Squashed 'docs/standards/playbook/' changes from c3f8137..25d895d

25d895d 🐛 fix(gitea_workflow): clean up temp repos after job steps 2bc3b11 🐛 fix(gitea_workflow): clean up temporary repo dirs in workflows 98c3f30 📝 docs(agent_rules): allow plan execution on current branch 16c7230 📝 docs(prompts): define custom verify layering 8efc4dd 🐛 fix(skills): quote commit-message description bc8498f 🐛 fix(ci): install tomli for gitea tests 55cda3b 🐛 fix(tests): report missing toml parser clearly c0729c7 🐛 fix(playbook): import Optional for cli compatibility 63e24bf 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills d2f9356 🐛 fix(ci): isolate gitea workflow repos 588b81d 🐛 fix(ci): inline gitea workflow bootstrap e0b1c3a ♻️ refactor(skills): standardize first-party skill contracts 2c5050d ♻️ refactor(skills): rename repo skills source dir f049dfb 📦 deps(skills): drop duplicate first-party superpowers skills 234b335 ✨ feat(workflow): add superpowers planning and execution state tracking c1702a6 📝 docs(markdown): format tracked markdown and drop stale templates 2325409 📝 docs(markdown): clarify optional markdownlint usage 214c44e 🔧 chore(markdown): add markdownlint baseline and lint fixes a22b324 📝 docs(templates): add execution and memory-bank prompt templates 223a797 📝 docs(templates): update README for Claude Code and current features 4ac8672 📝 docs: simplify README + platform-agnostic tools + auto-create local rules 2431c9d 📝 docs: add claude_md config and use cross-platform paths d64b248 📝 docs: fix README.md inaccuracies and add Claude Code info c8d6bf2 🐛 fix(playbook): use relative paths in CLAUDE.md when not at project root 6518f0f ✨ feat(playbook): auto-create CLAUDE.md with path discovery 6ec9a45 ✨ feat(skills): add skill_link symlink support + platform-agnostic prompt 9f8b6b5 📝 docs: update README and config example for Claude Code support 79cff6c 📝 docs(skills): add Claude Code platform support 452c6f5 ✨ feat(playbook): auto-inject AGENTS.md into CLAUDE.md e1dbf3c 🐛 fix(skills): remove dual-path from commit-message skill f3a7259 🔧 chore(ci): use prepare_repo.sh in both workflows da08212 🔧 chore(ci): extract prepare_repo.sh and clean up workflows 7ade85e 🗑️ remove(tsl): drop syntax_book/, data/ source and build script f94dba0 ♻️ refactor(skills): update playbook.py and tests for thirdparty/ layout b3df412 ♻️ refactor(skills): separate thirdparty skills into thirdparty/ subdirectory 64950e7 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills a2e3cb0 ✨ feat(playbook): add no_backup deploy controls 8609d59 🐛 fix(docs): repair reference catalog source links 956da11 🐛 fix(playbook): publish hidden ci test fixes 3f67754 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills 08ca87b 📦 deps(skills): add karpathy thirdparty sync 96b705b 📝 docs(tsl): rebuild canonical syntax and routing manual 3ed5052 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills 60108dd 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills da85d4e 🐛 fix(thirdparty): prune nested project snapshots a2a697e 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills 9df610a 🐛 fix(thirdparty): exclude duplicated superpowers skills 33dd5bb 🐛 fix(thirdparty): preserve optional manifest fields 91b0ea7 🐛 fix(thirdparty): preserve manifest during snapshot update 2e26f98 🔧 chore(thirdparty): generalize skills sync pipeline 5b9c1e3 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 2f2d34a 📝 docs(readme): normalize subtree command spacing 62db7db 🐛 fix(ci): serialize superpowers update and sync 3463223 🐛 fix(ci): use literal superpowers sync paths 48f6de8 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 4b23529 🔧 chore(ci): merge superpowers update and sync workflow a56d75b 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 84bcefa 🔧 chore(ci): use ci[bot] commit author name 00a07e5 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 7b84daf 🐛 fix(templates): enforce main loop progress tracking 51373d7 🔧 chore(ci): automate superpowers sync workflow eaaa39c 🐛 fix(ci): prevent stale superpowers sync from restoring skills block 79755c6 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 836d878 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 8216c9f 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers 9439505 🐛 fix(playbook): address reported repo issues git-subtree-dir: docs/standards/playbook git-subtree-split: 25d895d8b3f56624ccfe99ad7289e9eb49e0f316
2026-05-24 13:04:14 +08:00
parent 35e6a301aa
commit 3d83740f88
292 changed files with 30774 additions and 218828 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+name: requesting-code-review
+description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
+---
+
+# Requesting Code Review
+
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
+
+**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
+
+## When to Request Review
+
+**Mandatory:**
+- After each task in subagent-driven development
+- After completing major feature
+- Before merge to main
+
+**Optional but valuable:**
+- When stuck (fresh perspective)
+- Before refactoring (baseline check)
+- After fixing complex bug
+
+## How to Request
+
+**1. Get git SHAs:**
+```bash
+BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+```
+
+**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**
+
+Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
+
+**3. Act on feedback:**
+- Fix Critical issues immediately
+- Fix Important issues before proceeding
+- Note Minor issues for later
+- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
+
+## Example
+
+```
+[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
+
+You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
+
+BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
+HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
+
+[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
+  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
+  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
+  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
+  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
+
+[Subagent returns]:
+  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
+  Issues:
+    Important: Missing progress indicators
+    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
+  Assessment: Ready to proceed
+
+You: [Fix progress indicators]
+[Continue to Task 3]
+```
+
+## Integration with Workflows
+
+**Subagent-Driven Development:**
+- Review after EACH task
+- Catch issues before they compound
+- Fix before moving to next task
+
+**Executing Plans:**
+- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
+- Get feedback, apply, continue
+
+**Ad-Hoc Development:**
+- Review before merge
+- Review when stuck
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Skip review because "it's simple"
+- Ignore Critical issues
+- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
+- Argue with valid technical feedback
+
+**If reviewer wrong:**
+- Push back with technical reasoning
+- Show code/tests that prove it works
+- Request clarification
+
+See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+# Code Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a code reviewer subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Review completed work against requirements and code quality standards before it cascades into more work.
+
+```
+Task tool (general-purpose):
+  description: "Review code changes"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a Senior Code Reviewer with expertise in software architecture,
+    design patterns, and best practices. Your job is to review completed work
+    against its plan or requirements and identify issues before they cascade.
+
+    ## What Was Implemented
+
+    {DESCRIPTION}
+
+    ## Requirements / Plan
+
+    {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
+
+    ## Git Range to Review
+
+    **Base:** {BASE_SHA}
+    **Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
+
+    ```bash
+    git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    ```
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    **Plan alignment:**
+    - Does the implementation match the plan / requirements?
+    - Are deviations justified improvements, or problematic departures?
+    - Is all planned functionality present?
+
+    **Code quality:**
+    - Clean separation of concerns?
+    - Proper error handling?
+    - Type safety where applicable?
+    - DRY without premature abstraction?
+    - Edge cases handled?
+
+    **Architecture:**
+    - Sound design decisions?
+    - Reasonable scalability and performance?
+    - Security concerns?
+    - Integrates cleanly with surrounding code?
+
+    **Testing:**
+    - Tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
+    - Edge cases covered?
+    - Integration tests where they matter?
+    - All tests passing?
+
+    **Production readiness:**
+    - Migration strategy if schema changed?
+    - Backward compatibility considered?
+    - Documentation complete?
+    - No obvious bugs?
+
+    ## Calibration
+
+    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
+    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
+    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
+
+    If you find significant deviations from the plan, flag them specifically
+    so the implementer can confirm whether the deviation was intentional.
+    If you find issues with the plan itself rather than the implementation,
+    say so.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ### Strengths
+    [What's well done? Be specific.]
+
+    ### Issues
+
+    #### Critical (Must Fix)
+    [Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
+
+    #### Important (Should Fix)
+    [Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
+
+    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
+    [Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation polish]
+
+    For each issue:
+    - File:line reference
+    - What's wrong
+    - Why it matters
+    - How to fix (if not obvious)
+
+    ### Recommendations
+    [Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
+
+    ### Assessment
+
+    **Ready to merge?** [Yes | No | With fixes]
+
+    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
+
+    ## Critical Rules
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Categorize by actual severity
+    - Be specific (file:line, not vague)
+    - Explain WHY each issue matters
+    - Acknowledge strengths
+    - Give a clear verdict
+
+    **DON'T:**
+    - Say "looks good" without checking
+    - Mark nitpicks as Critical
+    - Give feedback on code you didn't actually read
+    - Be vague ("improve error handling")
+    - Avoid giving a clear verdict
+```
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` — brief summary of what was built
+- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` — what it should do (plan file path, task text, or requirements)
+- `{BASE_SHA}` — starting commit
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` — ending commit
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical / Important / Minor), Recommendations, Assessment
+
+## Example Output
+
+```
+### Strengths
+- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
+- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
+- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
+
+### Issues
+
+#### Important
+1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
+   - File: index-conversations:1-31
+   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
+   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
+
+2. **Date validation missing**
+   - File: search.ts:25-27
+   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
+   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
+
+#### Minor
+1. **Progress indicators**
+   - File: indexer.ts:130
+   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
+   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
+
+### Recommendations
+- Add progress reporting for user experience
+- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
+
+### Assessment
+
+**Ready to merge: With fixes**
+
+**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
+```