Skip to main content
Glama

ck_review_submit

Submit a plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating. Creates a review record with status pending and a URL for approval.

Instructions

Submit a governed plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating. Write operation — creates a review record and returns a review_id and browser URL. review_type controls what is being submitted: plan (before implementation), diff (before merging), or completion (task done). submission_body is the full content: plan text, diff, or completion description. For iterative plan refinement, pass previous_review_id and plan_phase (ticket → research_packet → design_options → narrowed_decision → implementation_plan → code_backed_plan). The plan-quality scorer evaluates structured fields, not just submission_body — populate research_summary, options_considered, selected_option, rejected_options, implementation_steps, validation_plan, code_snippets, alignment_context, consulted_roles, codebase_findings, prior_art_summary, agent_spec_id, task_spec_id, agent_role, task_scope, out_of_scope, business_rules, domain_terms, allowed_actions, prohibited_actions, robustness_requirements, linked_policy_packs, linked_benchmark_suites, promotion_gates, allowed_semantic_changes, forbidden_semantic_changes, invariant_boundaries, requires_reapproval_if, harness_quality_checks, and scope_estimate for a strong score. Returns review_id, status (pending), and a URL where the human reviewer can approve or deny. After submission, poll ck_review_status until the decision is approved or denied before proceeding. Use ck_review_feedback (human-facing) to record a decision on an existing review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selected_optionNoThe chosen approach with rationale.
titleNoHuman-readable title for display and search.
domain_termsNo
invariant_boundariesNoSystem invariants and boundaries that must remain true during execution.
plan_phaseNoCurrent phase of plan refinement.
review_typeNoType of review being submitted or queried (plan, diff, or completion).
business_rulesNo
validation_planNo
task_spec_idNoStable identifier for the task-level behavior contract this plan is implementing.
prohibited_actionsNo
linked_policy_packsNo
consulted_rolesNo
requires_reapproval_ifNoConditions that require human re-approval before continuing.
forbidden_semantic_changesNoSemantic behavior changes the agent must not introduce without a new review.
options_consideredNo
linked_benchmark_suitesNo
out_of_scopeNo
task_scopeNoWhat the agent or task is expected to accomplish under this plan.
rejected_optionsNo
task_idNoTask identifier within the session for scoped operations.
submission_bodyYesFull submission content: plan text, diff, or completion description.
scope_estimateNo
research_summaryNoSummary of research performed before this submission.
harness_quality_checksNoAgent-harness quality checks such as context hygiene, proof completeness, rollback safety, and compaction fidelity.
robustness_requirementsNo
persona_or_actor_contextNoUser role, customer tier, permission state, or operating context relevant to behavior.
previous_review_idNoReference to a prior review for iterative refinement.
prior_art_summaryNoSummary of prior attempts or related work.
feedback_notesNoFreeform feedback notes from the reviewer.
session_idNoUnique session identifier for correlating findings, proofs, budget, and audit trail.
agent_roleNoReviewed role label such as support agent, code reviewer, deployment agent, or sales assistant.
agent_spec_idNoStable identifier for the agent role or task contract this plan is implementing.
submitted_byNoIdentity of the submitter for audit trail.
codebase_findingsNo
alignment_contextNo
promotion_gatesNo
metadataNoArbitrary key-value metadata for extensibility and audit context.
implementation_stepsNo
allowed_actionsNo
code_snippetsNo
annotationsNoStructured key-value annotations for machine-readable metadata.
allowed_semantic_changesNoSemantic behavior changes explicitly approved for this plan.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
review_idNo
review_urlNo
statusNo
titleNo
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. Description adds: 'Write operation – creates a review record', details plan-quality scorer behavior, and polling requirement. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Long but well-structured: purpose, parameter details, iterative refinement, scorer fields, returns, post-submission. Front-loaded with key info. Every sentence is necessary given complexity (42 params).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers main functionality, parameter usage, post-submission flow, integration with siblings (ck_review_status, ck_review_feedback), and mentions return fields. Adequate for correct agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 57% schema coverage, description compensates by explaining key parameters (review_type, submission_body, previous_review_id, plan_phase) and grouping many optional fields as 'plan-quality scorer' inputs, adding context beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'a governed plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning related tools for polling and feedback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when to use (submitting review packets) and post-submission guidance (poll ck_review_status, then use ck_review_feedback). Mentions iterative refinement with previous_review_id. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but strong context compensates.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aryaminus/controlkeel'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server