📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots

superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -5,11 +5,14 @@ description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in t
 
 # Subagent-Driven Development
 
-Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.
+Execute plan by dispatching a fresh implementer subagent per task, a task review (spec compliance + code quality) after each, and a broad whole-branch review at the end.
 
 **Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.
 
-**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
+**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + task review (spec + quality) + broad final review = high quality, fast iteration
+
+**Narration:** between tool calls, narrate at most one short line — the
+ledger and the tool results carry the record.
 
 **Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.
 
@@ -36,7 +39,7 @@ digraph when_to_use {
 **vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
 - Same session (no context switch)
 - Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
-- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
+- Review after each task (spec compliance + code quality), broad review at the end
 - Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
 
 ## The Process
@@ -51,41 +54,48 @@ digraph process {
         "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
         "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
         "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
-        "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
-        "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
-        "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [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];
     }
 
-    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
+    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
     "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
     "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
 
-    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "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" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
-    "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
-    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
-    "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
-    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
-    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
-    "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
-    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
-    "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "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?";
     "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+    "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";
 }
 ```
 
+## Pre-Flight Plan Review
+
+Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
+
+- tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints
+- anything the plan explicitly mandates that the review rubric treats as a
+  defect (a test that asserts nothing, verbatim duplication of a logic block)
+
+Present everything you find to your human partner as one batched question —
+each finding beside the plan text that mandates it, asking which governs —
+before execution begins, not one interrupt per discovery mid-plan. If the
+scan is clean, proceed without comment. The review loop remains the net for
+conflicts that only emerge from implementation.
+
 ## Model Selection
 
 Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.
@@ -94,9 +104,27 @@ Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and incr
 
 **Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.
 
-**Architecture, design, and review tasks**: use the most capable available model.
+**Architecture and design tasks**: use the most capable available model.
+The final whole-branch review is one of these — dispatch it on the most
+capable available model, not the session default.
 
-**Task complexity signals:**
+**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.
+
+**Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An
+omitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and
+most expensive — which silently defeats this section.
+
+**Turn count beats token price.** Wall-clock and context cost scale with how
+many turns a subagent takes, and the cheapest models routinely take 2-3× the
+turns on multi-step work — costing more overall. Use a mid-tier model as the
+floor for reviewers and for implementers working from prose descriptions.
+When the task's plan text contains the complete code to write, the
+implementation is transcription plus testing: use the cheapest tier for
+that implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.
+
+**Task complexity signals (implementation tasks):**
 - Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model
 - Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
 - Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
@@ -105,7 +133,7 @@ Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and incr
 
 Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 
-**DONE:** Proceed to spec compliance review.
+**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_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.
 
@@ -119,11 +147,125 @@ 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
+
+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
+
+Per-task reviews are task-scoped gates. The broad review happens once, at the
+final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
+
+- 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
+  same code — the implementer's report carries the test evidence
+- Do not pre-judge findings for the reviewer — never instruct a reviewer to
+  ignore or not flag a specific issue. If you believe a finding would be a
+  false positive, let the reviewer raise it and adjudicate it in the review
+  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
+  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.
+- 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.
+
+## File Handoffs
+
+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:
+
+- **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.
+
+## Durable Progress
+
+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.
+
+- At skill start, check for a ledger:
+  `cat "$(git rev-parse --git-path 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.
+
 ## Prompt Templates
 
-- `./implementer-prompt.md` - Dispatch implementer subagent
-- `./spec-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
-- `./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
+- [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)
 
 ## Example Workflow
 
@@ -131,13 +273,11 @@ Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
 
 [Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
-[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
-[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]
+[Create todos for all tasks]
 
 Task 1: Hook installation script
 
-[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
-[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
+[Run task-brief for Task 1; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
 
 Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
 
@@ -150,18 +290,15 @@ Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
   - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
   - Committed
 
-[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
-Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra
-
-[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
-Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
+[Run review-package, 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]
 
 Task 2: Recovery modes
 
-[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
-[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
+[Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
 
 Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
 Implementer:
@@ -170,25 +307,17 @@ Implementer:
   - Self-review: All good
   - Committed
 
-[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
-Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
+[Run review-package, 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)
 
-[Implementer fixes issues]
-Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting
+[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
+Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
 
-[Spec reviewer reviews again]
-Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now
-
-[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
-Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
-
-[Implementer fixes]
-Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
-
-[Code reviewer reviews again]
-Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
+[Task reviewer reviews again]
+Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
 
 [Mark Task 2 complete]
 
@@ -215,20 +344,20 @@ Done!
 - Review checkpoints automatic
 
 **Efficiency gains:**
-- No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
-- Controller curates exactly what context is needed
+- 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
-- Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
+- 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 + 2 reviewers per task)
+- 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)
@@ -237,17 +366,25 @@ Done!
 
 **Never:**
 - Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
-- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
+- 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 subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
+- 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 (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
+- 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)
-- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order)
-- Move to next task while either review has open issues
+- 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
@@ -269,7 +406,7 @@ Done!
 **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 reviewer subagents
+- **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/skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-# Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
-
-Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
-
-**Purpose:** Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
-
-**Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.**
-
-```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
-  Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
-
-  DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
-  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
-  BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
-  HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
-```
-
-**In addition to standard code quality concerns, the reviewer should check:**
-- Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
-- Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
-- Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
-- Did this implementation create new files that are already large, or significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
-
-**Code reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment

superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md

@@ -3,14 +3,17 @@
 Use this template when dispatching an implementer subagent.
 
 ```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
+Subagent (general-purpose):
   description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
+  model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
+         model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
   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]
+    Read your task brief first: [BRIEF_FILE]
+    It contains the full task text from the plan.
 
     ## Context
 
@@ -41,6 +44,9 @@ Task tool (general-purpose):
     **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.
 
+    While iterating, run the focused test for what you're changing; run the
+    full suite once before committing, not after every edit.
+
     ## Code Organization
 
     You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more
@@ -94,19 +100,39 @@ Task tool (general-purpose):
     - Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
     - Did I follow TDD if required?
     - Are tests comprehensive?
+    - Is the test output pristine (no stray warnings or noise)?
 
     If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.
 
+    ## 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.
+
     ## Report Format
 
-    When done, report:
-    - **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
+    Write your full report to [REPORT_FILE]:
     - What you implemented (or what you attempted, if blocked)
     - What you tested and test results
+    - **TDD Evidence** (if TDD was required for this task):
+      - RED: command run, relevant failing output before implementation, and why the failure was expected
+      - GREEN: command run and relevant passing output after implementation
     - Files changed
     - Self-review findings (if any)
     - Any issues or concerns
 
+    Then report back with ONLY (under 15 lines — the detail lives in the
+    report file):
+    - **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
+    - Commits created (short SHA + subject)
+    - One-line test summary (e.g. "14/14 passing, output pristine")
+    - Your concerns, if any
+    - The report file path
+
+    If BLOCKED or NEEDS_CONTEXT, put the specifics in the final message
+    itself — the controller acts on it directly.
+
     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.

superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/review-package

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Generate a review package: commit list, stat summary, and the net
+# diff with extended context, written to a file the reviewer reads in one
+# call. Using the recorded per-task BASE (not HEAD~1) keeps multi-commit
+# tasks intact.
+#
+# Usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
+# Default OUTFILE: <git-dir>/sdd/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff — unique per
+# repo instance and per range, so concurrent sessions cannot collide and a
+# re-review after fixes always gets a distinctly named fresh file.
+set -euo pipefail
+
+if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
+  echo "usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
+  exit 2
+fi
+
+base=$1
+head=$2
+
+git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$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=$3
+else
+  dir=$(git rev-parse --git-path sdd)
+  mkdir -p "$dir"
+  dir=$(cd "$dir" && pwd)
+  out="$dir/review-$(git rev-parse --short "$base")..$(git rev-parse --short "$head").diff"
+fi
+
+{
+  echo "# Review package: ${base}..${head}"
+  echo
+  echo "## Commits"
+  git log --oneline "${base}..${head}"
+  echo
+  echo "## Files changed"
+  git diff --stat "${base}..${head}"
+  echo
+  echo "## Diff"
+  git diff -U10 "${base}..${head}"
+} > "$out"
+
+commits=$(git rev-list --count "${base}..${head}")
+echo "wrote ${out}: ${commits} commit(s), $(wc -c < "$out" | tr -d ' ') bytes"

superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/task-brief

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Extract one task's full text from an implementation plan into a file the
+# implementer reads in one call, so the task text never has to be pasted
+# through the controller's context.
+#
+# Usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]
+# Default OUTFILE: <git-dir>/sdd/task-<N>-brief.md — unique per repo
+# instance, so concurrent sessions cannot collide.
+set -euo pipefail
+
+if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
+  echo "usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]" >&2
+  exit 2
+fi
+
+plan=$1
+n=$2
+[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
+
+if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
+  out=$3
+else
+  dir=$(git rev-parse --git-path sdd)
+  mkdir -p "$dir"
+  dir=$(cd "$dir" && pwd)
+  out="$dir/task-${n}-brief.md"
+fi
+
+awk -v n="$n" '
+  /^```/ { infence = !infence }
+  !infence && /^#+[ \t]+Task[ \t]+[0-9]+/ {
+    intask = ($0 ~ ("^#+[ \t]+Task[ \t]+" n "([^0-9]|$)"))
+  }
+  intask { print }
+' "$plan" > "$out"
+
+if [ ! -s "$out" ]; then
+  echo "task ${n} not found in ${plan} (no heading matching 'Task ${n}')" >&2
+  exit 3
+fi
+
+echo "wrote ${out}: $(wc -l < "$out" | tr -d ' ') lines"

superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -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]
-```

superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+# Task Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a task reviewer subagent. The reviewer
+reads the task's diff once and returns two verdicts: spec compliance and
+code quality.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify one task's implementation matches its requirements (nothing
+more, nothing less) and is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
+
+```
+Subagent (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review Task N (spec + quality)"
+  model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
+         model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
+  prompt: |
+    You are reviewing one task's implementation: first whether it matches its
+    requirements, then whether it is well-built. This is a task-scoped gate,
+    not a merge review — a broad whole-branch review happens separately after
+    all tasks are complete.
+
+    ## What Was Requested
+
+    Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE]
+
+    Global constraints from the spec/design that bind this task:
+    [GLOBAL_CONSTRAINTS]
+
+    ## What the Implementer Claims They Built
+
+    Read the implementer's report: [REPORT_FILE]
+
+    ## Diff Under Review
+
+    **Base:** [BASE_SHA]
+    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
+    **Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE]
+
+    Read the diff file once — it contains the commit list, a stat summary,
+    and the full diff with surrounding context, and it is your view of the
+    change. The diff's context lines ARE the changed files: do not Read a
+    changed file separately unless a hunk you must judge is cut off
+    mid-function — and say so in your report. Do not re-run git commands.
+    If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself:
+    `git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and `git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`.
+    Do not crawl the broader codebase. Inspect code outside the diff only
+    to evaluate a concrete risk you can name — one focused check per named
+    risk, and name both the risk and what you checked in your report.
+    Cross-cutting changes are legitimate named risks: if the diff changes
+    lock ordering, a function or API contract, or shared mutable state,
+    checking the call sites is the right method.
+
+    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
+    tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
+
+    ## Do Not Trust the Report
+
+    Treat the implementer's report as unverified claims about the code. It
+    may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. Verify the claims against
+    the diff. Design rationales in the report are claims too: "left it per
+    YAGNI," "kept it simple deliberately," or any other justification is the
+    implementer grading their own work. Judge the code on its merits — a
+    stated rationale never downgrades a finding's severity.
+
+    ## Tests
+
+    The implementer already ran the tests and reported results with TDD
+    evidence for exactly this code. 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, race detector run, or repeated/high-count loop. If
+    heavy validation seems warranted, recommend it in your report instead of
+    running it. If you cannot run commands in this environment, name the
+    test you would run.
+
+    Warnings or other noise in the implementer's reported test output are
+    findings — test output should be pristine.
+
+    ## Part 1: Spec Compliance
+
+    Compare the diff against What Was Requested:
+
+    - **Missing:** requirements they skipped, missed, or claimed without
+      implementing
+    - **Extra:** features that weren't requested, over-engineering, unneeded
+      "nice to haves"
+    - **Misunderstood:** right feature built the wrong way, wrong problem
+      solved
+
+    If a requirement cannot be verified from this diff alone (it lives in
+    unchanged code or spans tasks), report it as a ⚠️ item instead of
+    broadening your search.
+
+    ## Part 2: Code Quality
+
+    **Code quality:**
+    - Clean separation of concerns?
+    - Proper error handling?
+    - DRY without premature abstraction?
+    - Edge cases handled?
+
+    **Tests:**
+    - Do the new and changed tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
+    - Are the task's edge cases covered?
+
+    **Structure:**
+    - Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
+    - Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
+    - Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
+    - Did this change create new files that are already large, or
+      significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file
+      sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
+
+    Your report should point at evidence: file:line references for every
+    finding and for any check you would otherwise answer with a bare
+    "yes." A tight report that cites lines gives the controller everything
+    it needs.
+
+    Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the
+    spec-compliance verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with
+    file:line, or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration,
+    no closing summary.
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
+    Important means this task cannot be trusted until it is fixed: incorrect
+    or fragile behavior, a missed requirement, or maintainability damage you
+    would block a merge over — verbatim duplication of a logic block,
+    swallowed errors, tests that assert nothing. "Coverage could be broader"
+    and polish suggestions are Minor.
+    If the plan or brief explicitly mandates something this rubric calls a
+    defect (a test that asserts nothing, verbatim duplication of a logic
+    block), that IS a finding — report it as Important, labeled
+    plan-mandated. The plan's authorship does not grade its own work; the
+    human decides.
+    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
+    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ### Spec Compliance
+
+    - ✅ Spec compliant | ❌ Issues found: [what's missing/extra/misunderstood,
+      with file:line references]
+    - ⚠️ Cannot verify from diff: [requirements you could not verify from the
+      diff alone, and what the controller should check — report alongside the
+      ✅/❌ verdict for everything you could verify]
+
+    ### Strengths
+    [What's well done? Be specific.]
+
+    ### Issues
+
+    #### Critical (Must Fix)
+    #### Important (Should Fix)
+    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
+
+    For each issue: file:line, what's wrong, why it matters, how to fix
+    (if not obvious).
+
+    ### Assessment
+
+    **Task quality:** [Approved | Needs fixes]
+
+    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
+```
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `[MODEL]` — REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection
+- `[BRIEF_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the task brief file (`scripts/task-brief PLAN N`
+  prints the path; same file the implementer worked from)
+- `[GLOBAL_CONSTRAINTS]` — the binding requirements copied verbatim from
+  the plan's Global Constraints section or the spec: exact values, formats,
+  and stated relationships between components (not process rules — those
+  are already in this template)
+- `[REPORT_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the file the implementer wrote its detailed
+  report to
+- `[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)
+
+**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.