♻️ refactor(skills): separate thirdparty skills into thirdparty/ subdirectory
- Move all third-party skills from codex/skills/ to codex/skills/thirdparty/ - Move .sources/ to codex/skills/thirdparty/.sources/ - Delete systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md (internal dev note, not skill content) - Update sync_thirdparty_skills.sh paths and conflict detection - Update thirdparty_skills.json source_list paths - Update install_skills_action to collect from both own and thirdparty dirs, logging [thirdparty] tag for third-party installs - Update SKILLS.md directory structure docs - Update tests to reflect new paths Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Claude Opus 4.7
@@ -1,113 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Implementer Subagent Prompt Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template when dispatching an implementer subagent.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Task tool (general-purpose):
|
||||
description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are implementing Task N: [task name]
|
||||
|
||||
## Task Description
|
||||
|
||||
[FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here, don't make subagent read file]
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
[Scene-setting: where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]
|
||||
|
||||
## Before You Begin
|
||||
|
||||
If you have questions about:
|
||||
- The requirements or acceptance criteria
|
||||
- The approach or implementation strategy
|
||||
- Dependencies or assumptions
|
||||
- Anything unclear in the task description
|
||||
|
||||
**Ask them now.** Raise any concerns before starting work.
|
||||
|
||||
## Your Job
|
||||
|
||||
Once you're clear on requirements:
|
||||
1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
|
||||
2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
|
||||
3. Verify implementation works
|
||||
4. Commit your work
|
||||
5. Self-review (see below)
|
||||
6. Report back
|
||||
|
||||
Work from: [directory]
|
||||
|
||||
**While you work:** If you encounter something unexpected or unclear, **ask questions**.
|
||||
It's always OK to pause and clarify. Don't guess or make assumptions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Code Organization
|
||||
|
||||
You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more
|
||||
reliable when files are focused. Keep this in mind:
|
||||
- Follow the file structure defined in the plan
|
||||
- Each file should have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface
|
||||
- If a file you're creating is growing beyond the plan's intent, stop and report
|
||||
it as DONE_WITH_CONCERNS — don't split files on your own without plan guidance
|
||||
- If an existing file you're modifying is already large or tangled, work carefully
|
||||
and note it as a concern in your report
|
||||
- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. Improve code you're touching
|
||||
the way a good developer would, but don't restructure things outside your task.
|
||||
|
||||
## When You're in Over Your Head
|
||||
|
||||
It is always OK to stop and say "this is too hard for me." Bad work is worse than
|
||||
no work. You will not be penalized for escalating.
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP and escalate when:**
|
||||
- The task requires architectural decisions with multiple valid approaches
|
||||
- You need to understand code beyond what was provided and can't find clarity
|
||||
- You feel uncertain about whether your approach is correct
|
||||
- The task involves restructuring existing code in ways the plan didn't anticipate
|
||||
- You've been reading file after file trying to understand the system without progress
|
||||
|
||||
**How to escalate:** Report back with status BLOCKED or NEEDS_CONTEXT. Describe
|
||||
specifically what you're stuck on, what you've tried, and what kind of help you need.
|
||||
The controller can provide more context, re-dispatch with a more capable model,
|
||||
or break the task into smaller pieces.
|
||||
|
||||
## Before Reporting Back: Self-Review
|
||||
|
||||
Review your work with fresh eyes. Ask yourself:
|
||||
|
||||
**Completeness:**
|
||||
- Did I fully implement everything in the spec?
|
||||
- Did I miss any requirements?
|
||||
- Are there edge cases I didn't handle?
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality:**
|
||||
- Is this my best work?
|
||||
- Are names clear and accurate (match what things do, not how they work)?
|
||||
- Is the code clean and maintainable?
|
||||
|
||||
**Discipline:**
|
||||
- Did I avoid overbuilding (YAGNI)?
|
||||
- Did I only build what was requested?
|
||||
- Did I follow existing patterns in the codebase?
|
||||
|
||||
**Testing:**
|
||||
- Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
|
||||
- Did I follow TDD if required?
|
||||
- Are tests comprehensive?
|
||||
|
||||
If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.
|
||||
|
||||
## Report Format
|
||||
|
||||
When done, report:
|
||||
- **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
|
||||
- What you implemented (or what you attempted, if blocked)
|
||||
- What you tested and test results
|
||||
- Files changed
|
||||
- Self-review findings (if any)
|
||||
- Any issues or concerns
|
||||
|
||||
Use DONE_WITH_CONCERNS if you completed the work but have doubts about correctness.
|
||||
Use BLOCKED if you cannot complete the task. Use NEEDS_CONTEXT if you need
|
||||
information that wasn't provided. Never silently produce work you're unsure about.
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Task tool (general-purpose):
|
||||
description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Was Requested
|
||||
|
||||
[FULL TEXT of task requirements]
|
||||
|
||||
## What Implementer Claims They Built
|
||||
|
||||
[From implementer's report]
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
|
||||
|
||||
The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
|
||||
inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
|
||||
|
||||
**DO NOT:**
|
||||
- Take their word for what they implemented
|
||||
- Trust their claims about completeness
|
||||
- Accept their interpretation of requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**DO:**
|
||||
- Read the actual code they wrote
|
||||
- Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
|
||||
- Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
|
||||
- Look for extra features they didn't mention
|
||||
|
||||
## Your Job
|
||||
|
||||
Read the implementation code and verify:
|
||||
|
||||
**Missing requirements:**
|
||||
- Did they implement everything that was requested?
|
||||
- Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
|
||||
- Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
|
||||
|
||||
**Extra/unneeded work:**
|
||||
- Did they build things that weren't requested?
|
||||
- Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
|
||||
- Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
|
||||
|
||||
**Misunderstandings:**
|
||||
- Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
|
||||
- Did they solve the wrong problem?
|
||||
- Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**
|
||||
|
||||
Report:
|
||||
- ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
|
||||
- ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user