From 8216c9fbca9f1e761ff85a0cb073a420b7d895ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ci-bot Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 01:59:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] :package: deps(skills): sync superpowers --- codex/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md | 115 +++++++- .../spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md | 50 ++++ .../skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md | 260 ++++++++++++++++++ codex/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md | 34 +-- codex/skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md | 2 +- .../subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md | 37 ++- .../code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md | 6 + .../implementer-prompt.md | 37 ++- .../systematic-debugging/find-polluter.sh | 0 codex/skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md | 3 +- codex/skills/using-superpowers/SKILL.md | 26 ++ .../references/codex-tools.md | 25 ++ codex/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md | 77 ++++-- .../plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md | 52 ++++ codex/skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md | 2 +- codex/skills/writing-skills/render-graphs.js | 0 16 files changed, 667 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) create mode 100644 codex/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md create mode 100644 codex/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md mode change 100644 => 100755 codex/skills/systematic-debugging/find-polluter.sh create mode 100644 codex/skills/using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md create mode 100644 codex/skills/writing-plans/plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md mode change 100644 => 100755 codex/skills/writing-skills/render-graphs.js diff --git a/codex/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md b/codex/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md index 2fd19ba..87233bd 100644 --- a/codex/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md +++ b/codex/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md @@ -5,44 +5,118 @@ description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, bu # Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs -## Overview - Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue. -Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design in small sections (200-300 words), checking after each section whether it looks right so far. +Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval. + + +Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity. + + +## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design" + +Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval. + +## Checklist + +You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order: + +1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits +2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below. +3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria +4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation +5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section +6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md` and commit +7. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan + +## Process Flow + +```dot +digraph brainstorming { + "Explore project context" [shape=box]; + "Visual questions ahead?" [shape=diamond]; + "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [shape=box]; + "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box]; + "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box]; + "Present design sections" [shape=box]; + "User approves design?" [shape=diamond]; + "Write design doc" [shape=box]; + "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle]; + + "Explore project context" -> "Visual questions ahead?"; + "Visual questions ahead?" -> "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [label="yes"]; + "Visual questions ahead?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"]; + "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" -> "Ask clarifying questions"; + "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches"; + "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections"; + "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?"; + "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"]; + "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"]; + "Write design doc" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill"; +} +``` + +**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans. ## The Process **Understanding the idea:** + - Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits) -- Ask questions one at a time to refine the idea +- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first. +- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle. +- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea - Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too - Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions - Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria **Exploring approaches:** + - Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs - Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning - Lead with your recommended option and explain why **Presenting the design:** + - Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design -- Break it into sections of 200-300 words +- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced - Ask after each section whether it looks right so far - Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing - Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense +**Design for isolation and clarity:** + +- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently +- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on? +- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work. +- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much. + +**Working in existing codebases:** + +- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns. +- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in. +- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal. + ## After the Design **Documentation:** -- Write the validated design to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md` + +- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD--design.md` + - (User preferences for spec location override this default) - Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available - Commit the design document to git -**Implementation (if continuing):** -- Ask: "Ready to set up for implementation?" -- Use superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create isolated workspace -- Use superpowers:writing-plans to create detailed implementation plan +**Spec Review Loop:** +After writing the spec document: + +1. Dispatch spec-document-reviewer subagent (see spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md) +2. If Issues Found: fix, re-dispatch, repeat until Approved +3. If loop exceeds 5 iterations, surface to human for guidance + +**Implementation:** + +- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan +- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step. ## Key Principles @@ -50,5 +124,24 @@ Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a - **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible - **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs - **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling -- **Incremental validation** - Present design in sections, validate each +- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on - **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense + +## Visual Companion + +A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser. + +**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent: +> "Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)" + +**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming. + +**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?** + +- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs +- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions + +A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser. + +If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding: +`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md` diff --git a/codex/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md b/codex/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..212b36c --- /dev/null +++ b/codex/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template + +Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent. + +**Purpose:** Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning. + +**Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/ + +``` +Task tool (general-purpose): + description: "Review spec document" + prompt: | + You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning. + + **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH] + + ## What to Check + + | Category | What to Look For | + |----------|------------------| + | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections | + | Coverage | Missing error handling, edge cases, integration points | + | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements | + | Clarity | Ambiguous requirements | + | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering | + | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems | + | Architecture | Units with clear boundaries, well-defined interfaces, independently understandable and testable | + + ## CRITICAL + + Look especially hard for: + - Any TODO markers or placeholder text + - Sections saying "to be defined later" or "will spec when X is done" + - Sections noticeably less detailed than others + - Units that lack clear boundaries or interfaces — can you understand what each unit does without reading its internals? + + ## Output Format + + ## Spec Review + + **Status:** ✅ Approved | ❌ Issues Found + + **Issues (if any):** + - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters] + + **Recommendations (advisory):** + - [suggestions that don't block approval] +``` + +**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations diff --git a/codex/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md b/codex/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..62e15a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/codex/skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +# Visual Companion Guide + +Browser-based visual brainstorming companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and options. + +## When to Use + +Decide per-question, not per-session. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?** + +**Use the browser** when the content itself is visual: + +- **UI mockups** — wireframes, layouts, navigation structures, component designs +- **Architecture diagrams** — system components, data flow, relationship maps +- **Side-by-side visual comparisons** — comparing two layouts, two color schemes, two design directions +- **Design polish** — when the question is about look and feel, spacing, visual hierarchy +- **Spatial relationships** — state machines, flowcharts, entity relationships rendered as diagrams + +**Use the terminal** when the content is text or tabular: + +- **Requirements and scope questions** — "what does X mean?", "which features are in scope?" +- **Conceptual A/B/C choices** — picking between approaches described in words +- **Tradeoff lists** — pros/cons, comparison tables +- **Technical decisions** — API design, data modeling, architectural approach selection +- **Clarifying questions** — anything where the answer is words, not a visual preference + +A question *about* a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What kind of wizard do you want?" is conceptual — use the terminal. "Which of these wizard layouts feels right?" is visual — use the browser. + +## How It Works + +The server watches a directory for HTML files and serves the newest one to the browser. You write HTML content, the user sees it in their browser and can click to select options. Selections are recorded to a `.events` file that you read on your next turn. + +**Content fragments vs full documents:** If your HTML file starts with ` +
+

Continuing in terminal...

+
+ ``` + + This prevents the user from staring at a resolved choice while the conversation has moved on. When the next visual question comes up, push a new content file as usual. + +6. Repeat until done. + +## Writing Content Fragments + +Write just the content that goes inside the page. The server wraps it in the frame template automatically (header, theme CSS, selection indicator, and all interactive infrastructure). + +**Minimal example:** + +```html +

Which layout works better?

+

Consider readability and visual hierarchy

+ +
+
+
A
+
+

Single Column

+

Clean, focused reading experience

+
+
+
+
B
+
+

Two Column

+

Sidebar navigation with main content

+
+
+
+``` + +That's it. No ``, no CSS, no `