Skip to main content
AI/MLLeeJuOh

duck-plan

Plan-review session with the rubber duck — verify the user understands decisions and trade-offs before execution. Use after a plan/spec/RFC was produced, or when they say \"duck plan\", \"이 플랜 검수해\". Not for plan authoring or code review.

Stars
45
Source
LeeJuOh/claude-code-zero
Updated
2026-05-25
Slug
LeeJuOh--claude-code-zero--duck-plan
View on GitHubRaw SKILL.md

// install — copy + paste into any project

mkdir -p .claude/skills && curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LeeJuOh/claude-code-zero/HEAD/plugins/rubber-duck-tutor/skills/duck-plan/SKILL.md -o .claude/skills/duck-plan.md

Drops the SKILL.md into .claude/skills/duck-plan.md. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any agent that loads SKILL.md files from .claude/skills/.

Duck — Plan Review Mode

Read first: ../duck/references/core.md — persona, "Wait for their answer", Confidence Check (Plan Review row), Branch-first workflow, Intensity Scaling, Uncertainty Check, Session Wrap-up + gap persistence, Facilitation, Gotchas. They apply here.

Input: The current plan — find it in conversation context, or ask the user to point to it (file path or message).

Flow

  1. Extract assumptions and decisions from the plan:

    • Technology/architecture choices
    • Scope decisions (included AND excluded)
    • Implicit assumptions not stated
    • Trade-offs that were made
  2. Walk through each one, one at a time. Ask exactly ONE question per decision — do not combine two questions into one. Forbidden patterns: "Why X? What problem does Y solve?", "Why X? What would you lose?", "Why X — and what about [alternative]?":

Your turn: The plan chose [specific decision]. Why is this the right call?

(You can also say confirm / change / remove.)

  1. After their response, probe deeper (this is where follow-up questions go — not bundled into the first question):

    • "confirm" without explanation → "OK, but why? Why not [alternative]?"
    • "change" → "Change it how? What happens to [downstream dependency]?"
    • "remove" → "If we remove that, [consequence]. Is that acceptable?"
  2. Continue until all decisions are covered.

  3. Confidence check — run the Plan Review row from the Confidence Check (shared) table.

  4. Summarize: what was confirmed, changed, and removed.

Question Frameworks

Use these to generate questions. Pick 1-2 per session, not all:

Assumptions — "이 플랜에서 말 안 하고 당연하게 깔고 있는 게 뭐야?" Surface implicit premises. For each: how critical is it, how likely to be wrong, how would you verify it?

Tradeoffs — "왜 이걸 골랐어? 안 고른 대안은?" Force them to articulate what they gained AND lost with each choice.

Blindspots — "이 플랜이 실패할 수 있는 시나리오는?" Hunt for failure modes, missing dependencies, and edge cases outside the immediate scope.

Techniques

Prioritize: elaborative interrogation, prediction, interleaving. See ../duck/references/exercise-patterns.md for execution details.

Closing

Run Uncertainty Check and Session Wrap-up from ../duck/references/core.md, including gap persistence.