For a project with no configured tooling, the design presentation now
includes a tooling question — linting/auto-formatting, unit-test
infrastructure, e2e test infrastructure, fuzz/mutation testing — whose
answers land in the spec's Global Constraints. Without this, sessions
never ask and ship plans with zero tooling constraints (0/3 in the
quorum control cell); with it, the ask fires before any code in 3/3
and the user's answer is honored verbatim, including exclusions.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
Register the Hermes YAML manifest alongside the existing JSON manifests. Route manifest reads and writes by extension through jq or Mike Farah yq v4, with field names and values passed as data.
Preflight every present manifest before the mutating bump loop so a deterministic YAML read failure cannot leave earlier JSON manifests partially updated. Cover check, audit, bump, registry wiring, and byte-for-byte no-partial-write behavior with one focused fixture test.
Record Drew's approved reduced design after the second staff review. Limit preflight to the mutating bump path, cover audit's independent read path, and require byte-for-byte proof that deterministic YAML failures cannot partially update earlier JSON manifests.
Provide one TDD implementation task for the Hermes registry entry, jq/yq dispatch, focused preflight, and three behavioral checks. Explicitly defer rollback, audit-status changes, nested YAML, runtime changes, and broader release-tool refactoring.
Incorporate the adversarial design review without turning the Hermes wiring follow-up into a general release-script refactor. Keep the existing jq path, add Mike Farah yq v4 only for .yaml, and retain one read-only preflight to prevent deterministic partial bumps.\n\nReduce the test contract to three behavioral cases and explicitly defer .yml support, nested YAML, rollback machinery, audit/status redesign, exhaustive failure matrices, and the separately discovered JSON-expression issue. This follows Drew's direction to avoid ceremony and overengineering.
Document the agreed follow-up to PR #2025 on a branch based on its merged dev commit. The design registers the Hermes YAML manifest, keeps jq for existing JSON files, and uses Mike Farah yq v4 for a narrow top-level YAML field rather than adding a Bash parser.\n\nDefine focused failure behavior and behavioral tests while explicitly excluding nested YAML, Hermes runtime changes, and unrelated release-script refactors. This captures Drew's request to keep the implementation small and avoid process or abstraction overhead.
`git status --porcelain` collapses a wholly-untracked directory to a single
`?? docs/` line. In the shape of the incident this step exists for (#2016 — an
uncommitted plan document under an untracked `docs/` tree), the file list we
show the human partner therefore names no file at all:
$ git -C "$WORKTREE_PATH" status --porcelain
?? docs/
$ git -C "$WORKTREE_PATH" status --porcelain -uall
?? docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-04-csv-export-rollout.md
Both forms produce identical (empty) output on a clean worktree, so this adds
no over-trigger surface.
Found while running this PR's behavioral micro-tests. Every treatment agent
dug past `?? docs/` unprompted and named the document, so the step did work —
but on the agent's own initiative rather than because the text asked for it.
That initiative is not reliable one tier down: Claude Haiku 4.5 on the control
arm failed for exactly this shape, asking a question that never named the file
and then deciding for the human when they deferred. Nothing in the prior
wording stopped a treatment agent from relaying `?? docs/` verbatim and
satisfying the letter of the instruction.
Re-ran the treatment cells against this amended text — Opus pass (refusal
fired, named the file), Haiku 4.5 pass (named the file) — no regression.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The `dot` availability check shelled out to `which dot`, which is not a
command on Windows, so render-graphs.js reported graphviz as missing on
Windows even when it was installed. Replace it with a direct `dot -V`
probe via execFileSync.
Also switch the SVG render call from execSync to execFileSync('dot',
['-Tsvg']). Behavior is identical on macOS/Linux — the diagram source
was already passed via stdin, never interpolated into the command — but
running the binary directly removes the shell entirely.
Update the Hermes plugin manifest from 6.1.1 to 6.2.0 so PR #2025 matches the current release version at the tip of origin/dev.\n\nThis intentionally does not change the version bump tooling. The existing release script supports JSON manifests only; YAML support will be handled separately on its own branch.
Interrogation of reviewers who bypassed test-evidence leases showed a
convergent driver: when the report or receipt looked truncated or
couldn't be located, re-running the suite felt cheaper than re-reading —
evidence got regenerated instead of read. This paragraph names that
moment: re-read at the stated path, report a genuine gap to the
controller, and never re-run to regenerate what wasn't read.
Battery: 0/31 reviewer re-runs across 4 treatment reps vs 7/~59
reviewers in 5/8 control reps on the same scenario and classifier.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
Batching moves N edits under one review, which changes the review's
failure profile: an implementer that silently skips one file of twelve
produces a diff full of correct, uniform edits — nothing conspicuous is
missing, and no seat in the pipeline was assigned to notice. The single
combined review is the only net for a dropped edit, but the reviewer
template never told it to count.
The batch brief already lists every file with its change, so the reviewer
reconciles the diff against that list file by file; a listed file with no
hunk is a Missing finding regardless of how clean the rest of the batch
looks. Conditional on a multi-file brief, so single-task reviews are
unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Both PRs rewrote the same preflight paragraph. Resolution is the composed
text published in #2080's description — the configuration the 3/3+3/3
composed eval grades ran.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The breaker's two ledger formats wrote lowercase 'ruling' (parked
findings, load-bearing adjudications), so the Finish section's
collect-every-`Ruling:`-line step missed exactly the rulings made under
the most pressure. Field evidence from an independent eval rep: a
breaker-cap run adjudicated correctly, wrote everything to the
plan-scoped ledger, deleted the workspace at finish, and left no durable
trace of the adjudication.
Capitalize the two breaker formats to the canonical token, and make the
finish roll-up explicitly exhaustive across preflight, parked, and
breaker rulings.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
In controlled evals, an identical seeded-incoherence plan yielded 0-1/5
correct conflict resolutions when executed specless (controllers ruled
the conflicts 'internally explained') and 4-5/5 with the spec merely
present and named — even with no other skill-text changes. Cross-task
coherence turns out to be adjudicable only against ground truth above
the plan; this change makes that ground truth travel with the plan.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
The pre-Task-1 conflict scan currently permits 'the scan is clean' with
no evidence the scan happened — mined sessions show controllers skipping
straight to dispatch and plan conflicts surfacing mid-execution as
blocking questions. Requiring the scan to emit one row per task pair
sharing a file/interface and one row per task's self-consistency turns
the claim into an artifact; in controlled evals the table appeared 3/3
with conflicts surfaced pre-dispatch, and the mechanism held 3/3 when
composed with the never-stall ruling change (#2077).
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
Plans sometimes enumerate many tiny, same-shape edits (one-line fixes,
constant changes, a field added across files) as separate tasks. The
current loop dispatches a fresh implementer plus review per task, so a
12-micro-task plan costs ~24 subagent seats for what one subagent could
do in a single pass. In controlled evals on a micro-task plan, batching
cut cost 73% and dispatches 87% with better completion than control; on
a 5-non-trivial-task plan the rule correctly never batched (dispatch
counts and completion identical to control).
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
A donated session sat dormant 8h48m waiting for a plan-conflict answer
that cost ~zero tokens to decide. Wrong-ruling rework is bounded;
stalls are not. This encodes the never-stall doctrine: plan conflicts,
ambiguities, and cap exceptions get a controller ruling recorded in
the ledger and work proceeds; only irreversible/destructive actions,
security-sensitive actions, out-of-worktree side effects (merge/push/
publish), and totally-broken plans remain hard stops. Rulings surface
in the Finish report instead of as mid-run questions.
Evals: 3/3 no-stall vs control 3/3 stall-at-preflight on a
seeded-conflict SDD plan; catastrophic guard 5/5 (every rep reaching a
seeded DROP TABLE step refused it); re-validated 3/3 after rebase onto
the current fix-PR text; composes cleanly with the evidence-bearing
preflight treatment.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0185AJr98gHx5EmwqNeft4Sy
Round 2 proved the long-wait mechanism (65.1%->0.0% timeouts) but
20-38 min silent waits starved graders and let 1/51 children vanish;
bounded 5-10 min stretches with a status line and list_agents
reconcile keep the efficiency and restore observability.
Docs-only wait guidance in the platform reference changed nothing
(65.1% vs 67.1% baseline wait-timeout rate); the discipline now lives
in the controller loop the session actually re-reads.
60-78% of wait_agent calls timed out across every measured corpus;
waits are event subscriptions, so one long wait replaces dozens of
polls at identical wake latency.
The first fix-cycle battery moved the depth-2 leak from implementers
(9/9 baseline -> 0/6) to a final reviewer that spawned two
sub-reviewers; the contract now reaches every dispatched role.
Five claims contradicted by the Codex CLI source (V2 has no
close_agent; followup_task always reaches a child; role files attach
via agent_type; full-history forks accept model/effort; V2 spawn
allowlist). Citations: superpowers-autoresearch
docs/2026-07-29-codex-multiagent-v2-capabilities.md.
Converges dev with the rebased release SHAs on main immediately, while
the trees are identical, so the merge is conflict-free and the next
dev -> main release shows only genuinely-new work.
Release notes for everything on dev since v6.1.1, plus the version bump
to 6.2.0 across all seven declared manifest files (bump-version.sh,
audit clean). Tagging and marketplace publication happen after the
dev -> main merge.
Follow-up to #2011 (which fixed the ./-prefix mismatch for the documented
pattern form): strip a leading ./ from the caller's pattern instead of
double-prefixing it into a never-matching ././ form, and also match the
pattern with '**/' collapsed, since find -path cannot match '**/' against
zero directory levels and silently skipped files directly under the base
directory (src/top.test.ts vs src/**/*.test.ts).
Adds a deterministic test suite for the script with a stubbed npm.
The prune in e7ddc25e removed the `## Subagent support` section from
antigravity-tools.md but left the inline cross-reference to it in the
dispatch table, so `[Subagent support](#subagent-support)` resolves to
nothing. An agent following the pointer to learn the difference between
the `self` and `research` subagent types lands nowhere.
Drop the dangling parenthetical. The guidance it pointed at survives in
the same table cell -- `self` for full-capability work, `research` for
read-only -- so no content is lost and the row still answers the
question the removed section answered.
gemini-tools.md carries the same cross-reference but retains its
`## Subagent support` heading, so its link is valid and is left alone.
Eight tasks across two repos: new re-review template, template/reference
alignment, full SKILL.md lifecycle restructure with move map, two
seeded-ledger fixture helpers, three quorum scenarios, and the RED/GREEN/
regression live-run campaign.
Review-fix loop gets resume-the-implementer semantics, scoped
re-reviews, a five-round circuit breaker, and controller adjudication
at trip. SKILL.md reorganizes by lifecycle; Red Flags converts to a
rationalization table. Brainstormed with Jesse 2026-07-15.
Jesse Vincent