reviewer.txt`. For each domain (sequential or parallel): - Skeptic receives **only** that domain's Plan v1 slice. - Skeptic emits IDs `SK--001`, `SK--002`, … - Lead responds per ID with `Decision: ACCEPT/REJECT/DEFER`, `Rationale`, `Plan Delta`. 6. **Per-domain refinement.** Lead applies accepted deltas. Produces `Patch Notes ( v1 → final)` mapping every change to its `SK--###` ID. 7. **Final compile.** Merge refined per-domain slices into one severity-grouped issue list. Append transcripts and patch notes as appendices. --- ## Android Domain Catalog (Fixed) These five domains are always used. If a domain has no content in the plan, the reviewer still runs and flags the omission. | Domain | Plan sections it owns | Android scope | |---|---|---| | `ui-compose` | Screens, navigation graph, UI state design, theming, component hierarchy | Composables, state hoisting, `NavHost`/destinations, Material 3, accessibility, `@Preview` strategy, recomposition safety | | `arch-viewmodel` | ViewModel design, UiState shape, use cases, domain layer, coroutine scopes | MVVM/MVI correctness, `StateFlow`/`SharedFlow` usage, use-case boundaries, `viewModelScope`, process-death survival, `SavedStateHandle` | | `data-repository` | Repository interfaces, Room schema, DataStore, network layer, caching strategy | Repository pattern, Room entities/DAOs/migrations, DataStore vs SharedPrefs, Retrofit/Ktor setup, offline-first considerations, threading | | `di-wiring` | Hilt module design, bindings, component scopes, injection strategy | `@InstallIn` scoping, `@Singleton` vs `@ActivityRetainedScoped` vs `@ViewModelScoped`, `@Provides` vs `@Binds`, test substitution | | `platform-android` | Manifest, permissions, lifecycle, background work, ProGuard/R8, build config | `AndroidManifest.xml` completeness, runtime permissions UX, `WorkManager`/`Service`/`BroadcastReceiver` plan, activity/fragment lifecycle concerns, minSdk targets, R8 keep rules | --- ## Required Final Output Start with exactly: `# Android Plan Review — ` Then include sections in this exact order: - `## A. Plan-as-submitted` — feature scope, stated stack, screens/flows inventoried, stated constraints - `## B. Domain Assignments` — table: `| Domain | Plan sections owned | Reviewer agent |` - `## C. Domain Findings (raw)` — one subsection per domain with the 8-pass findings table - `## D. Consolidated Plan v1` — severity-grouped findings list, IDs preserved - `## E. Skeptic Transcripts (per domain)` — one subsection per domain - `## F. Patch Notes (per domain, v1 → final)` — one subsection per domain - `## G. Final Issue List` — severity-grouped, with source IDs - `## H. Quick-Start Checklist` — ≤15 actionable items the implementer should address before writing code, derived from G --- ## Skeptic Transcript Contract ID format: `SK--###` where `` is the kebab-case domain name. Examples: `SK-ui-compose-001`, `SK-di-wiring-007`. For each skeptic ID, include: - **Challenge** — what assumption or design decision is questionable - **Failure mode** — what breaks at runtime, or how the plan leaves the implementer stuck - **Evidence** — which finding ID or plan section triggered this concern - **Questions** — concise questions the lead must answer For each patch-notes section, map every change item back to exactly one skeptic ID from that domain's round. --- ## Subagent Failure Handling **No output from a domain reviewer**: Do not proceed to consolidation. Re-spawn with identical prompt. If it fails twice, run that domain inline in the main thread. Note the fallback in section B: `"(domain): ran inline — subagent unavailable"`. **Reviewer returns findings outside its assigned plan sections**: Mark those rows `[OUT-OF-SCOPE: route to ]` and move them to the correct domain's raw findings table in section C before consolidation. Do not discard — misrouted findings often reveal real cross-domain coupling the plan didn't acknowledge. **Domain has zero findings**: Before accepting, verify explicitly: (a) the domain's assigned plan sections contained real design decisions (a bare heading is not reviewable), and (b) all 8 passes were attempted. Record in section C: `"(domain): 8 passes run, sections [X, Y] reviewed — no findings."` Silent zero rows without this note are rejected. **Plan section is too brief to review** (e.g., a single heading with no detail): Flag as `[UNDERSPECIFIED]` in the domain assignment table and note it in section A. The skeptic round for that domain must include at minimum one challenge on whether the omission is intentional. **Skeptic produces no challenges for a domain with >3 findings**: Re-run the skeptic with an explicit instruction to challenge severity assignments at minimum. A non-empty finding set with zero challenges is a skeptic failure, not a clean bill of health. --- ## Inline Fallbacks **If subagents are unavailable (Claude.ai):** Run domain reviewers one at a time in the main thread. Each reviewer pass is still fully completed before moving to the next domain. The skeptic rounds still run per-domain. Output shape is identical. **If `references/prompts/orchestrator.txt` is missing:** Treat this SKILL.md as the orchestrator prompt. **If a domain reviewer cannot load `resources/audit-passes.md`:** Refuse to produce findings for that domain and report the missing file. **If the skeptic prompt is missing:** Inline the skeptic role: produce no artifacts; propose no solutions; challenge assumptions, logic, Android-specific correctness, and edge cases only; use the `SK--###` ID format. --- ## Prompt Assembly Guidance When spawning each reviewer agent: - Load the role prompt from `references/prompts/domain-reviewer.txt`. - Pass the domain's assigned plan sections as explicit boundaries — reviewers must not opine on other domains' sections. - Enforce the output table format: `id | severity | pass | plan-ref | problem | recommendation`. - Keep reviewer responses deep but scoped; keep consolidation centralized in the lead lane. Use `references/templates/domain-round-template.md` for skeptic rounds and `references/templates/final-report-template.md` for final assembly. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff](https://github.com/RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff) - **Source:** [RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff/Custom-Codex-Claude-Plugins-and-Skills](https://github.com/RyanMakesAndBreaksStuff/Custom-Codex-Claude-Plugins-and-Skills) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-ryanmakesandbreaksstuff-custom-codex-claude-plugins-and-skills-android-plan-review - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/ryanmakesandbreaksstuff - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.