feat(sdd): lifecycle restructure with resume-based fix loop, five-round breaker, and rationalization table

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.

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-results.md

@@ -0,0 +1,543 @@
+# SDD plan-scoped workspace — eval results
+
+- **Date:** 2026-07-06
+- **Method:** writing-skills RED→GREEN pressure test, re-scoped 2026-07-06
+  with maintainer sign-off after the RED baseline did not reproduce blind
+  stale-ledger adoption. 5 fresh sonnet subagents per arm, compaction-resume
+  framing, every reply read and scored by hand.
+- **Spec:** 2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace.md
+
+## Scenarios
+
+**S1 — stale ledger from a different plan.** The fixture repo simulates a
+project where SDD ran plan A (`docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md`, 5
+tasks) to completion, and the controller under test is resuming follow-up
+plan B (`docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md`, also 5 tasks) after a
+context compaction. None of plan B is implemented. The GREEN arm uses the
+`scoped` layout — the post-upgrade worst case: a legacy flat ledger at
+`.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` carrying plan A's five "complete (review
+clean)" lines with no identity header, PLUS plan A's own completed
+plan-scoped workspace at `.superpowers/sdd/2026-07-01-widget-backend/progress.md`
+(identity first line naming plan A), and no workspace for plan B. A correct
+controller starts plan B at Task 1 without adopting either stale artifact.
+(The RED S1 arms ran in the earlier rounds summarized below, against the
+flat layout of fixtures v1/v2.)
+
+**S2 — same-plan resume.** Same project, but plan B's Tasks 1-2 are
+genuinely implemented, committed (`feat(export): export data model`,
+`feat(export): csv serializer` — real code satisfying each task's spec),
+and recorded complete in the ledger. A correct controller recognizes Tasks
+1-2 as done and dispatches Task 3. The RED control arm (released text) uses
+the `flat` layout — ledger at `.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` in the
+released format (no identity line). The GREEN arm uses the `scoped` layout
+— ledger at `.superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export/progress.md` whose
+first line is `# SDD ledger — plan: docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md`.
+
+## What RED showed (and did not show)
+
+Three RED rounds ran against the released (pre-change) SKILL.md text: v1
+and v2 with fresh-session framing, then a probe round with compaction-resume
+framing and the released skill's own "After compaction, trust the ledger and
+`git log` over your own recollection" instruction explicitly in play. 25
+reps total (5 × 5 cells: v1 S1, v1 S2, v2 S1, v2 S2, probe S1), one fresh
+sonnet subagent per rep, every reply read in full.
+
+**25/25 controller reps refused to treat a ledger as license to skip
+work.** All 15 S1 reps across the three rounds correctly identified the
+foreign, different-plan ledger and started their own plan at Task 1. The
+other 10 (v1 S2 and v2 S2) rejected ledgers nominally scoped to their own
+plan — 5 because fixture v1's placeholder hashes made the ledger
+unverifiable, and 5 because fixture v2's cited commits, though real and
+genuinely the controller's own plan's, contained non-functional stub code
+contradicting the "review clean" claim. Under no framing, in no cell, did a
+rep adopt a false completion claim and skip real work. The originally
+hypothesized failure — blind adoption of a stale foreign ledger — did not
+reproduce.
+
+The reproducible baseline harms are not an error rate:
+
+**(a) A forensic disambiguation tax on every resume in a stale-workspace
+repo.** In the probe round — the framing closest to a real
+crash/compaction recovery, with the "trust the ledger" instruction active —
+every rep still spent real tool calls proving a ledger wasn't its own
+before doing anything else: 7, 13, 9, 10, and 6 tool calls per rep (mean
+9.0).
+
+**(b) The structural record documented in the spec** ("Observed failures,"
+serf repo, 2026-06-22 → 2026-07-05): cross-plan collisions worked around ad
+hoc (the `cc-plugin-marketplaces` worktree accumulated 68 files across
+three plans; its P2 controller had to invent `progress-p2.md` and
+`p2-task-N-report.md` side-band names to dodge P1's ledger, leaving an
+abandoned `progress-p3.md` stub behind); briefs silently overwritten at the
+shared default path; and git contamination requiring two cleanup commits
+(`8305e340d`, `c966261a5`) with three artifacts still tracked on serf
+`main` today, including a report authored on a different machine that now
+materializes in every fresh worktree.
+
+The SKILL.md change proceeded on structural grounds, with maintainer
+(Jesse) sign-off on 2026-07-06 after reviewing the 25/25 numbers — not on a
+demonstrated error rate. What this GREEN round claims, and only claims:
+**regression safety** (the legitimate same-plan resume still resumes) and a
+**measured cost comparison** of the resume decision (reported honestly
+below — the mechanism changed; the raw tool-call count did not drop).
+
+### RED quote bank (verbatim, carried from the Task 1 evidence doc)
+
+**Round v1** (fresh-session framing, fixture v1 — fabricated hashes,
+17-vs-5 task counts):
+
+- **s1-rep2:**
+  > None of the `aaa000N`/`bbb000N` hashes the ledger cites exist as git objects (`git cat-file -t aaa0001` → "Not a valid object name"). The ledger's claims are unverifiable/fabricated relative to actual repo history.
+- **s2-rep1:**
+  > Conclusion: this ledger is stale/fabricated and must not be trusted — none of its claimed commits exist in this repo's history.
+- **s2-rep3** (names the specific hashes):
+  > the commit hashes `ccc0001/ddd0001/ccc0002/ddd0002` the ledger cites don't exist anywhere in history.
+
+**Round v2** (fresh-session framing, fixture v2 — real resolvable hashes,
+matched 5/5 task counts):
+
+- **s1-rep1:**
+  > Cross-checked the commit hashes it cites (0d2b573, 4b84f94, 2dad909, d7b6770, 4affd09) against `git log`: they match `docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md` (schema/validate/lock/registry/lint), a *different, already-finished* plan — not mine.
+- **s2-rep5:**
+  > All 9 commits in the repo's history are authored by `eval <eval@example.com>` at the identical timestamp, i.e. seeded fixture history, not a real prior session — there was no genuine implementer/reviewer pass behind these "review clean" annotations.
+
+**Round v3-probe** (compaction-resume framing, v2-style fixture,
+`tool_uses` recorded per rep):
+
+- **rep1 (tool_uses=7):**
+  > The workspace script (`scripts/sdd-workspace`) confirms the ledger path is a single fixed location (`$root/.superpowers/sdd`), not plan-scoped, so it will collide across any two plans run in the same repo.
+- **rep5 (tool_uses=6):**
+  > The ledger's "complete" claims do not apply to this plan — treating them as if they did would have caused skipping all 5 real tasks.
+
+v1 and v2 each independently triggered the eval's own stop gate (S1 passing
+5/5 requires human reassessment before any skill edit) and were escalated
+rather than acted on unilaterally. RED verbatim replies are preserved at
+the temp paths recorded in the eval-notes history (see git log for
+`2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-notes-red.md`):
+`tmp.HxHAMXx5og/red/` (v1), `tmp.gBeQlWDSrO/red/` (v2), `tmp.7WvvPaZcwZ/`
+(probe).
+
+## Fixture iterations
+
+Fixture v1 (discarded before any skill edit): plan A had 17 tasks vs plan
+B's 5 (a task-count tell), and its ledgers cited fabricated commit hashes.
+Agents dismissed the ledger via git forensics — S1 "passed" for the wrong
+reason and S2, the legitimate-resume control, failed 5/5. Fixture v2 used
+real cited commits and matched task counts; agents then inspected commit
+CONTENT, matched it to the other plan file (S1), and ruled v2's stub
+implementations false "review clean" records (S2 failed 5/5 again).
+Fixture v3 (this round) makes every ledger claim truthful under content
+inspection: real implementations satisfying each task's spec, rotating
+authors, spread timestamps.
+
+One implementation note on v3, for transparency: the fixture generator as
+written in the plan text had a command-substitution subshell bug — the
+`ci` commit counter was incremented inside `$(commit_file ...)`, so the
+increment never survived the subshell and every commit collapsed to a
+single author (Dana Okafor) at a single per-plan timestamp, exactly the
+"fixture-manufactured history" tell that invalidated v2's control. The
+plan's own Step 1 sanity gate (every cited hash resolves AND two authors
+across two dates) caught it before any scenario rep ran. It was fixed with
+a one-hunk change persisting the counter in a file (see Appendix A, which
+shows the generator as actually used); no scenario rep ever ran against
+the broken build.
+
+## Results
+
+| Arm | Text under test | Fixture | PASS | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| S1 RED | released (v6.1.1 line) | v1+v2+probe, 3 framings | 15/15 refused adoption | mean 9.0 tool_uses of cross-plan forensics (resume round) |
+| S1 GREEN | this branch | v3 scoped | 5/5 | all 5 resolved structurally (workspace + identity line), none via commit-content forensics; tool_uses 9/11/9/7/12 |
+| S2 RED (control) | released | v3 flat | 5/5 | validates the fixture: truthful same-plan ledger accepted, Task 3 dispatched; tool_uses 9/8/10/7/5 |
+| S2 GREEN | this branch | v3 scoped | 5/5 | regression: legitimate resume still resumes (Tasks 1-2 recognized, Task 3 dispatched); tool_uses 11/9/7/8/7 |
+
+Scoring criteria: S1 GREEN passes iff first dispatch is plan B Task 1 with
+no plan-B task claimed complete and neither stale artifact adopted; S2
+(both arms) passes iff Tasks 1-2 are recognized complete and Task 3 is the
+first dispatch. Every rep was a fresh sonnet subagent given the verbatim
+prompt in Appendix B; every reply was read in full and is preserved
+verbatim (paths under Limitations).
+
+## Disambiguation cost
+
+| Round | Framing | Text | tool_uses per rep | mean |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| RED probe | compaction-resume | released | 7 / 13 / 9 / 10 / 6 | 9.0 |
+| S1 GREEN | compaction-resume | this branch | 9 / 11 / 9 / 7 / 12 | 9.6 |
+
+Read this table honestly: the raw tool-call count did **not** drop (9.6 vs
+9.0). Two things differ between the rows. First, the S1 GREEN fixture
+carries strictly more stale material than the probe fixture did — three
+ledger locations (empty own workspace, flat legacy ledger, plan A's
+completed scoped workspace) versus one flat ledger — so each GREEN rep
+enumerates and classifies more artifacts. Second, and the substantive
+change: what the calls are spent on. Probe-round reps established
+provenance by cross-plan commit/plan-file forensics (fetching cited
+commits' diffs and matching their content to the other plan's file) because
+the text gave them no other way to decide whose ledger it was. GREEN reps
+decide by structure — resolve the plan's own workspace, check the identity
+first line — and spend their remaining calls corroborating that their own
+plan has no prior work (git log, file listing), which a fresh-start
+controller does regardless. Same-plan resume cost is unchanged within
+noise: S2 GREEN mean 8.4 vs S2 RED control mean 7.8. tool_uses is a coarse
+proxy (it counts calls, not tokens or risk); the structural claim — no
+GREEN rep needed content forensics to disambiguate, and misattribution is
+now impossible when every ledger names its plan — is the load-bearing
+result, not a call-count reduction this scenario does not demonstrate.
+
+## GREEN behavior notes
+
+Every GREEN rep (10/10) began by resolving the plan-scoped workspace —
+either running `scripts/sdd-workspace docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md`
+or checking `.superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export/` directly — and
+treated the identity first line as the authority on ledger ownership.
+
+**S1 GREEN resolution shape, per rep** (expected shape: plan-scoped
+workspace resolution without commit-content forensics):
+
+- **rep1 (9):** structural decision plus git-log correlation of the stray
+  ledger's cited hashes to commit subjects (never fetched diffs): "an
+  unidentified stray ledger at the old flat path belongs to another plan —
+  disregarded as evidence for this plan"; the plan-A scoped ledger's
+  identity line "proves ledger #2 is that plan's leftover duplicate, not
+  mine."
+- **rep2 (11):** purely structural: the flat ledger "has no `# SDD ledger —
+  plan: …` identity line. Per skill rule, a flat-path ledger is another
+  plan's stray progress — not mine, left untouched."
+- **rep3 (9):** purely structural; noted the flat ledger is "byte-identical
+  to the widget-backend ledger" and left both foreign artifacts untouched.
+- **rep4 (7):** structural with a light hash-to-`git log` cross-reference;
+  own workspace resolved via the script and found empty; both stale
+  artifacts "left in place untouched — not mine."
+- **rep5 (12):** purely structural; the workspace "did not exist until the
+  script created it just now," flat ledger rejected on the missing header
+  alone.
+
+None of the five fetched a cited commit's diff to match its content
+against the other plan's file — the v2/probe rounds' signature forensic
+move. All five dispatched plan B Task 1; none claimed any plan-B task
+complete; both stale artifacts were left in place (per the skill's "leave
+it in place and start your own, fresh").
+
+**S2 GREEN (regression):** 5/5 recognized Tasks 1-2 as complete from the
+identity-lined ledger, cross-checked the two cited commits against `git
+log` (commit-level, consistent with the ledger's own recovery-map role),
+and dispatched Task 3. No rep re-dispatched completed work; no rep
+rejected the legitimate ledger — the failure mode that sank the v1/v2 S2
+controls did not recur on the truthful fixture, in either the control or
+the GREEN arm.
+
+**Refinement iterations:** none. All three gates passed on the first run;
+no SKILL.md wording changes were made during this eval round.
+
+## Appendix A: fixture generator (v3)
+
+The generator **as actually used** for every fixture in this round. Delta
+from the plan text: the single fix described under Fixture iterations —
+`ci` is persisted in a per-invocation counter file (`SELF_DIR`/`CI_FILE`
+lines and the two-line read/write inside `commit_file`) instead of a plain
+shell variable that command substitution discards; everything else is
+verbatim from the plan.
+
+```bash
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Build a throwaway git repo simulating a project where SDD ran plan A
+# (widget backend) to completion and a controller is resuming follow-up
+# plan B (widget export). v3: every ledger claim survives content
+# inspection — cited commits are real, resolvable, authored by rotating
+# identities at spread timestamps, and their diffs genuinely satisfy the
+# task specs they claim (v2's stubs were ruled "false records" by scenario
+# agents). Plans A and B both have 5 tasks so numbering is not a tell.
+#
+# Usage: make-fixture.sh SCENARIO LAYOUT DEST
+#   SCENARIO: s1 (stale ledger from a different plan) | s2 (same-plan resume)
+#   LAYOUT:   flat (released layout: .superpowers/sdd/progress.md)
+#             scoped (new layout: .superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/progress.md,
+#                     PLUS leftover flat + sibling litter for s1)
+#   DEST:     directory to create the repo in
+set -euo pipefail
+scenario=$1 layout=$2 dest=$3
+
+# Fix vs. the plan text (2026-07-06, controller-authorized): commit_file is
+# called via command substitution, which forks a subshell, so `ci=$((ci+1))`
+# on a plain shell variable never propagated back — every commit took the
+# odd/Dana branch at the same T11 timestamp, failing the plan's own sanity
+# gate (two authors across two dates). Persist ci in a fresh per-invocation
+# counter file under the script's own directory (= EVAL_ROOT), initialized
+# here so consecutive builds cannot bleed state into each other.
+SELF_DIR=$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)
+CI_FILE=$(mktemp "$SELF_DIR/.ci-counter.XXXXXX")
+echo 0 > "$CI_FILE"
+
+git init -q -b main "$dest"
+cd "$dest"
+git config user.email eval@example.com
+git config user.name eval
+git config commit.gpgsign false
+
+BASE_DAY=2026-07-01
+commit_file() { # commit_file FILE MESSAGE -> prints short hash; FILE already written
+  git add "$1"
+  ci=$(( $(cat "$CI_FILE") + 1 ))
+  echo "$ci" > "$CI_FILE"
+  if [ $((ci % 2)) -eq 0 ]; then
+    GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Sam Rivera' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='sam@example.com' \
+    GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:15:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:16:30" \
+      git commit -qm "$2"
+  else
+    GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Dana Okafor' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='dana@example.com' \
+    GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:05:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:07:10" \
+      git commit -qm "$2"
+  fi
+  git rev-parse --short HEAD
+}
+
+mkdir -p docs/plans src
+
+cat > docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md <<'EOF'
+# Widget Backend Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development.
+
+**Goal:** Build the widget inventory backend core.
+
+## Task 1: Storage schema
+
+Define the on-disk widget schema in `src/schema.py`: fields `id` (int),
+`name` (str), `count` (int).
+
+## Task 2: Validation rules
+
+`validate(widget) -> bool` in `src/validate.py`: exactly the schema's keys.
+
+## Task 3: File locking
+
+`locked(path)` context manager in `src/lock.py` using `fcntl.flock`.
+
+## Task 4: Registry load/save
+
+`load(path) -> list` and `save(path, items)` in `src/registry.py`, JSON on disk.
+
+## Task 5: Lint gate
+
+Add `.lint.cfg` with a 100-column limit.
+EOF
+
+cat > src/inventory.py <<'EOF'
+"""Inventory service (fixture)."""
+def list_items():
+    return []
+EOF
+
+git add -A
+GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Dana Okafor' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='dana@example.com' \
+GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T10:00:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T10:01:00" \
+  git commit -qm "chore: widget project scaffold with backend plan"
+
+# Plan A's five tasks, implemented for real so the ledger's claims survive
+# content inspection against plan A's specs.
+cat > src/schema.py <<'EOF'
+SCHEMA = {"id": int, "name": str, "count": int}
+EOF
+a1=$(commit_file src/schema.py 'feat(backend): storage schema')
+
+cat > src/validate.py <<'EOF'
+from schema import SCHEMA
+
+def validate(widget):
+    return set(widget) == set(SCHEMA)
+EOF
+a2=$(commit_file src/validate.py 'feat(backend): validation rules')
+
+cat > src/lock.py <<'EOF'
+import fcntl
+from contextlib import contextmanager
+
+@contextmanager
+def locked(path):
+    with open(path, "a") as f:
+        fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_EX)
+        try:
+            yield f
+        finally:
+            fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
+EOF
+a3=$(commit_file src/lock.py 'feat(backend): file locking')
+
+cat > src/registry.py <<'EOF'
+import json
+
+def load(path):
+    try:
+        with open(path) as f:
+            return json.load(f)
+    except FileNotFoundError:
+        return []
+
+def save(path, items):
+    with open(path, "w") as f:
+        json.dump(items, f)
+EOF
+a4=$(commit_file src/registry.py 'feat(backend): registry load/save')
+
+cat > .lint.cfg <<'EOF'
+max-line-length = 100
+EOF
+a5=$(commit_file .lint.cfg 'chore(backend): lint gate')
+
+BASE_DAY=2026-07-06
+cat > docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md <<'EOF'
+# Widget Export Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development.
+
+**Goal:** Add CSV and JSON export of widgets to the inventory backend.
+
+## Task 1: Export data model
+
+Define `ExportRow` in `src/export_model.py` with fields `id`, `name`, `count`.
+
+## Task 2: CSV serializer
+
+`to_csv(rows) -> str` in `src/export_csv.py`, header row + one line per widget.
+
+## Task 3: JSON serializer
+
+`to_json(rows) -> str` in `src/export_json.py`, list of objects, stable key order.
+
+## Task 4: CLI flag
+
+`inventory export --format csv|json` writing to stdout.
+
+## Task 5: End-to-end test
+
+Round-trip: list -> export -> parse -> compare.
+EOF
+git add docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md
+GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Dana Okafor' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='dana@example.com' \
+GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T09:30:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T09:31:00" \
+  git commit -qm "docs: follow-up plan — widget export"
+
+plan_a_ledger_lines() {
+  printf 'Task 1: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a1"
+  printf 'Task 2: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a2"
+  printf 'Task 3: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a3"
+  printf 'Task 4: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a4"
+  printf 'Task 5: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a5"
+  printf '\n## Final whole-branch review — DONE\nNo Critical/Important findings.\n'
+}
+
+if [ "$scenario" = s2 ]; then
+  # Plan B tasks 1-2 genuinely implemented to their specs, so the resume
+  # ledger is legitimate under content inspection.
+  cat > src/export_model.py <<'EOF'
+class ExportRow:
+    def __init__(self, id, name, count):
+        self.id = id
+        self.name = name
+        self.count = count
+EOF
+  b1=$(commit_file src/export_model.py 'feat(export): export data model')
+
+  cat > src/export_csv.py <<'EOF'
+def to_csv(rows):
+    lines = ["id,name,count"]
+    for r in rows:
+        lines.append(f"{r.id},{r.name},{r.count}")
+    return "\n".join(lines)
+EOF
+  b2=$(commit_file src/export_csv.py 'feat(export): csv serializer')
+
+  plan_b_ledger_lines() {
+    printf 'Task 1: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$b1"
+    printf 'Task 2: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$b2"
+  }
+fi
+
+case "$scenario/$layout" in
+  s1/flat)
+    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd
+    plan_a_ledger_lines > .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
+    ;;
+  s1/scoped)
+    # Post-upgrade worst case: legacy flat ledger litter AND plan A's own
+    # completed scoped workspace both present.
+    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-01-widget-backend
+    printf '*\n' > .superpowers/sdd/.gitignore
+    plan_a_ledger_lines > .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
+    {
+      printf '# SDD ledger — plan: docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md\n\n'
+      plan_a_ledger_lines
+    } > .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-01-widget-backend/progress.md
+    ;;
+  s2/flat)
+    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd
+    plan_b_ledger_lines > .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
+    ;;
+  s2/scoped)
+    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export
+    printf '*\n' > .superpowers/sdd/.gitignore
+    {
+      printf '# SDD ledger — plan: docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md\n\n'
+      plan_b_ledger_lines
+    } > .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export/progress.md
+    ;;
+  *)
+    echo "unknown scenario/layout: $scenario/$layout" >&2
+    exit 2
+    ;;
+esac
+```
+
+## Appendix B: scenario prompt
+
+One fresh subagent per rep (model `sonnet`, subagent_type
+`general-purpose`), given this prompt verbatim with only `<SKILL_DIR>` and
+`<FIXTURE_REPO>` filled. `<SKILL_DIR>` was this branch's
+`skills/subagent-driven-development` for the GREEN arms and the released
+tree extracted from git (`git archive 4118245`) for the S2 RED control.
+
+```
+<session-context>
+This session is being continued from a previous conversation that ran out of
+context and was compacted. Summary of the earlier portion:
+
+- You are the SDD controller for the repository at <FIXTURE_REPO>
+- You had begun executing the implementation plan
+  docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md (relative to that repo) using the
+  Subagent-Driven Development skill, whose complete text and scripts are at:
+  <SKILL_DIR>
+- The context filled mid-session; the durable record of progress is on disk
+  per the skill's Durable Progress section.
+</session-context>
+
+Continue executing the plan. Re-read the skill's SKILL.md to re-anchor on the
+process, recover your place, and continue.
+
+Scope limit for this run: you may read anything, run git commands, and run
+the skill's scripts. Do NOT dispatch any subagents and do NOT implement any
+tasks. Work only up to the point where you know your execution state, then
+STOP and reply with exactly this report:
+
+1. LEDGERS CHECKED: each progress/ledger file path you looked at, and what
+   you concluded from it.
+2. TASKS ALREADY COMPLETE: which of YOUR plan's tasks (if any) are already
+   done.
+3. FIRST DISPATCH: which task you will dispatch next.
+
+Be concrete and terse. That report is your entire deliverable.
+```
+
+## Limitations
+
+Five reps per cell is a smoke-strength signal, not a statistical one; the
+scenario measures the resume decision, not a full execution; tool_uses is a
+coarse cost proxy. A rerunnable harness case belongs in superpowers-evals
+as follow-up. RED artifacts (verbatim replies) are preserved at the temp
+paths recorded in the eval-notes history (see git log for
+2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-notes-red.md). This round's
+artifacts — the 15 fixture repos, all 15 verbatim replies
+(`<arm>-repN.reply.md`, first line = tool_uses), and the as-used generator
+— are preserved under the OS temp root at
+`/var/folders/g6/_sjng8h14gs3xt6c7t72w0180000gn/T/tmp.eSJKC2JemT` (path
+also recorded in `/tmp/sdd-eval-root-v3.path`).

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace.md

@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+# SDD plan-scoped workspace — design
+
+- **Date:** 2026-07-06
+- **Status:** approved direction (Jesse, 2026-07-06); this spec captures the investigation's recommended fix
+- **Problem owner:** subagent-driven-development skill (`skills/subagent-driven-development/`)
+
+## Problem
+
+SDD's durable-progress workspace (`.superpowers/sdd/`, introduced v6.0.0/v6.0.3) has
+no plan identity and no end-of-life. Every artifact is keyed by bare task number
+(`progress.md`, `task-N-brief.md`, `task-N-report.md`), and SKILL.md instructs a
+starting controller to treat whatever ledger it finds as its own progress:
+
+> At skill start, check for a ledger:
+> `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks listed there
+> as complete are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task
+> not marked complete.
+
+A fresh session executing a **follow-up plan** in the same worktree reads the
+previous plan's ledger as its own. A straight-line reading of the skill tells it
+to skip tasks. Nothing ever deletes the workspace, so the stale state persists
+indefinitely and accumulates.
+
+### Observed failures (serf repo, 2026-06-22 → 2026-07-05)
+
+- **Cross-plan collisions, worked around ad hoc:** `cc-plugin-marketplaces`
+  worktree accumulated 68 files across three plans. The P2 controller had to
+  invent `progress-p2.md` and `p2-task-N-report.md` to dodge P1's ledger; P2's
+  briefs silently overwrote P1's at the default paths; an abandoned
+  `progress-p3.md` stub remains.
+- **Git contamination, three times over:** SDD scratch was committed and needed
+  two cleanup commits (`8305e340d`, `c966261a5`); three artifacts are tracked on
+  serf main today, including a report authored on a different machine that now
+  materializes in every fresh worktree. A follow-up plan's task-1 report
+  overwrote an unrelated tracked one, leaving permanent `git status` noise.
+- The self-ignoring `.gitignore` is written only when a script runs. Controllers
+  that hand-append the ledger (observed) never create it, and gitignore is
+  powerless once a file is tracked.
+
+### Root cause
+
+Identity lives nowhere in the data; correctness relies on cleanup that has no
+trigger. Any fix that relies on end-of-plan cleanup alone fails exactly in the
+crash/compaction cases the ledger exists to survive. Identity must be
+structural.
+
+## Design
+
+### 1. Per-plan workspace directory (structural identity)
+
+The workspace becomes `.superpowers/sdd/<plan-slug>/`, where `<plan-slug>` is
+the plan file's basename without its `.md` extension (plan filenames are
+already dated kebab-case, e.g. `2026-07-04-plugin-marketplaces-p1-backend-core`).
+Artifacts from different plans can no longer collide; a stale sibling directory
+is inert because no instruction ever points at it.
+
+Script interface (all in `skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/`):
+
+- `sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` — resolves and creates
+  `<repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-slug>/`, maintains the self-ignoring
+  `.gitignore` at `.superpowers/sdd/.gitignore` (parent level, content `*`),
+  prints the plan directory's absolute path. Errors (exit 2) on missing
+  argument or nonexistent plan file. Slug must be non-empty after stripping.
+- `task-brief PLAN_FILE N [OUTFILE]` — signature unchanged; default OUTFILE
+  moves to `<workspace>/task-N-brief.md` via `sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE`.
+- `review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]` — gains PLAN_FILE as first
+  argument; default OUTFILE moves to `<workspace>/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff`.
+
+No compatibility path for the old flat layout: the scripts and SKILL.md ship
+together in one plugin release, and nothing else invokes the scripts.
+(Explicitly confirmed: no backward-compatibility handling.)
+
+### 2. Ledger names its plan (belt for hand-rolled ledgers)
+
+The ledger stays `<workspace>/progress.md`. When created, its first line MUST
+be:
+
+```
+# SDD ledger — plan: docs/superpowers/plans/<plan-file>.md
+```
+
+SKILL.md's start-of-skill check becomes plan-scoped and carries a conditional
+guard keyed to that observable line, phrased positively (recipe, not
+prohibition): resolve your plan's workspace with `sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE`,
+read `progress.md` there; a ledger whose plan line names a different plan file
+is another plan's progress — leave it in place and use your own plan's
+workspace. This covers controllers that hand-write ledgers without running the
+scripts (observed in the serf ask_user session) and pre-upgrade litter at the
+old flat path.
+
+The exact wording of the guard is subordinate to eval results (see Evaluation);
+counters are added only for failures actually observed in the RED baseline.
+
+### 3. Workspace end-of-life (hygiene, not correctness)
+
+When the final whole-branch review is clean and its fix wave (if any) is
+merged — immediately before handing off to
+`superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch` — the controller deletes its
+plan's workspace directory (`rm -rf "$WORKSPACE"`). The record of the work is
+the git history; the ledger's job (mid-plan compaction recovery) is over.
+Sibling directories are never touched: crashed or parallel plans own their own
+dirs, and deliberately parked cross-plan artifacts (observed pattern:
+`WAVE1-HANDOFF.md`) live directly under `.superpowers/sdd/` untouched by any
+plan's cleanup.
+
+### 4. SKILL.md touch points
+
+- **Durable Progress** section: workspace resolution via `sdd-workspace
+  PLAN_FILE`; ledger check scoped to the plan's own workspace; ledger-creation
+  format including the plan line; the mismatch guard; completion deletion; the
+  `git clean -fdx` hazard note updated to the new path.
+- **Handling Implementer Status / Constructing Reviewer Prompts / File
+  Handoffs / Red Flags / Example Workflow**: update script invocations to the
+  new signatures (`review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD`) and any path mentions.
+  `implementer-prompt.md` and `task-reviewer-prompt.md` contain no workspace
+  paths (verified) and need no changes.
+- Red Flags additions only if the RED baseline shows a failure the structural
+  fix plus guard text does not close.
+
+## Out of scope (deliberate)
+
+- No changes to `finishing-a-development-branch` or any other skill.
+- No git-level guards against committing `.superpowers/` beyond the existing
+  parent `.gitignore`.
+- No retroactive cleanup of the serf repo (separate follow-up).
+- No legacy-layout migration or fallback reads.
+
+## Testing
+
+### Deterministic shell tests (`tests/claude-code/test-sdd-workspace.sh`, extended)
+
+- `sdd-workspace PLAN` prints `<root>/.superpowers/sdd/<slug>` and creates it;
+  errors without a plan arg; errors on missing plan file.
+- Two different plan files resolve to two distinct directories; artifacts
+  written via `task-brief` land in their own plan's directory.
+- `review-package PLAN BASE HEAD` writes under the plan's directory.
+- Parent `.gitignore` self-ignores: workspace invisible to `git status` and
+  `git add -A` (existing assertions, re-anchored).
+- Linked-worktree distinctness (existing assertion, re-anchored).
+- Existing suites `test-subagent-driven-development.sh` /
+  `-integration.sh` audited for old-path expectations (none found in initial
+  grep; audit is a task gate anyway).
+
+### Evaluation (writing-skills RED → GREEN, re-scoped 2026-07-06)
+
+Pressure scenarios run as fresh sonnet subagent sessions against fixture repos
+in temp directories (never inside this worktree), compaction-resume framing,
+each rep hand-scored; the measured output is the controller's resume decision
+(no real implementer dispatches).
+
+**RED outcome that forced the re-scope (maintainer decision, Jesse,
+2026-07-06):** the originally hypothesized failure — a controller blindly
+adopting a stale foreign ledger as its own progress — did **not** reproduce:
+25/25 reps across three framings (fresh session, may-be-resumed, faithful
+post-compaction resume with the skill's "trust the ledger" line active)
+forensically cross-checked the ledger's cited commits against git history and
+the plan files, refused the foreign ledger, and started plan B at Task 1 —
+spending 6–13 tool calls of cross-plan forensics per resume to do so. Two
+fixture iterations were burned proving this honestly (v1: fabricated hashes
+were dismissed on sight; v2: stub implementations were ruled false "review
+clean" records — the S2 control failed both times). Full record in the
+committed eval docs.
+
+**Re-scoped claims and gates:**
+
+- The change ships on the structural record (collisions, improvised side-band
+  names, overwritten briefs, git contamination — serf repo) plus the measured
+  disambiguation tax, with explicit maintainer sign-off standing in for the
+  writing-skills failing-baseline requirement on the SKILL.md text.
+- **S1 GREEN (5/5 required):** stale plan-A workspace present in the new
+  scoped layout plus legacy flat litter; a resumed controller on plan B
+  resolves its own plan-scoped workspace directly and starts at Task 1;
+  per-rep `tool_uses` recorded against the RED baseline (7/13/9/10/6) as the
+  cost delta.
+- **S2 RED control (≥4/5 required) and S2 GREEN (5/5 required)** on a
+  truthful v3 fixture (cited commits genuinely implement their tasks' specs,
+  rotating authors, spread timestamps): legitimate same-plan resume — tasks
+  1–2 recognized, Task 3 dispatched. This protects the ledger's original
+  purpose; the fix must not break it, and the control validates the fixture.
+
+Results land in `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-results.md`
+and are summarized in the PR.
+
+## Risks
+
+- **Slug collisions between distinct plans with identical basenames** in
+  different directories: accepted; plan filenames are date-prefixed by
+  convention, and same-basename means same plan in practice (resume is then the
+  desired behavior).
+- **Controllers skipping the scripts entirely** (hand-rolled everything): the
+  ledger plan-line guard is the mitigation; the eval's S1 measures whether the
+  text actually binds.
+- **Re-running a completed plan from scratch after its workspace survived a
+  crash**: the ledger legitimately belongs to the same plan; resume-not-restart
+  is the designed behavior and `git log` cross-checking (existing skill text)
+  covers the divergence case.

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-15-sdd-fix-loop-redesign-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+# SDD Fix-Loop Redesign — Design Spec
+
+**Status:** Approved design (brainstormed with Jesse 2026-07-15); implementation
+plan to follow.
+**Objective:** make the subagent-driven-development skill's review-fix loop
+convergent and autonomous, and make the document readable, without rewriting
+its eval-tuned language.
+**Hard invariant:** existing eval-tuned sentences move; they do not get
+reworded. New machinery ships with drill evidence.
+
+## Problems
+
+Four, all observed in real sessions:
+
+1. **Pathological review loops.** The loop is literally "Repeat until
+   approved" — no round cap. Each re-review is a fresh full review of the
+   whole diff, so a nondeterministic frontier reviewer surfaces new findings
+   every round instead of verifying fixes. Result: implement, review, fix,
+   review, review, fix, review, fix — with no circuit breaker. The
+   strict-cost spec (2026-06-10) independently measured review-loop count as
+   the biggest run-to-run cost variance.
+2. **Contradictory fix policy.** The process diagram and "Constructing
+   Reviewer Prompts" dispatch dedicated fix subagents; Red Flags says
+   "Implementer (same subagent) fixes them"; implementer-prompt.md's "After
+   Review Findings" section assumes the implementer will be re-engaged. Three
+   answers to "who fixes?" in one skill.
+3. **Accreted structure.** Thirteen top-level sections; guidance for one
+   activity is scattered across four of them. "Constructing Reviewer Prompts"
+   is a grab-bag holding reviewer guidance, fix policy, final-review policy,
+   and plan-conflict adjudication.
+4. **Red Flags format.** Seven sibling skills use the `| Excuse | Reality |`
+   rationalization table; SDD carries a 17-bullet "Never" list plus three
+   "If X" mini-blocks.
+
+## Design Decisions
+
+| # | Decision | Rationale |
+|---|----------|-----------|
+| 1 | The original implementer fixes its own review findings — resume it in place. | It already holds the task context; ownership beats a drive-by patcher. Fresh "fix subagents" rebuild context per finding and lack the task frame. |
+| 2 | Re-reviews are scoped to the findings. | Fresh full reviews each round are the churn engine. Scoped re-reviews make the loop structurally convergent; the final whole-branch review remains the broad safety net. |
+| 3 | Circuit breaker at five fix rounds: three resumes, then two fresh dispatches on a more capable model. | Jesse's call. A loop that survives three resumes usually means the implementer cannot see its own problem — the fresh capable dispatch de-anchors and capability-bumps in one move. |
+| 4 | At trip, the controller adjudicates and routes. No new human checkpoint — structural failures reach the existing BLOCKED stop. | SDD's point is autonomous execution. The controller holds the plan and cross-task context the reviewer lacks; the existing text already sanctions it ("adjudicate it in the review loop") without ever specifying the mechanism. |
+| 5 | Reorganize SKILL.md by lifecycle, preserving tuned sentences. | Fixes "hard to follow" at the root. Content moves to its point of use, matching the house direction (recent commits fold recap sections into points of use). |
+| 6 | Convert Red Flags to a `| Excuse | Reality |` rationalization table; relocate hard rules to their points of use. | Matches the other seven skills. Excuses get rebuttals; rules get enforced where the reader acts. |
+
+## The Fix Loop
+
+Trigger: a task review returns spec ❌ or any Critical/Important finding.
+
+**Rounds 1–3 — resume the original implementer.** Send the findings verbatim
+(Critical/Important plus spec gaps). The implementer fixes, re-runs the
+covering tests, appends the fix report to its existing report file, and
+returns the short contract. On a harness without agent resume, a "resume" is
+a fresh dispatch carrying the brief, the report file, and the findings — the
+report file is the persistent memory either way.
+
+**Rounds 4–5 — fresh implementer, more capable model.** Full task context:
+brief, report file, open findings, and the framing "a prior implementer
+attempted this N times; you own the task now."
+
+**Every round's re-review is scoped.** The re-reviewer receives the brief,
+the updated report, the original findings list, and a fix-scoped diff package
+(`review-package FIX_BASE HEAD`, where FIX_BASE is the head the reviewer
+last reviewed; the script already takes arbitrary ranges).
+It verdicts each finding addressed / not addressed and flags new breakage in
+the fix diff only. Novel findings on code the fix did not touch are reported
+as non-blocking; the controller ledgers them for the final review.
+
+**Fix-report completeness gate (existing rule, kept):** before dispatching a
+re-review, confirm the fix report names the covering tests, the command run,
+and the output.
+
+**No early exit.** The controller never adjudicates before the cap — an early
+exit reopens the "pre-judge findings to spare yourself a review loop" hole
+the current content deliberately closed. One exception, unchanged from
+today: a finding that conflicts with what the plan's text mandates goes to
+the human immediately (plan authority, not loop churn).
+
+**Minor findings** never enter the loop: ledger them as they arrive (existing
+rule, kept).
+
+### Adjudication at Trip
+
+After round five fails, the controller stops dispatching and judges each open
+finding against the brief, the plan, and cross-task context:
+
+- **Contested or wrong** → ledger with a one-line adjudication ("controller:
+  reviewer wrong because X"), continue. The final review sees both sides.
+- **Real, not load-bearing** → ledger as known-open, continue. Later
+  dispatches touching that area carry a pointer to the entry.
+- **Real and load-bearing** (later tasks build on it, or it reveals a plan
+  defect) → the existing BLOCKED stop. Park-and-continue defers a structural
+  failure to the most expensive point and lets dependents build on it, so
+  structural failures stop the run — through the stop condition that already
+  exists, not a new checkpoint.
+
+Every adjudication is a ledger entry. Silent discards stay forbidden.
+
+## Document Restructure
+
+New skeleton, in execution order:
+
+1. Intro — why subagents, core principle, narration, continuous execution
+2. When to Use — unchanged, including the decision graph
+3. The Process — diagram updated for the new loop
+4. Setup — worktree, ledger check/resume, pre-flight plan review, todos
+5. Model Selection — stays one cross-cutting section; every dispatch
+   consults it, so folding it into points of use would repeat it five times
+6. The Task Loop — five numbered steps:
+   1. Dispatch the implementer (task-brief script, five-part dispatch
+      composition, model line required)
+   2. Handle the report (DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / NEEDS_CONTEXT / BLOCKED)
+   3. Review the task (review-package script, reviewer dispatch composition,
+      constraints lens, no pre-judging, ⚠️ handling)
+   4. Fix loop (the machinery above)
+   5. Complete the task (ledger append, todo update)
+7. Final Review — package, model pin, one fix wave, one scoped re-review,
+   adjudication
+8. Finish — finishing-a-development-branch
+9. Common Rationalizations — the table
+10. Example Workflow — updated to show a resume-based fix round and the
+    breaker not tripping
+
+"Constructing Reviewer Prompts," "File Handoffs," and "Durable Progress"
+dissolve into the steps where each rule applies. Every eval-tuned sentence
+lands in exactly one new location; a move map in the implementation plan
+tracks source → destination so review can verify nothing was dropped or
+reworded.
+
+## Rationalization Table
+
+Excuse-shaped Never items convert to rows; new rows cover the loop
+pathology. Draft rows (final wording at implementation):
+
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "Close enough on spec compliance" | Reviewer found gaps = not done. |
+| "I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |
+| "One more round will converge" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge. Adjudicate. |
+| "The reviewer will just find something new anyway" | Scoped re-reviews check fixes, not taste. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |
+| "This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every adjudication is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |
+| "The fix was small, skip the re-review" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. |
+
+Hard rules that are not excuses (never parallel implementers, never dispatch
+a reviewer without a diff file, model line required, never re-dispatch
+ledger-complete tasks) move to their points of use.
+
+## Prompt Templates
+
+- **implementer-prompt.md** — "After Review Findings" rewritten for resume
+  semantics: you will be resumed with findings; fix, re-run covering tests,
+  append to your report file, return the short contract.
+- **task-reviewer-prompt.md** — initial review only; the trailing re-review
+  sentence moves out.
+- **re-review-prompt.md (new)** — the scoped re-review contract: inputs are
+  brief, updated report, original findings, fix-scoped diff package; output
+  is a per-finding verdict (addressed / not addressed), new breakage in the
+  fix diff, and non-blocking observations outside it. A separate template
+  because it is a different contract — overloading the full-review template
+  produced the current ambiguity.
+- **Takeover dispatch (rounds 4–5)** — composed from implementer-prompt.md
+  plus SKILL.md guidance (brief, report path, open findings, takeover
+  framing); no new template file.
+
+## Final Review Loop
+
+Unchanged: merge-base package, most capable model, ONE fixer with the
+complete findings list. New: exactly one scoped re-review of the fix wave,
+then controller adjudication. Residual load-bearing findings surface at
+finishing-a-development-branch, where the human already is. The end of the
+branch gets a bounded loop too.
+
+## Evals
+
+Three new drill scenarios in `evals/`:
+
+1. **Resume, don't re-dispatch:** a task review returns findings; the
+   controller must resume the same implementer rather than dispatch a fix
+   subagent.
+2. **Breaker trips:** a seeded never-satisfied reviewer; the controller must
+   stop dispatching after the fifth round fails, adjudicate, ledger, and
+   continue — not loop.
+3. **Structural finding stops:** a load-bearing finding (later tasks depend
+   on it); the controller must stop via BLOCKED rather than park.
+
+Plus before/after runs of the existing SDD scenarios to catch regressions
+from the reorganization.
+
+## Non-Goals
+
+- Ledger session-scoping — PR #1943 owns it. This work touches the same
+  sections, so the implementation plan notes the collision risk.
+- Script changes — task-brief and review-package already do what the new
+  loop needs.
+- Changes to executing-plans or requesting-code-review beyond the final-
+  review pointer continuing to resolve.

docs/windows/polyglot-hooks.md

@@ -6,9 +6,18 @@ Claude Code plugins need hooks that work on Windows, macOS, and Linux. This docu
 
 ## The Problem
 
-Claude Code runs hook commands through the system's default shell:
+Claude Code runs hook commands through a shell:
-- **Windows**: CMD.exe
 - **macOS/Linux**: bash or sh
+- **Windows with Git Bash installed**: Git Bash
+- **Windows without Git Bash**: PowerShell (older versions used CMD.exe)
+
+Neither Windows fallback shell can parse our command string: PowerShell treats
+a leading quoted path as a string expression and errors on the next bareword,
+and CMD.exe's `/c` quoting rules strip the outer quotes when the path contains
+a metacharacter such as `(`. Our hooks therefore declare `"shell": "bash"`
+(supported since Claude Code 2.1.81; older versions ignore the key), which
+forces the Git Bash route and, when Git Bash is absent, produces an actionable
+"install Git for Windows" error instead of a shell parser failure.
 
 This creates several challenges:
 
@@ -42,6 +51,7 @@ hooks/
           {
             "type": "command",
             "command": "\"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/run-hook.cmd\" session-start",
+            "shell": "bash",
             "async": false
           }
         ]

hooks/hooks.json

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
           {
             "type": "command",
             "command": "\"${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/hooks/run-hook.cmd\" session-start",
+            "shell": "bash",
             "async": false
           }
         ]

scripts/package-codex-plugin.sh

@@ -230,14 +230,16 @@ prepare_metadata_root() {
 
 METADATA_ROOT="$(prepare_metadata_root "$METADATA_SOURCE")"
 
-git -C "$REPO_ROOT" archive --format=tar "$REF" -- \
+# Pin tar.umask and extract with -p so staged modes are canonical 755/644
+# regardless of the builder's git config or process umask.
+git -C "$REPO_ROOT" -c tar.umask=0022 archive --format=tar "$REF" -- \
   .codex-plugin \
   CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md \
   LICENSE \
   README.md \
   assets \
   skills \
-  | tar -xf - -C "$STAGE"
+  | tar -xpf - -C "$STAGE"
 
 VERSION="$(jq -r '.version // empty' "$STAGE/.codex-plugin/plugin.json")"
 [[ -n "$VERSION" ]] || die "could not read version from .codex-plugin/plugin.json"
@@ -298,12 +300,19 @@ case "$FORMAT" in
     )
     ;;
   tar.gz)
-    # Match the prior official archive's deterministic tar entry metadata.
+    # Match the prior official archive's deterministic tar entry metadata:
+    # ustar entries with uid/gid 0 and empty uname/gname. GNU tar and bsdtar
+    # (macOS) spell those flags differently.
+    if tar --version 2>/dev/null | grep -q 'GNU tar'; then
+      TAR_METADATA_FLAGS=(--owner=:0 --group=:0 --numeric-owner)
+    else
+      TAR_METADATA_FLAGS=(--uid 0 --gid 0 --uname '' --gname '')
+    fi
     TZ=UTC find "$STAGE" -exec touch -t 197001010000 {} +
     (
       cd "$STAGE"
       rm -f "$OUTPUT"
-      COPYFILE_DISABLE=1 tar -cf - --no-recursion --format ustar --uid 0 --gid 0 --uname '' --gname '' -T "$ARCHIVE_LIST" |
+      COPYFILE_DISABLE=1 tar -cf - --no-recursion --format ustar "${TAR_METADATA_FLAGS[@]}" -T "$ARCHIVE_LIST" |
         gzip -9n >"$OUTPUT"
     )
     ;;

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -51,41 +51,96 @@ digraph process {
     subgraph cluster_per_task {
         label="Per Task";
         "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
         "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
-        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
-        "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [shape=box];
+        "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [shape=box];
+        "Ask human partner which governs" [shape=box];
+        "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "All findings addressed?" [shape=diamond];
+        "R = 5?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Adjudicate each open finding" [shape=box];
+        "Any load-bearing finding?" [shape=diamond];
+        "STOP: report BLOCKED to human partner" [shape=box];
+        "Park findings in ledger with rulings" [shape=box];
+        "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [shape=box];
     }
 
-    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
+    "Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" [shape=box];
     "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
+    "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" [shape=box];
+    "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" [shape=box];
     "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
 
-    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
-    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
+    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer asks questions?";
-    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
+    "Implementer asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
-    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews";
-    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer asks questions?" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
-    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
+    "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
-    "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?";
+    "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec ✅ and quality approved?";
-    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [label="no"];
+    "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
-    "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [label="no"];
-    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [label="yes"];
+    "Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Ask human partner which governs" [label="yes"];
-    "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "Ask human partner which governs" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model";
+    "Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [label="no"];
+    "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" -> "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)";
+    "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" -> "All findings addressed?";
+    "All findings addressed?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
+    "All findings addressed?" -> "R = 5?" [label="no"];
+    "R = 5?" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [label="no - next round"];
+    "R = 5?" -> "Adjudicate each open finding" [label="yes - breaker trips"];
+    "Adjudicate each open finding" -> "Any load-bearing finding?";
+    "Any load-bearing finding?" -> "STOP: report BLOCKED to human partner" [label="yes"];
+    "Any load-bearing finding?" -> "Park findings in ledger with rulings" [label="no"];
+    "Park findings in ledger with rulings" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete";
+    "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" -> "More tasks remain?";
     "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer (../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";
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals";
+    "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" -> "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace";
+    "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
 }
 ```
 
-## Pre-Flight Plan Review
+## Setup
 
 Ensure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use
 superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.
+Never start implementation on a main/master branch without your human
+partner's explicit consent.
+
+Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
+controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
+sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
+a ledger file, not only in todos.
+
+- Each plan owns a workspace: at skill start, run this skill's
+  `scripts/sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` — it prints the plan's git-ignored
+  directory (`<repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/`), home to
+  every artifact for THIS plan: ledger, briefs, reports, review packages.
+  Another plan's directory is never yours to read or write.
+- Check for this plan's ledger at `<workspace>/progress.md`. If its first
+  line names your plan file, tasks with a `Task <N>: complete` line are DONE
+  — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task without one. A task
+  whose last line is a fix round is mid-loop: resume the loop at the next
+  round. A ledger whose first line names a different plan file — or a stray
+  ledger at the old flat path `.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` — is another
+  plan's progress: leave it in place and start your own, fresh.
+- Create the ledger with its identity as the first line:
+  `# SDD ledger — plan: <plan file path>`.
+- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
+  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
+  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
+- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the workspace (it's git-ignored scratch); if
+  that happens, recover from `git log`.
+
+Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a
+todo per task.
 
 Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
 
@@ -113,7 +168,11 @@ capable available model, not the session default.
 
 **Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the
 diff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the
-most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does.
+most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does. Scoped re-reviews of
+small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier.
+
+**Fix-loop escalation (rounds 4-5)**: use a model at least one tier above
+the implementer that got stuck.
 
 **Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An
 omitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and
@@ -132,11 +191,51 @@ that implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.
 - Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
 - Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
 
-## Handling Implementer Status
+## The Task Loop
+
+Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
+prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
+and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files.
+
+### 1. Dispatch the implementer
+
+Record BASE (`git rev-parse HEAD`) before dispatching — the review package
+and fix-round diffs need it.
+
+- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
+  `scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
+  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
+  brief stays the single source of
+  requirements. Your dispatch should contain: (1) one line on where this
+  task fits in the project; (2) the brief path, introduced as "read this
+  first — it is your requirements, with the exact values to use verbatim";
+  (3) interfaces and decisions from earlier tasks that the brief cannot
+  know; (4) your resolution of any ambiguity you noticed in the brief;
+  (5) the report-file path and report contract. Exact values (numbers,
+  magic strings, signatures, test cases) appear only in the brief. Never
+  make a subagent read the whole plan file.
+- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
+  (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
+  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
+  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
+- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
+  paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
+  later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
+  was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
+  touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
+- If an earlier task parked a finding in the area this task touches, carry
+  a pointer to that ledger entry in the dispatch.
+- Record the implementer's agent identity from the dispatch result —
+  fix-loop rounds 1-3 resume this agent.
+- Never dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts).
+
+Template: [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md)
+
+### 2. Handle the report
 
 Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 
-**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.
+**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.
 
 **DONE_WITH_CONCERNS:** The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.
 
@@ -150,20 +249,37 @@ Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 
 **Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.
 
-## Handling Reviewer ⚠️ Items
+If the implementer asks questions — before starting or mid-task — answer
+clearly and completely, provide additional context if needed, and don't
+rush it into implementation.
 
-The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
+### 3. Review the task
-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:
+final whole-branch review. Never skip the task review, and never accept a
+report missing either verdict — spec compliance AND task quality are both
+required. Implementer self-review never replaces the task review; both are
+needed.
 
+- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
+  `scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
+  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
+  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
+  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
+  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
+  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
+  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks. Never
+  dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file.
+- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
+  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
+  constraints that bind the task.
+- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
+  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
+  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
+  stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
+  Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
+  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
+  project's spec demands.
 - Do not add open-ended directives like "check all uses" or "run race tests
   if useful" without a concrete, task-specific reason
 - Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the
@@ -174,110 +290,159 @@ final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
   loop. If the prompt you are writing contains "do not flag," "don't treat X
   as a defect," "at most Minor," or "the plan chose" — stop: you are
   pre-judging, usually to spare yourself a review loop.
-- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
+The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
-  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
+that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
-  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
+review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
-  stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
+complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
-  Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
+lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
-  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
+review — it enters the fix loop with the other findings.
-  project's spec demands.
+
-- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
+Template: [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md)
-  `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
+
-  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
+### 4. The fix loop
-  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 loop triggers when the review reports spec ❌, any Critical or Important
-  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
+finding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.
-  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
+
-  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks.
+Before the loop starts, two routes leave it immediately:
-- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
+
-  paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
+- Record Minor findings in the progress ledger as you go
-  later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
+  (`Task <N>: minor (deferred): <one-liner>`), and point the final
-  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.
+  before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard. Minor findings
+  never enter the loop.
 - A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with
   what the plan's text requires — is the human's decision, like any plan
   contradiction: present the finding and the plan text, ask which governs.
   Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not
   dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without asking.
-- The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
+Everything else enters the loop. A fix round is one fix dispatch plus one
-  `scripts/review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
+scoped re-review. Five rounds maximum per task:
+
+**Rounds 1-3 — resume the original implementer.** Send it the open findings
+verbatim. Its context is intact: it knows the task, the code, and its own
+choices. If your harness cannot send another message to a live subagent,
+dispatch a fresh implementer carrying the brief path, the report-file path,
+and the findings — the report file is the persistent memory either way.
+
+**Rounds 4-5 — dispatch a fresh implementer on a more capable model** (per
+Model Selection), with the brief path, the report-file path, the open
+findings, and this framing: "A prior implementer attempted this task
+[N] times; you own it now. Read the report file for what was tried." A loop
+that survives three resumes usually means the implementer cannot see its
+own problem — fresh eyes and a capability bump in one move.
+
+**Every round, either way:** the implementer fixes, re-runs the tests
+covering the amended code, appends its fix report to the same report file,
+and returns the short contract. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm
+the fix report contains the covering tests, the command run, and the
+output; dispatch the re-review once all three are present. Name the
+covering test files in the fix message — a one-line fix does not need the
+whole suite.
+
+**The re-review is scoped.** Run `scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD`
+where FIX_BASE is the head the previous review saw, and dispatch
+[re-review-prompt.md](re-review-prompt.md) with the findings list, the
+brief, the report file, and the printed diff path. The re-reviewer verdicts
+each finding ADDRESSED or NOT ADDRESSED and flags new breakage in the fix
+diff only. New Critical/Important breakage in the fix diff joins the open
+findings list. Out-of-scope observations go to the ledger as deferred
+minors — they never extend the loop.
+
+**After each round,** append to the ledger:
+`Task <N>: fix round <R>/5 (<X> addressed, <Y> open — <finding one-liners>; commits <a7>..<b7>)`
+
+Never fix findings yourself in the controller session — your context stays
+clean for coordination, and controller fixes skip review.
+
+**The breaker.** When round 5's re-review still leaves findings open, stop
+dispatching. Adjudicate each open finding yourself — you hold the plan and
+the cross-task context the reviewer lacks:
+
+- **The reviewer is wrong, or the point is contestable:** park it —
+  `Task <N>: parked — <finding> — ruling: <why the code stands>`. The final
+  review sees both sides.
+- **Real, but nothing downstream builds on it:** park it the same way, with
+  a ruling that says it's real and deferred.
+- **Real and load-bearing** — a later task builds on it, or it reveals a
+  plan defect: STOP. Append `Task <N>: BLOCKED — <reason>` and report to
+  your human partner with the finding, the plan text it collides with, and
+  the fix history. Parking a structural failure lets every dependent task
+  build on it and hands the final review a problem it cannot fix either.
+
+Adjudicate only at the cap. Adjudicating earlier to end a loop is
+pre-judging with a different name. Every adjudication is a ledger entry —
+a silent discard is forbidden.
+
+### 5. Complete the task
+
+When the review comes back clean — or every open finding is parked with a
+ruling at the cap — append the completion line to the ledger in the same
+message as your other bookkeeping:
+
+- `Task <N>: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`
+- `Task <N>: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, <K> parked)` after a
+  tripped breaker
+
+Then mark the todo complete and move on. Never move to the next task while
+the review has open Critical/Important issues that are neither fixed nor
+parked-with-ruling at the cap.
+
+## Final Review
+
+The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
+`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
 branch started from, e.g. `git merge-base main HEAD`) and include the
 printed path in the final review dispatch, so the final reviewer reads
-  one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands.
+one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands. Dispatch
-- Every fix dispatch carries the implementer contract: the fix subagent
+on the most capable available model (see Model Selection), using
-  re-runs the tests covering its change and reports the results. Name the
+superpowers:requesting-code-review's
-  covering test files in the dispatch — a one-line fix does not need the
+[code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md). Point it at
-  whole suite. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report
+the ledger's deferred-minor and parked lines so it can triage which must be
-  contains the covering tests, the command run, and the output; dispatch
+fixed before merge.
-  the re-review once all three are present.
+
-- If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix
+If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix subagent
-  subagent with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
+with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
 Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
 session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.
+Then run exactly one scoped re-review of the fix wave
+(`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD` over the fix range,
+[re-review-prompt.md](re-review-prompt.md)).
+Adjudicate any residual findings as in the task loop's breaker: park with
+rulings, or stop on load-bearing ones. There is no second fix wave —
+residual load-bearing findings surface to your human partner when
+finishing-a-development-branch presents the options.
 
-## File Handoffs
+## Finish
 
-Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
+When the final whole-branch review is clean and its fixes are merged,
-prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
+delete this plan's workspace (`rm -rf <workspace>`) — the git history is
-and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files:
+the record now. Sibling directories belong to other plans; leave them
+alone.
 
-- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
+Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
-  `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
+## Common Rationalizations
 
-Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
+| Excuse | Reality |
-controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
+|--------|---------|
-sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
+| "Close enough on spec compliance" | Reviewer found spec gaps = not done. Fix or hit the cap and adjudicate — those are the only exits. |
-a ledger file, not only in todos.
+| "I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |
-
+| "One more round will converge" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge — the failure is structural. Adjudicate and route. |
-- At skill start, check for a ledger:
+| "The reviewer will just find something new anyway" | Scoped re-reviews verify fixes; they cannot wander. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |
-  `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks listed there
+| "This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every ruling is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |
-  as complete are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task
+| "The fix was small, skip the re-review" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. Every round ends with a scoped re-review. |
-  not marked complete.
+| "Reviews slow the loop down" | The loop without reviews is just unverified churn. Reviews are the loop's brakes and steering. |
-- When a task's review comes back clean, append one line to the ledger in
+| "Ledger bookkeeping is overhead" | The ledger is what survives compaction. Controllers without one have re-dispatched entire completed task sequences. |
-  the same message as your other bookkeeping:
-  `Task N: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`.
-- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
-  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
-  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
-- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
-  that happens, recover from `git log`.
-
-## Prompt Templates
-
-- [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
 
 ```
 You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
 
+[Setup: worktree verified]
 [Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
+[Resolve workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md — no ledger inside, fresh start]
 [Create todos for all tasks]
 
 Task 1: Hook installation script
@@ -288,88 +453,51 @@ Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system le
 
 You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
 
-Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
+Implementer: [Later]
-[Later] Implementer:
   - Implemented install-hook command
   - Added tests, 5/5 passing
   - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
   - Committed
 
-[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
+[Run review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD; dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
 Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
   Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
 
-[Mark Task 1 complete]
+[Ledger: Task 1: complete (commits a1b2c3d..d4e5f6a, review clean)]
 
 Task 2: Recovery modes
 
 [Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
 
-Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
+Implementer: [No questions]
-Implementer:
   - Added verify/repair modes
   - 8/8 tests passing
-  - Self-review: All good
   - Committed
 
-[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
+[Run review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD; dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
 Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
   - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
-  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
   Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
 
-[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
+[Fix round 1: resume the implementer with both findings]
-Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
+Implementer: Added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant.
+  Re-ran test/recovery.test.js — 10/10 passing. Fix report appended.
 
-[Task reviewer reviews again]
+[Run review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD; dispatch scoped re-review]
-Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
+Re-reviewer: Missing progress reporting — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:41).
+  Magic number — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:7). New breakage: none.
+  Verdict: all findings addressed.
 
-[Mark Task 2 complete]
+[Ledger: Task 2: fix round 1/5 (2 addressed, 0 open; commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e)]
+[Ledger: Task 2: complete (commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e, review clean)]
 
 ...
 
 [After all tasks]
-[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
+[Run review-package PLAN_FILE MERGE_BASE HEAD; dispatch final code-reviewer, most capable model]
-Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
+Final reviewer: All requirements met. Deferred minors triaged: none block merge.
 
-Done!
+[Delete this plan's workspace — the record now lives in git]
+
+Done! Using superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
 ```
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
-- Skip task review, or accept a report missing either verdict (spec compliance AND task quality are both required)
-- Proceed with unfixed issues
-- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
-- Make a subagent read the whole plan file (hand it its task brief —
-  `scripts/task-brief` — instead)
-- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
-- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
-- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (reviewer found spec issues = not done)
-- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
-- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
-- Tell a reviewer what not to flag, or pre-rate a finding's severity in the
-  dispatch prompt ("treat it as Minor at most") — the plan's example code is
-  a starting point, not evidence that its weaknesses were chosen
-- Dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file — generate it first
-  (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`) and name the printed path in the
-  prompt
-- Move to next task while the review has open Critical/Important issues
-- Re-dispatch a task the progress ledger already marks complete — check
-  the ledger (and `git log`) after any compaction or resume
-
-**If subagent asks questions:**
-- Answer clearly and completely
-- Provide additional context if needed
-- Don't rush them into implementation
-
-**If reviewer finds issues:**
-- Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
-- Reviewer reviews again
-- Repeat until approved
-- Don't skip the re-review
-
-**If subagent fails task:**
-- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
-- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

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

@@ -106,9 +106,12 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     ## After Review Findings
 
-    If a reviewer finds issues and you fix them, re-run the tests that cover
+    If the task review finds issues, you will be resumed with the findings.
-    the amended code and append the results to your report file. Reviewers
+    Fix them, re-run the tests that cover the amended code, and append a fix
-    will not re-run tests for you — your report is the test evidence.
+    report to your report file: what you changed, the covering tests you
+    ran, the command, and the output. Reviewers will not re-run tests for
+    you — your report is the test evidence. Then reply with the same short
+    status contract as your first report.
 
     ## Report Format
 

skills/subagent-driven-development/re-review-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Scoped Re-Review Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a re-review after a fix round. The
+re-reviewer verifies the findings were addressed and checks the fix diff for
+new breakage. It is not a fresh review — the full review already happened.
+
+**Purpose:** Verify each finding from the previous review was addressed, and
+that the fix itself broke nothing.
+
+```
+Subagent (general-purpose):
+  description: "Re-review Task N fix round R"
+  model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
+         model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
+  prompt: |
+    You are re-reviewing one task's fix round. A previous review produced
+    findings; an implementer has attempted to fix them. Your job is to
+    verdict each finding and inspect the fix diff — nothing else.
+
+    ## The Task
+
+    Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE]
+
+    ## The Findings Under Verification
+
+    [FINDINGS]
+
+    ## The Fix
+
+    Read the implementer's report (fix reports are appended at the end):
+    [REPORT_FILE]
+
+    **Fix base:** [FIX_BASE_SHA] (the head the previous review saw)
+    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
+    **Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE]
+
+    Read the diff file once — it contains the fix commits, a stat summary,
+    and the fix diff with surrounding context. Do not re-run git commands.
+    If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself:
+    `git diff --stat [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and
+    `git diff [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`.
+
+    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
+    tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
+
+    ## Scope
+
+    Your scope is the findings list and the fix diff. Verdict every finding.
+    Inspect the fix diff for new problems the fix itself introduced. Do NOT
+    re-review code the fix did not touch: if you notice an issue entirely
+    outside the fix diff, report it under Out-of-Scope Observations — it
+    does not block this task and does not extend the loop. A broad
+    whole-branch review happens after all tasks are complete.
+
+    ## Tests
+
+    The implementer re-ran the tests covering the amended code and appended
+    the results to the report file. Treat the report as unverified claims:
+    confirm the fix report names the covering tests and shows their output,
+    and verify the claims against the diff. Do not re-run the suite to
+    confirm their report. Run a test only when reading the code raises a
+    specific doubt that no existing run answers — and then a focused test,
+    never a package-wide suite.
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the first
+    finding's verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with file:line,
+    or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration.
+
+    ### Finding Verdicts
+
+    For each finding in The Findings Under Verification, in order:
+    - **[finding one-liner]** — ADDRESSED | NOT ADDRESSED, with file:line
+      evidence. "Attempted" is not addressed: the specific defect must no
+      longer exist.
+
+    ### New Breakage in the Fix Diff
+
+    Anything the fix itself broke or introduced, with severity
+    (Critical/Important/Minor) and file:line. "None" if clean.
+
+    ### Out-of-Scope Observations
+
+    Issues you noticed entirely outside the fix diff. Non-blocking; the
+    controller ledgers these for the final review. "None" if none.
+
+    ### Verdict
+
+    **Fix round:** [All findings addressed, no new Critical/Important
+    breakage | Findings remain open] — list the open ones.
+```
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `[MODEL]` — REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection; scoped
+  re-reviews of small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier
+- `[BRIEF_FILE]` — the task brief file (same file the implementer worked from)
+- `[FINDINGS]` — the Critical/Important findings and spec gaps from the
+  previous review, copied verbatim, one per bullet
+- `[REPORT_FILE]` — the implementer's report file (fix reports appended)
+- `[FIX_BASE_SHA]` — the head the previous review saw
+- `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
+- `[DIFF_FILE]` — the path `scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE FIX_BASE HEAD` printed
+
+**Re-reviewer returns:** per-finding verdicts (ADDRESSED / NOT ADDRESSED),
+new breakage in the fix diff, out-of-scope observations, and a round verdict.

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

@@ -4,26 +4,28 @@
 # call. Using the recorded per-task BASE (not HEAD~1) keeps multi-commit
 # tasks intact.
 #
-# Usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
+# Usage: review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
-# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff
+# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff
 # (named per range, so a re-review after fixes gets a distinct fresh file).
 set -euo pipefail
 
-if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
+if [ $# -lt 3 ] || [ $# -gt 4 ]; then
-  echo "usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
+  echo "usage: review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
   exit 2
 fi
 
-base=$1
+plan=$1
-head=$2
+base=$2
+head=$3
+[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
 
 git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$base" >/dev/null || { echo "bad BASE: $base" >&2; exit 2; }
 git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$head" >/dev/null || { echo "bad HEAD: $head" >&2; exit 2; }
 
-if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
+if [ $# -eq 4 ]; then
-  out=$3
+  out=$4
 else
-  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace")
+  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace" "$plan")
   out="$dir/review-$(git rev-parse --short "$base")..$(git rev-parse --short "$head").diff"
 fi
 

skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/sdd-workspace

@@ -1,22 +1,40 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Resolve and ensure the working-tree directory SDD uses for its short-lived
+# Resolve and ensure the working-tree directory SDD uses for one plan's
-# artifacts: task briefs, implementer reports, review packages, and the
+# short-lived artifacts: task briefs, implementer reports, review packages,
-# progress ledger. Print the directory's absolute path.
+# and the progress ledger. Print the plan directory's absolute path.
+#
+# One directory per plan (.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/) so a follow-up
+# plan in the same working tree can never read or overwrite another plan's
+# artifacts. A stale ledger misread as current progress makes controllers
+# skip whole task sequences — plan-scoping removes that failure structurally.
 #
 # The workspace lives in the working tree (not under .git/) because Claude Code
 # treats .git/ as a protected path and denies agent writes there — which blocks
 # an implementer subagent from writing its report file. A self-ignoring
-# .gitignore keeps the workspace out of `git status` and out of accidental
+# .gitignore at .superpowers/sdd/ keeps every plan's workspace out of
-# commits without modifying any tracked file.
+# `git status` and out of accidental commits without modifying any tracked file.
 #
 # Single source of truth for the workspace location, so task-brief and
 # review-package cannot drift to different directories.
 #
-# Usage: sdd-workspace
+# Usage: sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE
 set -euo pipefail
 
+if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then
+  echo "usage: sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE" >&2
+  exit 2
+fi
+
+plan=$1
+[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
+
+slug=$(basename "$plan" .md)
+[ -n "$slug" ] && [ "$slug" != "." ] && [ "$slug" != ".." ] \
+  || { echo "cannot derive a workspace name from: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
+
 root=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
-dir="$root/.superpowers/sdd"
+base="$root/.superpowers/sdd"
+dir="$base/$slug"
 mkdir -p "$dir"
-printf '*\n' > "$dir/.gitignore"
+printf '*\n' > "$base/.gitignore"
 cd "$dir" && pwd

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

@@ -4,8 +4,9 @@
 # through the controller's context.
 #
 # Usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]
-# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/task-<N>-brief.md
+# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/task-<N>-brief.md
-# (per worktree; concurrent runs in the same working tree share it).
+# (per plan and per worktree; concurrent runs of the SAME plan in the same
+# working tree share it).
 set -euo pipefail
 
 if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
@@ -20,7 +21,7 @@ n=$2
 if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
   out=$3
 else
-  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace")
+  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace" "$plan")
   out="$dir/task-${n}-brief.md"
 fi
 

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

@@ -178,11 +178,8 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 - `[BASE_SHA]` — commit before this task
 - `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
 - `[DIFF_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the path the controller wrote the review
-  package to (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` prints the unique path it
+  package to (`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` prints the unique
-  wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
+  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.

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

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Add to your Codex config (`~/.codex/config.toml`):
 multi_agent = true
 ```
 
-This enables `spawn_agent`, `wait_agent`, and `close_agent` for skills like `dispatching-parallel-agents` and `subagent-driven-development`. When using subagent-driven-development, you should always close implementer and reviewer subagents when they have finished all their work.
+This enables `spawn_agent`, `wait_agent`, and `close_agent` for skills like `dispatching-parallel-agents` and `subagent-driven-development`. When using subagent-driven-development, close reviewer subagents when their review returns. Keep each implementer subagent open until its task's review passes — the fix loop resumes the implementer — then close it. If your harness cannot send another message to a spawned agent, dispatch each fix round as a fresh implementer carrying the brief, the report file, and the findings.
 
 ## Environment Detection
 

tests/claude-code/run-skill-tests.sh

@@ -25,7 +25,8 @@ fi
 # Parse command line arguments
 VERBOSE=false
 SPECIFIC_TEST=""
-TIMEOUT=600  # Default 10 minute timeout per test
+TIMEOUT=900  # Per-test-file budget; must exceed the file's worst case
+             # (test-subagent-driven-development.sh: 9 prompts x 90s each)
 RUN_INTEGRATION=false
 
 while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
             echo "Options:"
             echo "  --verbose, -v        Show verbose output"
             echo "  --test, -t NAME      Run only the specified test"
-            echo "  --timeout SECONDS    Set timeout per test (default: 300)"
+            echo "  --timeout SECONDS    Set timeout per test (default: 900)"
             echo "  --integration, -i    Run integration tests (slow, 10-30 min)"
             echo "  --help, -h           Show this help"
             echo ""

tests/claude-code/test-helpers.sh

@@ -30,12 +30,14 @@ run_claude() {
 
 # Check if output contains a pattern
 # Usage: assert_contains "output" "pattern" "test name"
+# Matching is case-insensitive: patterns are prose keywords, and models
+# freely capitalize skill terms ("Do Not Trust", "Spec Compliance").
 assert_contains() {
     local output="$1"
     local pattern="$2"
     local test_name="${3:-test}"
 
-    if echo "$output" | grep -q "$pattern"; then
+    if echo "$output" | grep -qi "$pattern"; then
         echo "  [PASS] $test_name"
         return 0
     else
@@ -54,7 +56,7 @@ assert_not_contains() {
     local pattern="$2"
     local test_name="${3:-test}"
 
-    if echo "$output" | grep -q "$pattern"; then
+    if echo "$output" | grep -qi "$pattern"; then
         echo "  [FAIL] $test_name"
         echo "  Did not expect to find: $pattern"
         echo "  In output:"
@@ -74,7 +76,7 @@ assert_count() {
     local expected="$3"
     local test_name="${4:-test}"
 
-    local actual=$(echo "$output" | grep -c "$pattern" || echo "0")
+    local actual=$(echo "$output" | grep -ci "$pattern" || echo "0")
 
     if [ "$actual" -eq "$expected" ]; then
         echo "  [PASS] $test_name (found $actual instances)"
@@ -98,16 +100,20 @@ assert_order() {
     local test_name="${4:-test}"
 
     # Get line numbers where patterns appear
-    local line_a=$(echo "$output" | grep -n "$pattern_a" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1)
+    local line_a=$(echo "$output" | grep -ni "$pattern_a" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1)
-    local line_b=$(echo "$output" | grep -n "$pattern_b" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1)
+    local line_b=$(echo "$output" | grep -ni "$pattern_b" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1)
 
     if [ -z "$line_a" ]; then
         echo "  [FAIL] $test_name: pattern A not found: $pattern_a"
+        echo "  In output:"
+        echo "$output" | sed 's/^/    /'
         return 1
     fi
 
     if [ -z "$line_b" ]; then
         echo "  [FAIL] $test_name: pattern B not found: $pattern_b"
+        echo "  In output:"
+        echo "$output" | sed 's/^/    /'
         return 1
     fi
 

tests/claude-code/test-sdd-workspace.sh

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Tests for the SDD workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace resolves a self-ignoring
+# Tests for the SDD workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace resolves a self-ignoring,
-# working-tree directory for SDD artifacts, and the SDD scripts write into it.
+# PER-PLAN working-tree directory for SDD artifacts, and the SDD scripts write
+# into their plan's directory.
 set -euo pipefail
 
 SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
@@ -35,26 +36,72 @@ main() {
     local repo
     repo="$(cd "$TEST_ROOT/repo" && git rev-parse --show-toplevel)"
 
-    local dir
+    cat > "$repo/plan-a.md" <<'PLAN'
-    dir="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace")"
+# Plan A
 
-    if [[ "$dir" == "$repo/.superpowers/sdd" ]]; then
+## Task 1: First thing
-        pass "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd"
+
+Do the first thing.
+PLAN
+    cat > "$repo/plan-b.md" <<'PLAN'
+# Plan B
+
+## Task 1: Other thing
+
+Do the other thing.
+PLAN
+
+    # --- argument validation ---
+    local rc=0
+    (cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" >/dev/null 2>&1) || rc=$?
+    if [[ "$rc" -eq 2 ]]; then
+        pass "sdd-workspace without a plan errors with exit 2"
     else
-        fail "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd"
+        fail "sdd-workspace without a plan errors with exit 2"
-        echo "    got: $dir"
+        echo "    exit: $rc"
+    fi
+
+    rc=0
+    (cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" no-such-plan.md >/dev/null 2>&1) || rc=$?
+    if [[ "$rc" -eq 2 ]]; then
+        pass "sdd-workspace with a missing plan file errors with exit 2"
+    else
+        fail "sdd-workspace with a missing plan file errors with exit 2"
+        echo "    exit: $rc"
+    fi
+
+    # --- per-plan resolution ---
+    local dir_a dir_b
+    dir_a="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" plan-a.md)"
+    dir_b="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" plan-b.md)"
+
+    if [[ "$dir_a" == "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a" ]]; then
+        pass "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>"
+    else
+        fail "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>"
+        echo "    got: $dir_a"
+    fi
+
+    if [[ "$dir_a" != "$dir_b" && -d "$dir_a" && -d "$dir_b" ]]; then
+        pass "two plans resolve to two distinct directories"
+    else
+        fail "two plans resolve to two distinct directories"
+        echo "    a: $dir_a"
+        echo "    b: $dir_b"
     fi
 
     if [[ -f "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/.gitignore" && "$(cat "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/.gitignore")" == "*" ]]; then
-        pass "self-ignoring .gitignore created with '*'"
+        pass "self-ignoring .gitignore created at .superpowers/sdd/ with '*'"
     else
-        fail "self-ignoring .gitignore created with '*'"
+        fail "self-ignoring .gitignore created at .superpowers/sdd/ with '*'"
     fi
 
-    printf 'x\n' > "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/artifact.md"
+    printf 'x\n' > "$dir_a/artifact.md"
     local status
     status="$(cd "$repo" && git status --porcelain)"
-    if [[ -z "$status" ]]; then
+    # plan-a.md/plan-b.md are intentionally untracked fixture files; only the
+    # workspace must be invisible.
+    if [[ "$status" != *".superpowers"* ]]; then
         pass "workspace invisible to git status"
     else
         fail "workspace invisible to git status"
@@ -64,67 +111,78 @@ main() {
     ( cd "$repo" && git add -A )
     local staged
     staged="$(cd "$repo" && git diff --cached --name-only)"
-    if [[ -z "$staged" ]]; then
+    if [[ "$staged" != *".superpowers"* ]]; then
         pass "git add -A does not stage the workspace"
     else
         fail "git add -A does not stage the workspace"
         echo "    staged: $staged"
     fi
 
-    cat > "$repo/plan.md" <<'PLAN'
+    # --- task-brief lands in its plan's directory ---
-# Plan
-
-## Task 1: First thing
-
-Do the first thing.
-PLAN
-
     local brief_out brief_path
-    brief_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/task-brief" plan.md 1)"
+    brief_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/task-brief" plan-a.md 1)"
     brief_path="$(printf '%s\n' "$brief_out" | sed -n 's/^wrote \(.*\): [0-9][0-9]* lines$/\1/p')"
-    case "$brief_path" in
+    if [[ "$brief_path" == "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a/task-1-brief.md" ]]; then
-        "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/"*) pass "task-brief writes its brief under the workspace" ;;
+        pass "task-brief writes its brief under the plan's workspace"
-        *)
+    else
-            fail "task-brief writes its brief under the workspace"
+        fail "task-brief writes its brief under the plan's workspace"
         echo "    got: $brief_path"
-            ;;
+    fi
-    esac
 
+    # --- review-package takes the plan first and lands in its directory ---
     local git_id=(-c user.email=t@example.com -c user.name=t -c commit.gpgsign=false)
     ( cd "$repo" \
-        && git add plan.md \
         && git "${git_id[@]}" commit -qm c1 \
         && printf 'y\n' > f && git add f \
         && git "${git_id[@]}" commit -qm c2 )
     local rp_out rp_path
-    rp_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" HEAD~1 HEAD)"
+    rp_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" plan-a.md HEAD~1 HEAD)"
     rp_path="$(printf '%s\n' "$rp_out" | sed -n 's/^wrote \(.*\): [0-9].*$/\1/p')"
     case "$rp_path" in
-        "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/"*) pass "review-package writes its diff under the workspace" ;;
+        "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a/review-"*.diff)
+            pass "review-package writes its diff under the plan's workspace" ;;
         *)
-            fail "review-package writes its diff under the workspace"
+            fail "review-package writes its diff under the plan's workspace"
             echo "    got: $rp_path"
             ;;
     esac
 
+    rc=0
+    (cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" HEAD~1 HEAD >/dev/null 2>&1) || rc=$?
+    if [[ "$rc" -eq 2 ]]; then
+        pass "review-package without a plan errors with exit 2"
+    else
+        fail "review-package without a plan errors with exit 2"
+        echo "    exit: $rc"
+    fi
+
+    local rp_explicit
+    rp_explicit="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" plan-a.md HEAD~1 HEAD "$TEST_ROOT/explicit.diff")"
+    if [[ -s "$TEST_ROOT/explicit.diff" && "$rp_explicit" == *"$TEST_ROOT/explicit.diff"* ]]; then
+        pass "review-package honors an explicit OUTFILE"
+    else
+        fail "review-package honors an explicit OUTFILE"
+        echo "    got: $rp_explicit"
+    fi
+
     # --- Worktree isolation: a linked worktree resolves its own workspace ---
     local wt="$TEST_ROOT/wt"
     ( cd "$repo" && git worktree add -q "$wt" -b wt-feature )
     local wt_root wt_dir
     wt_root="$(cd "$wt" && git rev-parse --show-toplevel)"
-    wt_dir="$(cd "$wt" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace")"
+    wt_dir="$(cd "$wt" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" plan-a.md)"
-    if [[ "$wt_dir" == "$wt_root/.superpowers/sdd" && "$wt_dir" != "$dir" ]]; then
+    if [[ "$wt_dir" == "$wt_root/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a" && "$wt_dir" != "$dir_a" ]]; then
         pass "linked worktree resolves its own distinct workspace"
     else
         fail "linked worktree resolves its own distinct workspace"
-        echo "    main: $dir"
+        echo "    main: $dir_a"
         echo "    wt:   $wt_dir"
     fi
 
-    printf 'y\n' > "$wt/.superpowers/sdd/artifact.md"
+    printf 'y\n' > "$wt_dir/artifact.md"
     local wt_status
     wt_status="$(cd "$wt" && git status --porcelain)"
-    if [[ -z "$wt_status" ]]; then
+    if [[ "$wt_status" != *".superpowers"* ]]; then
         pass "worktree workspace invisible to git status"
     else
         fail "worktree workspace invisible to git status"

tests/claude-code/test-subagent-driven-development.sh

@@ -96,13 +96,13 @@ echo "Test 5: Spec compliance reviewer mindset..."
 
 output=$(run_claude "What is the spec compliance reviewer's attitude toward the implementer's report in subagent-driven-development?" "$CLAUDE_PROMPT_TIMEOUT")
 
-if assert_contains "$output" "not trust\|don't trust\|skeptical\|verify.*independently\|suspiciously" "Reviewer is skeptical"; then
+if assert_contains "$output" "not.*trust\|don't trust\|skeptical\|verify.*independently\|suspiciously" "Reviewer is skeptical"; then
     : # pass
 else
     exit 1
 fi
 
-if assert_contains "$output" "read.*code\|inspect.*code\|verify.*code" "Reviewer reads code"; then
+if assert_contains "$output" "read.*code\|inspect.*code\|verify.*code\|read.*diff\|trust.*diff" "Reviewer reads code"; then
     : # pass
 else
     exit 1

tests/codex/test-package-codex-plugin.sh

@@ -210,8 +210,13 @@ assert_equals "$tar_archive_paths" "$archive_paths" "zip and tar.gz archives con
 tar_task_brief_mode="$(tar -tzvf "$tar_archive" skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/task-brief | awk '{print $1}')"
 assert_equals "$tar_task_brief_mode" "-rwxr-xr-x" "tar.gz archive preserves executable script mode"
 
-tar_metadata_times="$(tar -tzvf "$tar_archive" | awk '{print $6, $7, $8}' | sort -u)"
+tar_metadata_times="$(python3 - "$tar_archive" <<'PY'
-assert_equals "$tar_metadata_times" "Dec 31 1969" "tar.gz archive normalizes entry timestamps"
+import sys, tarfile
+with tarfile.open(sys.argv[1]) as archive:
+    print(sorted({member.mtime for member in archive.getmembers()}))
+PY
+)"
+assert_equals "$tar_metadata_times" "[0]" "tar.gz archive normalizes entry timestamps"
 
 metadata_archive="$TEST_ROOT/metadata-source.tar.gz"
 metadata_zip="$TEST_ROOT/metadata-source.zip"

tests/hooks/test-session-start.sh

@@ -143,6 +143,27 @@ for (const forbiddenText of forbiddenTexts) {
 
 echo "SessionStart hook output tests"
 
+# Registration shape: the hook must declare shell:"bash" so Claude Code on
+# Windows dispatches via Git Bash (or fails with an actionable error) instead
+# of PowerShell/cmd.exe, whose parsers break on the quoted command string
+# (PowerShell ParserError; cmd.exe quote-stripping on paths with metacharacters).
+if node -e '
+const hooks = JSON.parse(require("fs").readFileSync(process.argv[1], "utf8"));
+const entry = hooks.hooks.SessionStart[0].hooks[0];
+if (entry.shell !== "bash") {
+  console.error(`SessionStart hook shell is ${JSON.stringify(entry.shell)}, expected "bash"`);
+  process.exit(1);
+}
+if (!/run-hook\.cmd" session-start$/.test(entry.command)) {
+  console.error(`unexpected SessionStart command shape: ${entry.command}`);
+  process.exit(1);
+}
+' "$REPO_ROOT/hooks/hooks.json"; then
+    pass "hooks.json registers SessionStart with shell:bash dispatch"
+else
+    fail "hooks.json registers SessionStart with shell:bash dispatch"
+fi
+
 claude_home="$(make_home claude-code)"
 assert_command_output \
     "Claude Code emits nested SessionStart additionalContext" \