📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers

codex/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -15,7 +15,23 @@ Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset o
 
 **Context:** This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
 
-**Save plans to:** `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+
+## Scope Check
+
+If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
+
+## File Structure
+
+Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
+
+- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
+- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
+- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
+- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
+
+This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
 
 ## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
 
@@ -33,7 +49,7 @@ Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset o
 ```markdown
 # [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
 
-> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (if subagents available) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
 
 **Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
 
@@ -46,7 +62,7 @@ Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset o
 
 ## Task Structure
 
-```markdown
+````markdown
 ### Task N: [Component Name]
 
 **Files:**
@@ -54,7 +70,7 @@ Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset o
 - Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
 - Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
 
-**Step 1: Write the failing test**
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
 
 ```python
 def test_specific_behavior():
@@ -62,30 +78,30 @@ def test_specific_behavior():
     assert result == expected
 ```
 
-**Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
 
 Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
 Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
 
-**Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
+- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
 
 ```python
 def function(input):
     return expected
 ```
 
-**Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
+- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
 
 Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
 Expected: PASS
 
-**Step 5: Commit**
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
 
 ```bash
 git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
 git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
 ```
-```
+````
 
 ## Remember
 - Exact file paths always
@@ -94,23 +110,38 @@ git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
 - Reference relevant skills with @ syntax
 - DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
 
+## Plan Review Loop
+
+After completing each chunk of the plan:
+
+1. Dispatch plan-document-reviewer subagent (see plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md) for the current chunk
+   - Provide: chunk content, path to spec document
+2. If ❌ Issues Found:
+   - Fix the issues in the chunk
+   - Re-dispatch reviewer for that chunk
+   - Repeat until ✅ Approved
+3. If ✅ Approved: proceed to next chunk (or execution handoff if last chunk)
+
+**Chunk boundaries:** Use `## Chunk N: <name>` headings to delimit chunks. Each chunk should be ≤1000 lines and logically self-contained.
+
+**Review loop guidance:**
+- Same agent that wrote the plan fixes it (preserves context)
+- If loop exceeds 5 iterations, surface to human for guidance
+- Reviewers are advisory - explain disagreements if you believe feedback is incorrect
+
 ## Execution Handoff
 
-After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
+After saving the plan:
 
-**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
+**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Ready to execute?"**
 
-**1. Subagent-Driven (this session)** - I dispatch fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
+**Execution path depends on harness capabilities:**
 
-**2. Parallel Session (separate)** - Open new session with executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
+**If harness has subagents (Claude Code, etc.):**
+- **REQUIRED:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
+- Do NOT offer a choice - subagent-driven is the standard approach
+- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
 
-**Which approach?"**
-
-**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
-- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
-- Stay in this session
-- Fresh subagent per task + code review
-
-**If Parallel Session chosen:**
-- Guide them to open new session in worktree
-- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** New session uses superpowers:executing-plans
+**If harness does NOT have subagents:**
+- Execute plan in current session using superpowers:executing-plans
+- Batch execution with checkpoints for review

codex/skills/writing-plans/plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Plan Document Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify the plan chunk is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
+
+**Dispatch after:** Each plan chunk is written
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review plan chunk N"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan chunk is complete and ready for implementation.
+
+    **Plan chunk to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH] - Chunk N only
+    **Spec for reference:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    | Category | What to Look For |
+    |----------|------------------|
+    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, incomplete tasks, missing steps |
+    | Spec Alignment | Chunk covers relevant spec requirements, no scope creep |
+    | Task Decomposition | Tasks atomic, clear boundaries, steps actionable |
+    | File Structure | Files have clear single responsibilities, split by responsibility not layer |
+    | File Size | Would any new or modified file likely grow large enough to be hard to reason about as a whole? |
+    | Task Syntax | Checkbox syntax (`- [ ]`) on steps for tracking |
+    | Chunk Size | Each chunk under 1000 lines |
+
+    ## CRITICAL
+
+    Look especially hard for:
+    - Any TODO markers or placeholder text
+    - Steps that say "similar to X" without actual content
+    - Incomplete task definitions
+    - Missing verification steps or expected outputs
+    - Files planned to hold multiple responsibilities or likely to grow unwieldy
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ## Plan Review - Chunk N
+
+    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
+
+    **Issues (if any):**
+    - [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters]
+
+    **Recommendations (advisory):**
+    - [suggestions that don't block approval]
+```
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations