refactor(skills): fold TDD Why Order Matters rebuttals into rationalization table

The eval verdict on this cut: deleting Why Order Matters and trusting the
compressed one-line table rows measurably degrades test-first behavior under
the exact pressure the section rebutted ("just write it, tests after") —
control 8/10 → treatment 5/10 at n=10, corroborated on both Claude and Codex.
Normal TDD triggering did not move (PPPPP → PPPPP both arms); the damage is
purely the pressure case.

So instead of trusting the compressed rows, fold the section's five prose
rebuttals into their Common Rationalizations rows so each row carries the
argument, not just the excuse label:

- "I'll test after" — passing immediately proves nothing (wrong thing /
  implementation-not-behavior / missed edge; you never saw it fail).
- "Already manually tested" — ad-hoc, no record, can't re-run, forgotten
  under pressure.
- "Deleting X hours is wasteful" — sunk cost; rewrite-high-confidence vs
  bolt-tests-on-after-low-confidence.
- "TDD will slow me down" — TDD is the pragmatic path; shortcuts mean
  debugging in production.
- "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" — what-does vs
  what-should; biased by the code you wrote; coverage without proof.

Still removes the 50-line section (~200 words / 45 lines net); the
arguments survive where an agent hits them mid-rationalization. Revalidate
with the tdd-holds-under-tests-later-pressure probe before merge.

CLAUDE.md

@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Skills are not prose — they are code that shapes agent behavior. If you modify
 
 ## Eval harness
 
-Skill-behavior evals live in [superpowers-evals](https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/superpowers-evals/), cloned into `evals/` — see `evals/README.md` for setup. Drill (the harness) drives real tmux sessions of Claude Code / Codex / Gemini CLI and judges skill compliance with an LLM verifier. Plugin-infrastructure tests still live at `tests/`.
+Skill-behavior evals live in [superpowers-evals](https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/superpowers-evals/), cloned into `evals/` — see `evals/README.md` for setup. The harness drives real tmux sessions of Claude Code / Codex and judges skill compliance with an LLM verifier. Plugin-infrastructure tests still live at `tests/`.
 
 ## Understand the Project Before Contributing
 

README.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ If this sounds like someone you know, definitely send them our way.
 
 ## Quickstart
 
-Give your agent Superpowers: [Claude Code](#claude-code), [Antigravity](#antigravity), [Codex App](#codex-app), [Codex CLI](#codex-cli), [Cursor](#cursor), [Factory Droid](#factory-droid), [Gemini CLI](#gemini-cli), [GitHub Copilot CLI](#github-copilot-cli), [Kimi Code](#kimi-code), [OpenCode](#opencode), [Pi](#pi).
+Give your agent Superpowers: [Claude Code](#claude-code), [Antigravity](#antigravity), [Codex App](#codex-app), [Codex CLI](#codex-cli), [Cursor](#cursor), [Factory Droid](#factory-droid), [GitHub Copilot CLI](#github-copilot-cli), [Kimi Code](#kimi-code), [OpenCode](#opencode), [Pi](#pi).
 
 ## How it works
 
@@ -122,20 +122,6 @@ Superpowers is available via the [official Codex plugin marketplace](https://git
   droid plugin install superpowers@superpowers
   ```
 
-### Gemini CLI
-
-- Install the extension:
-
-  ```bash
-  gemini extensions install https://github.com/obra/superpowers
-  ```
-
-- Update later:
-
-  ```bash
-  gemini extensions update superpowers
-  ```
-
 ### GitHub Copilot CLI
 
 - Register the marketplace:

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ digraph brainstorming {
 - Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
 - Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
 - Lead with your recommended option and explain why
+- YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from every approach and design
 
 **Presenting the design:**
 
@@ -130,15 +131,6 @@ Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the
 - Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
 - Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
 
-## Key Principles
-
-- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
-- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
-- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
-- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
-- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on
-- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
-
 ## Visual Companion
 
 A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.

skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md

@@ -74,13 +74,6 @@ On Windows, the script auto-detects and switches to foreground mode (which block
 scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project --open
 ```
 
-**Gemini CLI:**
-```bash
-# Use --foreground and set is_background: true on your shell tool call
-# so the process survives across turns
-scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project --open --foreground
-```
-
 **Copilot CLI:**
 ```bash
 # Use --foreground and start the server via the bash tool with mode: "async"

skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -158,15 +158,6 @@ Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts
 
 **Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green
 
-**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially
-
-## Key Benefits
-
-1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously
-2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track
-3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other
-4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1
-
 ## Verification
 
 After agents return:
@@ -174,12 +165,3 @@ After agents return:
 2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?
 3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together
 4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging session (2025-10-03):
-- 6 failures across 3 files
-- 3 agents dispatched in parallel
-- All investigations completed concurrently
-- All fixes integrated successfully
-- Zero conflicts between agent changes

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -11,16 +11,15 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
 
-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
+**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
 
 ## The Process
 
 ### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
-1. Ensure an isolated workspace: use superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one
+1. Read plan file
-2. Read plan file
+2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
-3. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
+3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
-4. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
+4. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed
-5. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed
 
 ### Step 2: Execute Tasks
 
@@ -62,3 +61,10 @@ After all tasks complete and verified:
 - Reference skills when plan says to
 - Stop when blocked, don't guess
 - Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
+
+## 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:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks

skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md

@@ -1,58 +1,71 @@
 ---
 name: finishing-a-development-branch
-description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work
+description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
 ---
 
 # Finishing a Development Branch
 
 ## Overview
 
+Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
+
 **Core principle:** Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
 
-## Step 1: Verify Tests
+## The Process
 
-Run the project's full test suite (`npm test` / `cargo test` / `pytest` / `go test ./...`).
+### Step 1: Verify Tests
 
-**If tests fail**, report the failures and stop — the menu comes after a green suite:
+**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
 
+```bash
+# Run project's test suite
+npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
+```
+
+**If tests fail:**
 ```
 Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
 
 [Show failures]
+
+Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
 ```
 
-**If tests pass:** continue to Step 2.
+Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
 
-## Step 2: Detect Environment
+**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
+
+### Step 2: Detect Environment
+
+**Determine workspace state before presenting options:**
 
 ```bash
 GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
 GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
-# Capture now, while still inside the workspace — Step 5 changes directory
-# before cleanup (Step 6) needs this value
-WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
 ```
 
 This determines which menu to show and how cleanup works:
 
 | State | Menu | Cleanup |
 |-------|------|---------|
-| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 3 options | No worktree to clean up |
+| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 4 options | No worktree to clean up |
-| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 3 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 4 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
-| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 2 options (no merge) | Externally managed — leave in place |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 3 options (no merge) | No cleanup (externally managed) |
 
-## Step 3: Determine Base Branch
+### Step 3: Determine Base Branch
 
-The base branch is whatever this work forked from — usually named in the
+```bash
-plan, the conversation, or the branch's upstream. If it is not already
+# Try common base branches
-known, ask: "This branch split from <your best guess> - is that correct?"
+git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
-Confirm before merging: merging into the wrong base is expensive to undo.
+```
 
-## Step 4: Present Options
+Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
 
-**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 3 options:**
+### Step 4: Present Options
+
+**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 4 options:**
 
 ```
 Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
@@ -60,30 +73,28 @@ Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
 1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
 2. Push and create a Pull Request
 3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
+4. Discard this work
 
 Which option?
 ```
 
-**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 2 options:**
+**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 3 options:**
 
 ```
 Implementation complete. You're on a detached HEAD (externally managed workspace).
 
 1. Push as new branch and create a Pull Request
 2. Keep as-is (I'll handle it later)
+3. Discard this work
 
 Which option?
 ```
 
-Present the menu exactly as written — concise, with every option coming
+**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
-from the list above. Discarding the work happens only in response to your
-human partner explicitly asking for it (see "If your human partner asks to
-discard the work" below). Wait for their answer; the integration decision
-is theirs.
 
-## Step 5: Execute Choice
+### Step 5: Execute Choice
 
-### Option 1: Merge Locally
+#### Option 1: Merge Locally
 
 ```bash
 # Get main repo root for CWD safety
@@ -97,43 +108,34 @@ git merge <feature-branch>
 
 # Verify tests on merged result
 <test command>
+
+# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch
 ```
 
-If tests fail on the merged result: stop, leave the worktree and branch in
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch:
-place, and investigate — nothing has been pushed, so the merge is local
-and recoverable.
-
-Once the merged result is green: clean up the worktree (Step 6), then
-delete the branch:
 
 ```bash
 git branch -d <feature-branch>
 ```
 
-### Option 2: Push and Create PR
+#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
 
 ```bash
+# Push branch
 git push -u origin <feature-branch>
-# From a detached HEAD, name the new branch on the remote:
-# git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/<new-branch>
 ```
 
-Then create the pull/merge request against <base-branch> with the forge's
+**Do NOT clean up worktree** — user needs it alive to iterate on PR feedback.
-tooling — its CLI if one is available, or the creation URL most forges
-print when you push — following the repo's PR template and conventions if
-present, and report the URL to your human partner.
 
-Keep the worktree — your human partner iterates on PR feedback there.
+#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
-
-### Option 3: Keep As-Is
 
 Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
 
-### If your human partner asks to discard the work
+**Don't cleanup worktree.**
 
-This path exists only as a response to an explicit request to throw the
+#### Option 4: Discard
-work away. Confirm first:
 
+**Confirm first:**
 ```
 This will permanently delete:
 - Branch <name>
@@ -143,39 +145,41 @@ This will permanently delete:
 Type 'discard' to confirm.
 ```
 
-Wait for that exact confirmation. When it arrives:
+Wait for exact confirmation.
 
+If confirmed:
 ```bash
 MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
 cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 ```
 
-Then clean up the worktree (Step 6) and force-delete the branch:
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then force-delete branch:
-
 ```bash
 git branch -D <feature-branch>
 ```
 
-## Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
+### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
 
-**Runs for Option 1 and confirmed discards.** Options 2 and 3 always
+**Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree.
-preserve the worktree. Both callers have already changed directory to the
+
-main repo root — worktree removal must run from outside the worktree —
+```bash
-and use the `GIT_DIR`/`GIT_COMMON`/`WORKTREE_PATH` values captured in
+GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
-Step 2, from before that directory change.
+GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+```
 
 **If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON`:** Normal repo, no worktree to clean up. Done.
 
-**If `WORKTREE_PATH` is under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`:** Superpowers
+**If worktree path is under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`:** Superpowers created this worktree — we own cleanup.
-created this worktree — we own cleanup:
 
 ```bash
+MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH"
 git worktree prune  # Self-healing: clean up any stale registrations
 ```
 
-**Otherwise:** The host environment owns this workspace — leave it in
+**Otherwise:** The host environment (harness) owns this workspace. Do NOT remove it. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it. Otherwise, leave the workspace in place.
-place. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it.
 
 ## Quick Reference
 
@@ -184,18 +188,54 @@ place. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it.
 | 1. Merge locally | yes | - | - | yes |
 | 2. Create PR | - | yes | yes | - |
 | 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - |
-| Discard (explicit request only) | - | - | - | yes (force) |
+| 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) |
 
-## Common Rationalizations
+## Common Mistakes
 
-| Excuse | Reality |
+**Skipping test verification**
-|--------|---------|
+- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
-| "Tests passed earlier this session" | Run the suite on the tree you are about to integrate. A green run only proves the tree it ran on. |
+- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
-| "They obviously want it merged" | Integration is your human partner's decision. Present the menu and wait. |
+
-| "They seem done with this feature — I'll offer to discard it" | The menu is complete as written. Discard happens only when your human partner asks for it in so many words. |
+**Open-ended questions**
-| "'Yeah, get rid of it' counts as confirmation" | Only the typed word `discard` authorizes deletion. |
+- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" is ambiguous
-| "The PR is up, so the worktree is clutter now" | PR feedback gets fixed in that worktree. It stays until the work lands. |
+- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
-| "This other worktree looks stale — I'll clean it too" | Clean up only worktrees under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`. Everything else belongs to the host. |
+
-| "The merged-result failure is probably flaky" | A failing merged result stops everything. Branch and worktree stay put while you investigate. |
+**Cleaning up worktree for Option 2**
-| "The base branch is obviously main" | Confirm the fork point or ask. Merging into the wrong base is expensive to undo. |
+- **Problem:** Remove worktree user needs for PR iteration
-| "The push was rejected — force-push will fix it" | A rejected push means the remote moved. Investigate; force-push only on your human partner's explicit request. |
+- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
+
+**Deleting branch before removing worktree**
+- **Problem:** `git branch -d` fails because worktree still references the branch
+- **Fix:** Merge first, remove worktree, then delete branch
+
+**Running git worktree remove from inside the worktree**
+- **Problem:** Command fails silently when CWD is inside the worktree being removed
+- **Fix:** Always `cd` to main repo root before `git worktree remove`
+
+**Cleaning up harness-owned worktrees**
+- **Problem:** Removing a worktree the harness created causes phantom state
+- **Fix:** Only clean up worktrees under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`
+
+**No confirmation for discard**
+- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
+- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Merge without verifying tests on result
+- Delete work without confirmation
+- Force-push without explicit request
+- Remove a worktree before confirming merge success
+- Clean up worktrees you didn't create (provenance check)
+- Run `git worktree remove` from inside the worktree
+
+**Always:**
+- Verify tests before offering options
+- Detect environment before presenting menu
+- Present exactly 4 options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
+- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
+- `cd` to main repo root before worktree removal
+- Run `git worktree prune` after removal

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -203,11 +203,3 @@ You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
 ## GitHub Thread Replies
 
 When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
-
-Verify. Question. Then implement.
-
-No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before m
 
 # 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.
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
 
 **Core principle:** Review early, review often.
 
@@ -72,21 +72,6 @@ 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:**

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -84,9 +84,6 @@ digraph process {
 
 ## Pre-Flight Plan Review
 
-Ensure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use
-superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.
-
 Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
 
 - tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints
@@ -335,38 +332,6 @@ Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
 Done!
 ```
 
-## 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:**
@@ -405,3 +370,17 @@ Done!
 **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/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior
 
 ## Overview
 
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
 **Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
 
 **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
@@ -188,7 +186,6 @@ You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
    - Test passes now?
    - No other tests broken?
    - Issue actually resolved?
-   - Use the `superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill before claiming success
 
 4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
    - STOP
@@ -284,10 +281,6 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 - **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
 - **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
 
-## Real-World Impact
+**Related skills:**
-
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
-From debugging sessions:
+- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
-- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
-- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
-- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
-- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -203,75 +203,19 @@ Next failing test for next feature.
 | **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
 | **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
 
-When writing or changing any test, read [writing-good-tests.md](writing-good-tests.md) for the rules that keep tests honest:
-- Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
-- Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
-- Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
-- Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
-
-## Why Order Matters
-
-**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
-
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
-
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
-
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
-
-Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
-- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
-- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
-
-The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
-
-**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
-
-TDD IS pragmatic:
-- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
-- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
-- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
-- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
-
-"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
-
-No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
-
-Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
-
-30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
-
 ## Common Rationalizations
 
 | Excuse | Reality |
 |--------|---------|
 | "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" | Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work. |
-| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
+| "Already manually tested" | Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste. |
 | "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
 | "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
 | "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
-| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster. |
 | "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
 | "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |
 
@@ -360,6 +304,13 @@ Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix
 
 Never fix bugs without a test.
 
+## Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+When adding mocks or test utilities, read [testing-anti-patterns.md](testing-anti-patterns.md) to avoid common pitfalls:
+- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
+- Adding test-only methods to production classes
+- Mocking without understanding dependencies
+
 ## Final Rule
 
 ```

skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+# Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.
+
+## Overview
+
+Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
+
+**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
+
+**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
+
+## The Iron Laws
+
+```
+1. NEVER test mock behavior
+2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
+3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);
+  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
+- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
+- Tells you nothing about real behavior
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
+  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+
+// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
+// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
+  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
+
+  IF testing mock existence:
+    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
+
+  Test real behavior instead
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
+class Session {
+  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
+    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
+    // ... cleanup
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => session.destroy());
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Production class polluted with test-only code
+- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
+- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
+- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
+// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
+
+// In test-utils/
+export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
+  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
+  if (workspace) {
+    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE adding any method to production class:
+  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
+
+  IF yes:
+    STOP - Don't add it
+    Put it in test utilities instead
+
+  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
+
+  IF no:
+    STOP - Wrong class for this method
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
+  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
+    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+  }));
+
+  await addServer(config);
+  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
+- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
+- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
+  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
+
+  await addServer(config);  // Config written
+  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
+});
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE mocking any method:
+  STOP - Don't mock yet
+
+  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
+  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
+  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
+
+  IF depends on side effects:
+    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
+    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
+    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
+
+  IF unsure what test depends on:
+    Run test with real implementation FIRST
+    Observe what actually needs to happen
+    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
+
+  Red flags:
+    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
+    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
+    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
+  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
+};
+
+// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
+- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
+- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
+- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
+
+**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
+  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
+  // All fields real API returns
+};
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE creating mock responses:
+  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
+
+  Actions:
+    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
+    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
+    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
+
+  Critical:
+    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
+    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
+
+  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
+
+**The violation:**
+```
+✅ Implementation complete
+❌ No tests written
+"Ready for testing"
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
+- TDD would have caught this
+- Can't claim complete without tests
+
+**The fix:**
+```
+TDD cycle:
+1. Write failing test
+2. Implement to pass
+3. Refactor
+4. THEN claim complete
+```
+
+## When Mocks Become Too Complex
+
+**Warning signs:**
+- Mock setup longer than test logic
+- Mocking everything to make test pass
+- Mocks missing methods real components have
+- Test breaks when mock changes
+
+**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
+
+**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
+
+## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
+
+**Why TDD helps:**
+1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
+2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
+3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
+4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
+
+**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
+|--------------|-----|
+| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
+| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
+| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
+| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
+| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
+| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
+- Methods only called in test files
+- Mock setup is >50% of test
+- Test fails when you remove mock
+- Can't explain why mock is needed
+- Mocking "just to be safe"
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
+
+If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
+
+Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.

skills/test-driven-development/writing-good-tests.md

@@ -1,198 +0,0 @@
-# Writing Good Tests
-
-**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or
-adding cleanup/helper methods for tests.
-
-## Overview
-
-A test exists to catch a specific break. Two principles govern everything
-here:
-
-```
-1. Every test names the break it catches
-2. Every test exercises the real thing
-```
-
-Strict TDD produces both naturally: a test written first and watched
-failing against real code has already proven it can fail, and only earns
-a mock when the real dependency proves slow or external.
-
-## Principle 1: Name the Break
-
-Before writing the test body, answer: **what production change should
-make this test fail — and is that change a bug or a decision?** A test
-earns its place by catching a wrong branch, missing side effect, wrong
-argument, boundary case, or broken contract.
-
-**Derive expectations independently.** Use literals and hand-checked
-fixtures; table-driven tests with literal `want` values are the preferred
-shape. An expectation computed by the code under test — or its helpers —
-passes no matter what that code does:
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ Mirror assertion: the same builder computes both sides — always true
-const expected = buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' });
-expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe(expected);
-
-// ✅ Hand-derived literal
-expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe('tag:"urgent"');
-```
-
-**No change detectors.** If only intentional decisions can fail a test —
-a constant's value, exact message wording, private structure — it fires
-on redesign and sleeps through bugs. Test the behavior that depends on
-the decision: not `expect(MAX_RETRIES).toBe(5)` but "a failing call is
-retried 5 times and the 6th attempt never happens."
-
-**Behavior, not text.** Asserting that a script, skill, or config
-contains an exact line proves only that the source is the source. Run
-scripts against controlled inputs and assert outputs, side effects, or
-exit codes. Documents that instruct agents are tested by the consuming
-agent's behavior (superpowers:writing-skills); prose for humans earns no
-test at all.
-
-**Your code, not the framework.** Test the contract your code makes at
-its boundaries — the route you register, the query you emit, the payload
-you produce. Upstream mechanics are their maintainers' tests to write
-(the classic: asserting your router invokes a registered handler — that
-is the framework's test, not yours). When upstream behavior genuinely
-surprised you, write one narrow characterization test naming the
-assumption. The same boundary applies inside your code: constructors,
-getters, constants, and trivial forwarding earn tests only when they
-validate, normalize, default, derive, enforce, or cause side effects —
-otherwise assert the first consumer-visible result that depends on them.
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE writing the test body:
-  Name the production change that would make this test fail.
-
-  Cannot name one            → redesign around an observable behavior
-  "The source text changed"  → run the artifact and assert its effects
-  Only intentional decisions → change detector; test the behavior
-                               that depends on the decision
-
-  Confirm the expected value is derived without the code under test.
-  IF it reuses the code's logic or helpers:
-    Replace it with a literal or hand-checked fixture
-```
-
-## Principle 2: Exercise the Real Thing
-
-**The mock earns no assertions.** A mock assertion passes when the mock
-is present and fails when it is absent — it says nothing about the
-component. Assert the real component's behavior; if the mock is what you
-are checking, unmock it or delete the assertion.
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ Real behavior
-expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
-
-// ❌ Mock existence
-expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
-```
-
-**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a
-mock?"
-
-**Mock at the right level.** Learn every side effect of the real method
-before replacing it; mock the slow or external operation and keep what
-the test depends on real. When unsure, run the test against the real
-implementation first and observe what actually needs to happen.
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ The mock swallows the config write that duplicate detection reads
-vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
-  discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
-}));
-
-// ✅ Mock only the slow server startup; the config write stays real
-vi.mock('MCPServerManager');
-```
-
-**Make doubles specific.** When arguments, call counts, or ordering are
-part of the contract, assert them — a fake that accepts anything verifies
-nothing. Give each branch (success, error, malformed) its own fixture or
-spy, so the wrong branch cannot satisfy the expectation.
-
-**Mirror real data completely.** Mock the complete structure as it exists
-in reality — all documented fields — not just the ones your test reads.
-Partial mocks fail silently when downstream code reads an omitted field:
-the test passes while integration breaks.
-
-**Production classes carry production methods only.** Cleanup that only
-tests need lives in test utilities, never as a `destroy()` on the
-production class. Ask: is this method called only from tests? Does this
-class own this resource's lifecycle? Wrong answers → test utility.
-
-**Prefer real components over complex mocks.** When mock setup outgrows
-the test logic, mocks miss methods the real components have, or tests
-break when the mock changes, switch to an integration test with real
-components. **your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a
-mock here?"
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE adding a mock or test helper:
-  List the real method's side effects; keep the ones the test
-  depends on real — mock the slow/external level below them.
-
-  Mock responses mirror the complete real structure.
-
-  A method only tests call lives in test utilities, not production.
-
-  About to assert on the mock itself?
-    Unmock it or delete the assertion.
-```
-
-## Tests Ship With the Implementation
-
-The TDD cycle — failing test, minimal implementation, refactor — is what
-"complete" means. Ship the tests the behavior needs and only those:
-trivial code and human prose earn none, and a test written to satisfy
-process costs maintenance forever.
-
-## The Mutation Check
-
-Before finishing, mentally mutate the production code; at least one test
-should fail for each realistic mutation:
-
-- Wrong constant or argument
-- Wrong branch handler
-- Missing state change or side effect
-- Empty or default return
-- Missing validation for zero, empty, nil, unauthorized, or malformed input
-
-A mutation nothing catches marks the behavior as unprotected — or the
-test as tautological.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| When you... | Do |
-|-------------|-----|
-| Write any test | Name the break it catches — a bug, not a decision |
-| Build an expected value | Derive it by hand; never with the code under test |
-| Test a script or document | Run it / pressure-test its consumer; never grep its text |
-| Reach for a dependency test | Test your boundary contract, not their documented mechanics |
-| Want to assert on a mocked element | Test the real component, or unmock it |
-| Are about to mock a method | Learn its side effects; mock the slow/external level |
-| Build a mock response | Mirror the real structure completely |
-| Need cleanup only tests use | Put it in test utilities |
-| Watch mock setup balloon | Switch to an integration test with real components |
-| Finish a test file | Run the mutation check |
-
-## Warning Signs
-
-- Setup and assertion share the same object, guaranteeing equality
-- The test can fail only through a panic, crash, or missing selector
-- The test fails on every intentional change, never on accidental breakage
-- Expected values are hidden behind loops, builders, or helpers
-- The test greps source text, or asserts a removed symbol stays removed
-- The test would still matter if only the framework remained
-- The test exists for coverage, checking no side effect or outcome
-- An assertion checks a `*-mock` test ID, or fails if you remove the mock
-- A method is called only from test files
-- Mock setup is more than half the test, or you can't explain why the mock is needed
-- Mocking "just to be safe"

skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md

@@ -156,47 +156,12 @@ Ready to implement <feature-name>
 | Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
 | No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |
 
-## Common Mistakes
+## Common Rationalizations
 
-### Fighting the harness
+| Excuse | Reality |
-
+|--------|---------|
-- **Problem:** Using `git worktree add` when the platform already provides isolation
+| "I'm obviously not in a worktree — no need to check" | Run Step 0. Harness-created isolation and submodules both fool eyeballing; the detection commands settle it. |
-- **Fix:** Step 0 detects existing isolation. Step 1a defers to native tools.
+| "`git worktree add` is quicker than hunting for a native tool" | A native tool (e.g. `EnterWorktree`) owns placement, branching, and cleanup. Bypassing it is the #1 mistake — it creates phantom state your harness can't see or manage. |
-
+| "The worktree directory is surely ignored already" | Run `git check-ignore`. An unignored worktree directory commits the whole tree into the repo. |
-### Skipping detection
+| "Any directory name works" | Explicit instructions beat an existing project-local directory, which beats the `.worktrees/` default. |
-
+| "The workspace is fresh — baseline tests can wait" | A dirty baseline makes every later failure ambiguous. Run the tests now; proceeding past failures is your human partner's call. |
-- **Problem:** Creating a nested worktree inside an existing one
-- **Fix:** Always run Step 0 before creating anything
-
-### Skipping ignore verification
-
-- **Problem:** Worktree contents get tracked, pollute git status
-- **Fix:** Always use `git check-ignore` before creating project-local worktree
-
-### Assuming directory location
-
-- **Problem:** Creates inconsistency, violates project conventions
-- **Fix:** Follow priority: explicit instructions > existing project-local directory > default
-
-### Proceeding with failing tests
-
-- **Problem:** Can't distinguish new bugs from pre-existing issues
-- **Fix:** Report failures, get explicit permission to proceed
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-- Create a worktree when Step 0 detects existing isolation
-- Use `git worktree add` when you have a native worktree tool (e.g., `EnterWorktree`). This is the #1 mistake — if you have it, use it.
-- Skip Step 1a by jumping straight to Step 1b's git commands
-- Create worktree without verifying it's ignored (project-local)
-- Skip baseline test verification
-- Proceed with failing tests without asking
-
-**Always:**
-- Run Step 0 detection first
-- Prefer native tools over git fallback
-- Follow directory priority: explicit instructions > existing project-local directory > default
-- Verify directory is ignored for project-local
-- Auto-detect and run project setup
-- Verify clean test baseline

skills/using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md

@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-# Gemini CLI Tool Mapping
-
-Skills speak in actions ("dispatch a subagent", "create a todo", "read a file"). On Gemini CLI these resolve to the tools below.
-
-| Action skills request | Gemini CLI equivalent |
-|----------------------|----------------------|
-| Read a file | `read_file` |
-| Read multiple files at once | `read_many_files` |
-| Create a new file | `write_file` |
-| Edit a file | `replace` |
-| Run a shell command | `run_shell_command` |
-| Search file contents | `grep_search` |
-| Find files by name | `glob` |
-| List files and subdirectories | `list_directory` |
-| Fetch a URL | `web_fetch` |
-| Search the web | `google_web_search` |
-| Invoke a skill | `activate_skill` |
-| Dispatch a subagent (`Subagent (general-purpose):` template) | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` (invocable via `@generalist` chat syntax — see [Subagent support](#subagent-support)) |
-| Multiple parallel dispatches | Multiple `invoke_agent` calls in the same response |
-| Task tracking ("create a todo", "mark complete") | `write_todos` (statuses: pending, in_progress, completed, cancelled, blocked) |
-
-## Instructions file
-
-When a skill mentions "your instructions file", on Gemini CLI this is **`GEMINI.md`**. Gemini CLI loads `GEMINI.md` hierarchically: global at `~/.gemini/GEMINI.md`, project-level files in workspace directories and their ancestors, and sub-directory `GEMINI.md` files when a tool accesses files in those directories.
-
-## Personal skills directory
-
-User-level skills live at **`~/.gemini/skills/`**, with **`~/.agents/skills/`** as a cross-runtime alias (shared with Codex and Copilot CLI). When both directories exist at the same scope, `.agents/skills/` takes precedence. Each skill is a subdirectory containing a `SKILL.md` (with `name` and `description` frontmatter).
-
-## Subagent support
-
-Gemini CLI dispatches subagents through the `invoke_agent` tool, which takes `agent_name` and `prompt` parameters. The same dispatch is also surfaced as a chat-syntax shortcut: typing `@generalist <prompt>` is equivalent to calling `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"`. Built-in agent names include `generalist`, `cli_help`, `codebase_investigator`, and (with browser tooling enabled) `browser_agent`.
-
-Skills dispatch with `Subagent (general-purpose):` and either reference a prompt-template file (e.g., `superpowers:subagent-driven-development`'s `./implementer-prompt.md`) or supply an inline prompt. On Gemini CLI:
-
-| Skill dispatch form | Gemini CLI equivalent |
-|---------------------|----------------------|
-| References a `*-prompt.md` template (implementer, task-reviewer, code-reviewer, etc.) | Fill the template, then `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled prompt |
-| References `superpowers:requesting-code-review`'s `./code-reviewer.md` | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled review template |
-| Inline prompt (no template referenced) | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and your inline prompt |
-
-### Prompt filling
-
-Skills provide prompt templates with placeholders like `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` or `[FULL TEXT of task]`. Fill all placeholders before passing the complete prompt to `invoke_agent`. The prompt template itself contains the agent's role, review criteria, and expected output format — the subagent will follow it.
-
-### Parallel dispatch
-
-Gemini CLI supports parallel subagent dispatch. Issue multiple `invoke_agent` calls in the same response (or multiple `@generalist` invocations in one prompt) to run independent subagent work in parallel. Keep dependent tasks sequential, but do not serialize independent subagent tasks just to preserve a simpler history.
-
-## Additional Gemini CLI tools
-
-These tools are unique to Gemini CLI:
-
-| Tool | Purpose |
-|------|---------|
-| `save_memory` (legacy) | Persist facts across sessions when `experimental.memoryV2 = false` |
-| `get_internal_docs` | Look up Gemini CLI's bundled documentation |
-| `ask_user` | Pose structured questions to the user (text / single-select / multi-select) |
-| `enter_plan_mode` / `exit_plan_mode` | Switch into and out of read-only plan mode |
-| `update_topic` | Update the current conversation's topic / strategic-intent metadata |
-| `complete_task` | Signal that a Gemini subagent has completed and return its result to the parent agent |
-| `tracker_create_task`, `tracker_update_task`, `tracker_get_task`, `tracker_list_tasks`, `tracker_add_dependency`, `tracker_visualize` | Rich task tracker with dependency and visualization support |
-| `read_mcp_resource`, `list_mcp_resources` | MCP resource access |

skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before
 
 ## Overview
 
-Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
-
 **Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
 
 **Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
@@ -105,15 +103,6 @@ Skip any step = lying, not verifying
 ❌ Trust agent report
 ```
 
-## Why This Matters
-
-From 24 failure memories:
-- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
-- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
-- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
-- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
-- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
-
 ## When To Apply
 
 **ALWAYS before:**
@@ -129,11 +118,3 @@ From 24 failure memories:
 - Paraphrases and synonyms
 - Implications of success
 - ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**No shortcuts for verification.**
-
-Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
-
-This is non-negotiable.

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -135,12 +135,6 @@ Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan f
 - Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
 - References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
 
-## Remember
-- Exact file paths always
-- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
-- Exact commands with expected output
-- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
-
 ## Self-Review
 
 After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying
 
 **Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**
 
-**Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory** — see [claude-code-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/claude-code-tools.md), [codex-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md), [copilot-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/copilot-tools.md), or [gemini-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md) for the path on your runtime. Codex, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all also recognize `~/.agents/skills/` as a cross-runtime alias.
+**Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory** 
 
 You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes).
 
@@ -677,13 +677,3 @@ How future agents find your skill:
 6. **Loads example** (only when implementing)
 
 **Optimize for this flow** - put searchable terms early and often.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation.**
-
-Same Iron Law: No skill without failing test first.
-Same cycle: RED (baseline) → GREEN (write skill) → REFACTOR (close loopholes).
-Same benefits: Better quality, fewer surprises, bulletproof results.
-
-If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation.