csh/playbook
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ci[bot]
2026-07-29 07:59:27 +00:00
parent 13be5ea0aa
commit d8b83e30ba
26 changed files with 847 additions and 879 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
Vendored
+305 -220
View File
@@ -51,38 +51,96 @@ digraph process {
subgraph cluster_per_task {
label="Per Task";
"Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
"Implementer asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
"Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
"Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
"Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
"Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [shape=box];
"Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [shape=box];
"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
"Finding conflicts with plan text?" [shape=diamond];
"Ask human partner which governs" [shape=box];
"Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [shape=box];
"Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"All findings addressed?" [shape=diamond];
"R = 5?" [shape=diamond];
"Adjudicate each open finding" [shape=box];
"Any load-bearing finding?" [shape=diamond];
"STOP: report BLOCKED to human partner" [shape=box];
"Park findings in ledger with rulings" [shape=box];
"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [shape=box];
}
"Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" [shape=box];
"More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
"Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
"Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
"Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" [shape=box];
"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" [shape=box];
"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
"Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
"Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
"Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
"Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
"Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
"Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
"Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?";
"Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [label="no"];
"Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
"Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [label="yes"];
"Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" -> "More tasks remain?";
"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
"Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer asks questions?";
"Implementer asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
"Answer questions, provide context" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews";
"Implementer asks questions?" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec ✅ and quality approved?";
"Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
"Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [label="no"];
"Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Ask human partner which governs" [label="yes"];
"Ask human partner which governs" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model";
"Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [label="no"];
"Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" -> "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)";
"Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" -> "All findings addressed?";
"All findings addressed?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
"All findings addressed?" -> "R = 5?" [label="no"];
"R = 5?" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [label="no - next round"];
"R = 5?" -> "Adjudicate each open finding" [label="yes - breaker trips"];
"Adjudicate each open finding" -> "Any load-bearing finding?";
"Any load-bearing finding?" -> "STOP: report BLOCKED to human partner" [label="yes"];
"Any load-bearing finding?" -> "Park findings in ledger with rulings" [label="no"];
"Park findings in ledger with rulings" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete";
"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" -> "More tasks remain?";
"More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
"More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
"Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
"More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
"Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals";
"Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" -> "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace";
"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
}
```
## Pre-Flight Plan Review
## Setup
Ensure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use
superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.
Never start implementation on a main/master branch without your human
partner's explicit consent.
Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
a ledger file, not only in todos.
- Each plan owns a workspace: at skill start, run this skill's
`scripts/sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` — it prints the plan's git-ignored
directory (`<repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/`), home to
every artifact for THIS plan: ledger, briefs, reports, review packages.
Another plan's directory is never yours to read or write.
- Check for this plan's ledger at `<workspace>/progress.md`. If its first
line names your plan file, tasks with a `Task <N>: complete` line are DONE
— do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task without one. A task
whose last line is a fix round is mid-loop: resume the loop at the next
round. A ledger whose first line names a different plan file — or a stray
ledger at the old flat path `.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` — is another
plan's progress: leave it in place and start your own, fresh.
- Create the ledger with its identity as the first line:
`# SDD ledger — plan: <plan file path>`.
- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the workspace (it's git-ignored scratch); if
that happens, recover from `git log`.
Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a
todo per task.
Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
@@ -110,7 +168,11 @@ capable available model, not the session default.
**Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the
diff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the
most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does.
most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does. Scoped re-reviews of
small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier.
**Fix-loop escalation (rounds 4-5)**: use a model at least one tier above
the implementer that got stuck.
**Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An
omitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and
@@ -129,11 +191,51 @@ that implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.
- Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
- Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
## Handling Implementer Status
## The Task Loop
Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files.
### 1. Dispatch the implementer
Record BASE (`git rev-parse HEAD`) before dispatching — the review package
and fix-round diffs need it.
- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
`scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
brief stays the single source of
requirements. Your dispatch should contain: (1) one line on where this
task fits in the project; (2) the brief path, introduced as "read this
first — it is your requirements, with the exact values to use verbatim";
(3) interfaces and decisions from earlier tasks that the brief cannot
know; (4) your resolution of any ambiguity you noticed in the brief;
(5) the report-file path and report contract. Exact values (numbers,
magic strings, signatures, test cases) appear only in the brief. Never
make a subagent read the whole plan file.
- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
(brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
- If an earlier task parked a finding in the area this task touches, carry
a pointer to that ledger entry in the dispatch.
- Record the implementer's agent identity from the dispatch result —
fix-loop rounds 1-3 resume this agent.
- Never dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts).
Template: [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md)
### 2. Handle the report
Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.
**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.
**DONE_WITH_CONCERNS:** The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.
@@ -147,20 +249,37 @@ Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
**Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.
## Handling Reviewer ⚠️ Items
If the implementer asks questions — before starting or mid-task — answer
clearly and completely, provide additional context if needed, and don't
rush it into implementation.
The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
review — send it back to the implementer and re-review.
## Constructing Reviewer Prompts
### 3. Review the task
Per-task reviews are task-scoped gates. The broad review happens once, at the
final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
final whole-branch review. Never skip the task review, and never accept a
report missing either verdict — spec compliance AND task quality are both
required. Implementer self-review never replaces the task review; both are
needed.
- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks. Never
dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file.
- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
constraints that bind the task.
- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
project's spec demands.
- Do not add open-ended directives like "check all uses" or "run race tests
if useful" without a concrete, task-specific reason
- Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the
@@ -171,110 +290,159 @@ final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
loop. If the prompt you are writing contains "do not flag," "don't treat X
as a defect," "at most Minor," or "the plan chose" — stop: you are
pre-judging, usually to spare yourself a review loop.
- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
project's spec demands.
- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks.
- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
- Dispatch fix subagents for Critical and Important findings. Record Minor
findings in the progress ledger as you go, and point the final
The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
review — it enters the fix loop with the other findings.
Template: [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md)
### 4. The fix loop
The loop triggers when the review reports spec ❌, any Critical or Important
finding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.
Before the loop starts, two routes leave it immediately:
- Record Minor findings in the progress ledger as you go
(`Task <N>: minor (deferred): <one-liner>`), and point the final
whole-branch review at that list so it can triage which must be fixed
before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard.
before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard. Minor findings
never enter the loop.
- A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with
what the plan's text requires — is the human's decision, like any plan
contradiction: present the finding and the plan text, ask which governs.
Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not
dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without asking.
- The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
`scripts/review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
branch started from, e.g. `git merge-base main HEAD`) and include the
printed path in the final review dispatch, so the final reviewer reads
one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands.
- Every fix dispatch carries the implementer contract: the fix subagent
re-runs the tests covering its change and reports the results. Name the
covering test files in the dispatch — a one-line fix does not need the
whole suite. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report
contains the covering tests, the command run, and the output; dispatch
the re-review once all three are present.
- If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix
subagent with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.
Everything else enters the loop. A fix round is one fix dispatch plus one
scoped re-review. Five rounds maximum per task:
## File Handoffs
**Rounds 1-3 — resume the original implementer.** Send it the open findings
verbatim. Its context is intact: it knows the task, the code, and its own
choices. If your harness cannot send another message to a live subagent,
dispatch a fresh implementer carrying the brief path, the report-file path,
and the findings — the report file is the persistent memory either way.
Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files:
**Rounds 4-5 — dispatch a fresh implementer on a more capable model** (per
Model Selection), with the brief path, the report-file path, the open
findings, and this framing: "A prior implementer attempted this task
[N] times; you own it now. Read the report file for what was tried." A loop
that survives three resumes usually means the implementer cannot see its
own problem — fresh eyes and a capability bump in one move.
- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
`scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
brief stays the single source of requirements. Your dispatch should
contain: (1) one line on where this task fits in the project; (2) the
brief path, introduced as "read this first — it is your requirements,
with the exact values to use verbatim"; (3) interfaces and decisions
from earlier tasks that the brief cannot know; (4) your resolution of
any ambiguity you noticed in the brief; (5) the report-file path and
report contract. Exact values (numbers, magic strings, signatures, test
cases) appear only in the brief.
- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
(brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
constraints that bind the task.
- Fix dispatches append their fix report (with test results) to the same
report file and return a short summary; re-reviews read the updated file.
**Every round, either way:** the implementer fixes, re-runs the tests
covering the amended code, appends its fix report to the same report file,
and returns the short contract. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm
the fix report contains the covering tests, the command run, and the
output; dispatch the re-review once all three are present. Name the
covering test files in the fix message — a one-line fix does not need the
whole suite.
## Durable Progress
**The re-review is scoped.** Run `scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD`
where FIX_BASE is the head the previous review saw, and dispatch
[re-review-prompt.md](re-review-prompt.md) with the findings list, the
brief, the report file, and the printed diff path. The re-reviewer verdicts
each finding ADDRESSED or NOT ADDRESSED and flags new breakage in the fix
diff only. New Critical/Important breakage in the fix diff joins the open
findings list. Out-of-scope observations go to the ledger as deferred
minors — they never extend the loop.
Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
a ledger file, not only in todos.
**After each round,** append to the ledger:
`Task <N>: fix round <R>/5 (<X> addressed, <Y> open — <finding one-liners>; commits <a7>..<b7>)`
- At skill start, check for a ledger:
`cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks listed there
as complete are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task
not marked complete.
- When a task's review comes back clean, append one line to the ledger in
the same message as your other bookkeeping:
`Task N: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`.
- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
that happens, recover from `git log`.
Never fix findings yourself in the controller session — your context stays
clean for coordination, and controller fixes skip review.
## Prompt Templates
**The breaker.** When round 5's re-review still leaves findings open, stop
dispatching. Adjudicate each open finding yourself — you hold the plan and
the cross-task context the reviewer lacks:
- [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md) - Dispatch implementer subagent
- [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md) - Dispatch task reviewer subagent (spec compliance + code quality)
- Final whole-branch review: use superpowers:requesting-code-review's [code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)
- **The reviewer is wrong, or the point is contestable:** park it —
`Task <N>: parked — <finding> — ruling: <why the code stands>`. The final
review sees both sides.
- **Real, but nothing downstream builds on it:** park it the same way, with
a ruling that says it's real and deferred.
- **Real and load-bearing** — a later task builds on it, or it reveals a
plan defect: STOP. Append `Task <N>: BLOCKED — <reason>` and report to
your human partner with the finding, the plan text it collides with, and
the fix history. Parking a structural failure lets every dependent task
build on it and hands the final review a problem it cannot fix either.
Adjudicate only at the cap. Adjudicating earlier to end a loop is
pre-judging with a different name. Every adjudication is a ledger entry —
a silent discard is forbidden.
### 5. Complete the task
When the review comes back clean — or every open finding is parked with a
ruling at the cap — append the completion line to the ledger in the same
message as your other bookkeeping:
- `Task <N>: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`
- `Task <N>: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, <K> parked)` after a
tripped breaker
Then mark the todo complete and move on. Never move to the next task while
the review has open Critical/Important issues that are neither fixed nor
parked-with-ruling at the cap.
## Final Review
The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
branch started from, e.g. `git merge-base main HEAD`) and include the
printed path in the final review dispatch, so the final reviewer reads
one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands. Dispatch
on the most capable available model (see Model Selection), using
superpowers:requesting-code-review's
[code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md). Point it at
the ledger's deferred-minor and parked lines so it can triage which must be
fixed before merge.
If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix subagent
with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.
Then run exactly one scoped re-review of the fix wave
(`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD` over the fix range,
[re-review-prompt.md](re-review-prompt.md)).
Adjudicate any residual findings as in the task loop's breaker: park with
rulings, or stop on load-bearing ones. There is no second fix wave —
residual load-bearing findings surface to your human partner when
finishing-a-development-branch presents the options.
## Finish
When the final whole-branch review is clean and its fixes are merged,
delete this plan's workspace (`rm -rf <workspace>`) — the git history is
the record now. Sibling directories belong to other plans; leave them
alone.
Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
## Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Close enough on spec compliance" | Reviewer found spec gaps = not done. Fix or hit the cap and adjudicate — those are the only exits. |
| "I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |
| "One more round will converge" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge — the failure is structural. Adjudicate and route. |
| "The reviewer will just find something new anyway" | Scoped re-reviews verify fixes; they cannot wander. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |
| "This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every ruling is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |
| "The fix was small, skip the re-review" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. Every round ends with a scoped re-review. |
| "Reviews slow the loop down" | The loop without reviews is just unverified churn. Reviews are the loop's brakes and steering. |
| "Ledger bookkeeping is overhead" | The ledger is what survives compaction. Controllers without one have re-dispatched entire completed task sequences. |
## Example Workflow
```
You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
[Setup: worktree verified]
[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
[Resolve workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md — no ledger inside, fresh start]
[Create todos for all tasks]
Task 1: Hook installation script
@@ -285,134 +453,51 @@ Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system le
You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
[Later] Implementer:
Implementer: [Later]
- Implemented install-hook command
- Added tests, 5/5 passing
- Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
- Committed
[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
[Run review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD; dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
[Mark Task 1 complete]
[Ledger: Task 1: complete (commits a1b2c3d..d4e5f6a, review clean)]
Task 2: Recovery modes
[Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
Implementer: [No questions]
- Added verify/repair modes
- 8/8 tests passing
- Self-review: All good
- Committed
[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
[Run review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD; dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
- Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
- Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
[Fix round 1: resume the implementer with both findings]
Implementer: Added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant.
Re-ran test/recovery.test.js — 10/10 passing. Fix report appended.
[Task reviewer reviews again]
Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
[Run review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD; dispatch scoped re-review]
Re-reviewer: Missing progress reporting — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:41).
Magic number — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:7). New breakage: none.
Verdict: all findings addressed.
[Mark Task 2 complete]
[Ledger: Task 2: fix round 1/5 (2 addressed, 0 open; commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e)]
[Ledger: Task 2: complete (commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e, review clean)]
...
[After all tasks]
[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
[Run review-package PLAN_FILE MERGE_BASE HEAD; dispatch final code-reviewer, most capable model]
Final reviewer: All requirements met. Deferred minors triaged: none block merge.
Done!
[Delete this plan's workspace — the record now lives in git]
Done! Using superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
```
## Advantages
**vs. Manual execution:**
- Subagents follow TDD naturally
- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
**vs. Executing Plans:**
- Same session (no handoff)
- Continuous progress (no waiting)
- Review checkpoints automatic
**Efficiency gains:**
- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
as files, not pasted text
- Subagent gets complete information upfront
- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
**Quality gates:**
- Self-review catches issues before handoff
- Task review carries two verdicts: spec compliance and code quality
- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
**Cost:**
- More subagent invocations (implementer + reviewer per task)
- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
- Review loops add iterations
- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
## Red Flags
**Never:**
- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
- Skip task review, or accept a report missing either verdict (spec compliance AND task quality are both required)
- Proceed with unfixed issues
- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
- Make a subagent read the whole plan file (hand it its task brief —
`scripts/task-brief` — instead)
- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (reviewer found spec issues = not done)
- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
- Tell a reviewer what not to flag, or pre-rate a finding's severity in the
dispatch prompt ("treat it as Minor at most") — the plan's example code is
a starting point, not evidence that its weaknesses were chosen
- Dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file — generate it first
(`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`) and name the printed path in the
prompt
- Move to next task while the review has open Critical/Important issues
- Re-dispatch a task the progress ledger already marks complete — check
the ledger (and `git log`) after any compaction or resume
**If subagent asks questions:**
- Answer clearly and completely
- Provide additional context if needed
- Don't rush them into implementation
**If reviewer finds issues:**
- Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
- Reviewer reviews again
- Repeat until approved
- Don't skip the re-review
**If subagent fails task:**
- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)
## Integration
**Required workflow skills:**
- **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
- **superpowers:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for the final whole-branch review
- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
**Subagents should use:**
- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - Subagents follow TDD for each task
**Alternative workflow:**
- **superpowers:executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md
Vendored
+6 -3
View File
@@ -106,9 +106,12 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
## After Review Findings
If a reviewer finds issues and you fix them, re-run the tests that cover
the amended code and append the results to your report file. Reviewers
will not re-run tests for you — your report is the test evidence.
If the task review finds issues, you will be resumed with the findings.
Fix them, re-run the tests that cover the amended code, and append a fix
report to your report file: what you changed, the covering tests you
ran, the command, and the output. Reviewers will not re-run tests for
you — your report is the test evidence. Then reply with the same short
status contract as your first report.
## Report Format
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/re-review-prompt.md
Vendored
+106
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
# Scoped Re-Review Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching a re-review after a fix round. The
re-reviewer verifies the findings were addressed and checks the fix diff for
new breakage. It is not a fresh review — the full review already happened.
**Purpose:** Verify each finding from the previous review was addressed, and
that the fix itself broke nothing.
```
Subagent (general-purpose):
description: "Re-review Task N fix round R"
model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
prompt: |
You are re-reviewing one task's fix round. A previous review produced
findings; an implementer has attempted to fix them. Your job is to
verdict each finding and inspect the fix diff — nothing else.
## The Task
Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE]
## The Findings Under Verification
[FINDINGS]
## The Fix
Read the implementer's report (fix reports are appended at the end):
[REPORT_FILE]
**Fix base:** [FIX_BASE_SHA] (the head the previous review saw)
**Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
**Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE]
Read the diff file once — it contains the fix commits, a stat summary,
and the fix diff with surrounding context. Do not re-run git commands.
If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself:
`git diff --stat [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and
`git diff [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`.
Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
## Scope
Your scope is the findings list and the fix diff. Verdict every finding.
Inspect the fix diff for new problems the fix itself introduced. Do NOT
re-review code the fix did not touch: if you notice an issue entirely
outside the fix diff, report it under Out-of-Scope Observations — it
does not block this task and does not extend the loop. A broad
whole-branch review happens after all tasks are complete.
## Tests
The implementer re-ran the tests covering the amended code and appended
the results to the report file. Treat the report as unverified claims:
confirm the fix report names the covering tests and shows their output,
and verify the claims against the diff. Do not re-run the suite to
confirm their report. Run a test only when reading the code raises a
specific doubt that no existing run answers — and then a focused test,
never a package-wide suite.
## Output Format
Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the first
finding's verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with file:line,
or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration.
### Finding Verdicts
For each finding in The Findings Under Verification, in order:
- **[finding one-liner]** — ADDRESSED | NOT ADDRESSED, with file:line
evidence. "Attempted" is not addressed: the specific defect must no
longer exist.
### New Breakage in the Fix Diff
Anything the fix itself broke or introduced, with severity
(Critical/Important/Minor) and file:line. "None" if clean.
### Out-of-Scope Observations
Issues you noticed entirely outside the fix diff. Non-blocking; the
controller ledgers these for the final review. "None" if none.
### Verdict
**Fix round:** [All findings addressed, no new Critical/Important
breakage | Findings remain open] — list the open ones.
```
**Placeholders:**
- `[MODEL]` — REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection; scoped
re-reviews of small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier
- `[BRIEF_FILE]` — the task brief file (same file the implementer worked from)
- `[FINDINGS]` — the Critical/Important findings and spec gaps from the
previous review, copied verbatim, one per bullet
- `[REPORT_FILE]` — the implementer's report file (fix reports appended)
- `[FIX_BASE_SHA]` — the head the previous review saw
- `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
- `[DIFF_FILE]` — the path `scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD` printed
**Re-reviewer returns:** per-finding verdicts (ADDRESSED / NOT ADDRESSED),
new breakage in the fix diff, out-of-scope observations, and a round verdict.
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/scripts/review-package
Vendored
+11 -9
View File
@@ -4,26 +4,28 @@
# call. Using the recorded per-task BASE (not HEAD~1) keeps multi-commit
# tasks intact.
#
# Usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff
# Usage: review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff
# (named per range, so a re-review after fixes gets a distinct fresh file).
set -euo pipefail
if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
echo "usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
if [ $# -lt 3 ] || [ $# -gt 4 ]; then
echo "usage: review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
exit 2
fi
base=$1
head=$2
plan=$1
base=$2
head=$3
[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$base" >/dev/null || { echo "bad BASE: $base" >&2; exit 2; }
git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$head" >/dev/null || { echo "bad HEAD: $head" >&2; exit 2; }
if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
out=$3
if [ $# -eq 4 ]; then
out=$4
else
dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace")
dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace" "$plan")
out="$dir/review-$(git rev-parse --short "$base")..$(git rev-parse --short "$head").diff"
fi
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/scripts/sdd-workspace
Vendored
+26 -8
View File
@@ -1,22 +1,40 @@
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Resolve and ensure the working-tree directory SDD uses for its short-lived
# artifacts: task briefs, implementer reports, review packages, and the
# progress ledger. Print the directory's absolute path.
# Resolve and ensure the working-tree directory SDD uses for one plan's
# short-lived artifacts: task briefs, implementer reports, review packages,
# and the progress ledger. Print the plan directory's absolute path.
#
# One directory per plan (.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/) so a follow-up
# plan in the same working tree can never read or overwrite another plan's
# artifacts. A stale ledger misread as current progress makes controllers
# skip whole task sequences — plan-scoping removes that failure structurally.
#
# The workspace lives in the working tree (not under .git/) because Claude Code
# treats .git/ as a protected path and denies agent writes there — which blocks
# an implementer subagent from writing its report file. A self-ignoring
# .gitignore keeps the workspace out of `git status` and out of accidental
# commits without modifying any tracked file.
# .gitignore at .superpowers/sdd/ keeps every plan's workspace out of
# `git status` and out of accidental commits without modifying any tracked file.
#
# Single source of truth for the workspace location, so task-brief and
# review-package cannot drift to different directories.
#
# Usage: sdd-workspace
# Usage: sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE
set -euo pipefail
if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then
echo "usage: sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE" >&2
exit 2
fi
plan=$1
[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
slug=$(basename "$plan" .md)
[ -n "$slug" ] && [ "$slug" != "." ] && [ "$slug" != ".." ] \
|| { echo "cannot derive a workspace name from: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
root=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
dir="$root/.superpowers/sdd"
base="$root/.superpowers/sdd"
dir="$base/$slug"
mkdir -p "$dir"
printf '*\n' > "$dir/.gitignore"
printf '*\n' > "$base/.gitignore"
cd "$dir" && pwd
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/scripts/task-brief
Vendored
+4 -3
View File
@@ -4,8 +4,9 @@
# through the controller's context.
#
# Usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]
# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/task-<N>-brief.md
# (per worktree; concurrent runs in the same working tree share it).
# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/task-<N>-brief.md
# (per plan and per worktree; concurrent runs of the SAME plan in the same
# working tree share it).
set -euo pipefail
if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
@@ -20,7 +21,7 @@ n=$2
if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
out=$3
else
dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace")
dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace" "$plan")
out="$dir/task-${n}-brief.md"
fi
skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md
Vendored
+2 -5
View File
@@ -178,11 +178,8 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
- `[BASE_SHA]` — commit before this task
- `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
- `[DIFF_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the path the controller wrote the review
package to (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` prints the unique path it
wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
package to (`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` prints the unique
path it wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
**Reviewer returns:** Spec Compliance verdict (✅/❌/⚠️), Strengths, Issues
(Critical/Important/Minor), Task quality verdict
A fix dispatch can address spec gaps and quality findings together;
re-review after fixes covers both verdicts.