test(writing-skills): cover render-graphs execution

fix(writing-skills): run graphviz without a shell in render-graphs.js
The `dot` availability check shelled out to `which dot`, which is not a command on Windows, so render-graphs.js reported graphviz as missing on Windows even when it was installed. Replace it with a direct `dot -V` probe via execFileSync. Also switch the SVG render call from execSync to execFileSync('dot', ['-Tsvg']). Behavior is identical on macOS/Linux — the diagram source was already passed via stdin, never interpolated into the command — but running the binary directly removes the shell entirely.
2026-07-17 08:04:30 +00:00 · 2026-07-02 14:09:14 -07:00 · 2026-07-02 14:04:00 -07:00 · 2026-06-30 17:48:33 -07:00 · 2026-06-30 17:48:33 -07:00 · 2026-06-30 17:28:14 -07:00
35 changed files with 981 additions and 2655 deletions
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
    {
      "name": "superpowers",
      "description": "Core skills library for Claude Code: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-      "version": "6.1.1",
+      "version": "6.1.0",
      "source": "./",
      "author": {
        "name": "Jesse Vincent",
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
  "name": "superpowers",
  "description": "Core skills library for Claude Code: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-  "version": "6.1.1",
+  "version": "6.1.0",
  "author": {
    "name": "Jesse Vincent",
    "email": "jesse@fsck.com"
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
  "name": "superpowers",
-  "version": "6.1.1",
+  "version": "6.1.0",
  "description": "An agentic skills framework & software development methodology that works: planning, TDD, debugging, and collaboration workflows.",
  "author": {
    "name": "Jesse Vincent",
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
  "name": "superpowers",
  "displayName": "Superpowers",
  "description": "Core skills library: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-  "version": "6.1.1",
+  "version": "6.1.0",
  "author": {
    "name": "Jesse Vincent",
    "email": "jesse@fsck.com"
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
  "name": "superpowers",
-  "version": "6.1.1",
+  "version": "6.1.0",
  "description": "An agentic skills framework and software development methodology.",
  "author": {
    "name": "Jesse Vincent",
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Skills are not prose — they are code that shapes agent behavior. If you modify

 ## Eval harness

-Skill-behavior evals live in [superpowers-evals](https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/superpowers-evals/), cloned into `evals/` — see `evals/README.md` for setup. Drill (the harness) drives real tmux sessions of Claude Code / Codex / Gemini CLI and judges skill compliance with an LLM verifier. Plugin-infrastructure tests still live at `tests/`.
+Skill-behavior evals live in [superpowers-evals](https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/superpowers-evals/), cloned into `evals/` — see `evals/README.md` for setup. The harness drives real tmux sessions of Claude Code / Codex and judges skill compliance with an LLM verifier. Plugin-infrastructure tests still live at `tests/`.

 ## Understand the Project Before Contributing

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ If this sounds like someone you know, definitely send them our way.

 ## Quickstart

-Give your agent Superpowers: [Claude Code](#claude-code), [Antigravity](#antigravity), [Codex App](#codex-app), [Codex CLI](#codex-cli), [Cursor](#cursor), [Factory Droid](#factory-droid), [Gemini CLI](#gemini-cli), [GitHub Copilot CLI](#github-copilot-cli), [Kimi Code](#kimi-code), [OpenCode](#opencode), [Pi](#pi).
+Give your agent Superpowers: [Claude Code](#claude-code), [Antigravity](#antigravity), [Codex App](#codex-app), [Codex CLI](#codex-cli), [Cursor](#cursor), [Factory Droid](#factory-droid), [GitHub Copilot CLI](#github-copilot-cli), [Kimi Code](#kimi-code), [OpenCode](#opencode), [Pi](#pi).

 ## How it works

@@ -122,20 +122,6 @@ Superpowers is available via the [official Codex plugin marketplace](https://git
  droid plugin install superpowers@superpowers
  ```

-### Gemini CLI
-
- Install the extension:
-
-  ```bash
-  gemini extensions install https://github.com/obra/superpowers
-  ```
-
- Update later:
-
-  ```bash
-  gemini extensions update superpowers
-  ```
-
 ### GitHub Copilot CLI

 - Register the marketplace:
@@ -1,16 +1,5 @@
 # Superpowers Release Notes

-## v6.1.1 (2026-07-02)
-
-### Codex
-
- **Codex no longer re-registers the Claude SessionStart hook.** v6.1.0 removed the Codex hook config and its manifest `hooks` pointer, meaning to stop Codex from installing a SessionStart hook — but with no `hooks` field, Codex fell back to auto-discovering `hooks/hooks.json`, the Claude Code SessionStart hook that the marketplace ships from the repo root, and re-registered it along with its install-time trust prompt. The Codex manifest now declares an explicit empty hooks object (`hooks: {}`), which Codex reads as "no hooks" instead of reaching the auto-discovery fallback. An absent field, `[]`, and an empty inline list all collapse back to the fallback, so the value has to be exactly `{}`.
- **Removed orphaned Codex session-start dead code.** `hooks/session-start-codex` had no caller once the Codex hook config was deleted, so it and its redundant test cases are gone. The worked shell-hook example in `docs/porting-to-a-new-harness.md` moves from Codex — now native skill discovery with no session-start hook — to Cursor, a live shell-hook harness, and the stale `hooks-codex.json` pointer in `docs/windows/polyglot-hooks.md` is corrected. The Codex plugin category is also fixed to "Developer Tools".
-
-### Packaging
-
- **New `package-codex-plugin.sh` for building the Codex portal package.** A maintainer script produces a deterministic Codex "portal" archive — `.zip` by default, `tar.gz` on request — that normalizes entry timestamps, preserves executable modes, verifies every packaged skill ships its OpenAI metadata, includes the app and composer icons, and refuses to run against a dirty worktree. The packaged manifest keeps the source `hooks: {}` object so a portal-installed plugin avoids the same SessionStart auto-discovery, and the script can rebuild a byte-identical archive from a saved metadata source. Covered by a new test suite.
-
 ## v6.1.0 (2026-06-30)

 ### Lower Per-Session Token Cost
@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
-# 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.
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
  "name": "superpowers",
  "description": "Core skills library: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-  "version": "6.1.1",
+  "version": "6.1.0",
  "contextFileName": "GEMINI.md"
 }
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
  "name": "superpowers",
-  "version": "6.1.1",
+  "version": "6.1.0",
  "description": "Superpowers skills and runtime bootstrap for coding agents",
  "type": "module",
  "main": ".opencode/plugins/superpowers.js",
@@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ digraph brainstorming {
 - Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
 - Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
 - Lead with your recommended option and explain why
- YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from every approach and design

 **Presenting the design:**

@@ -131,6 +130,15 @@ Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the
 - Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
 - Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.

+## Key Principles
+
+- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
+- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
+- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
+- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
+- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on
+- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
+
 ## Visual Companion

 A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.
@@ -74,13 +74,6 @@ On Windows, the script auto-detects and switches to foreground mode (which block
 scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project --open
 ```

-**Gemini CLI:**
-```bash
-# Use --foreground and set is_background: true on your shell tool call
-# so the process survives across turns
-scripts/start-server.sh --project-dir /path/to/project --open --foreground
-```
-
 **Copilot CLI:**
 ```bash
 # Use --foreground and start the server via the bash tool with mode: "async"
@@ -158,6 +158,15 @@ Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts

 **Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green

+**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially
+
+## Key Benefits
+
+1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously
+2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track
+3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other
+4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1
+
 ## Verification

 After agents return:
@@ -165,3 +174,12 @@ After agents return:
 2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?
 3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together
 4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging session (2025-10-03):
+- 6 failures across 3 files
+- 3 agents dispatched in parallel
+- All investigations completed concurrently
+- All fixes integrated successfully
+- Zero conflicts between agent changes
@@ -11,16 +11,15 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.

 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."

-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
+**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.

 ## The Process

 ### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
-1. Ensure an isolated workspace: use superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one
-2. Read plan file
-3. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
-4. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
-5. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed
+1. Read plan file
+2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
+3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
+4. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed

 ### Step 2: Execute Tasks

@@ -62,3 +61,10 @@ After all tasks complete and verified:
 - Reference skills when plan says to
 - Stop when blocked, don't guess
 - Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
+
+## Integration
+
+**Required workflow skills:**
+- **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
+- **superpowers:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
+- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
@@ -1,58 +1,71 @@
 ---
 name: finishing-a-development-branch
-description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work
+description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
 ---

 # Finishing a Development Branch

 ## Overview

+Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
+
 **Core principle:** Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.

 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."

-## Step 1: Verify Tests
+## The Process

-Run the project's full test suite (`npm test` / `cargo test` / `pytest` / `go test ./...`).
+### Step 1: Verify Tests

-**If tests fail**, report the failures and stop — the menu comes after a green suite:
+**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**

+```bash
+# Run project's test suite
+npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
+```
+
+**If tests fail:**
 ```
 Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:

 [Show failures]
+
+Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
 ```

-**If tests pass:** continue to Step 2.
+Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.

-## Step 2: Detect Environment
+**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
+
+### Step 2: Detect Environment
+
+**Determine workspace state before presenting options:**

 ```bash
 GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
 GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
-# Capture now, while still inside the workspace — Step 5 changes directory
-# before cleanup (Step 6) needs this value
-WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
 ```

 This determines which menu to show and how cleanup works:

 | State | Menu | Cleanup |
 |-------|------|---------|
-| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 3 options | No worktree to clean up |
-| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 3 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
-| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 2 options (no merge) | Externally managed — leave in place |
+| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 4 options | No worktree to clean up |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 4 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 3 options (no merge) | No cleanup (externally managed) |

-## Step 3: Determine Base Branch
+### Step 3: Determine Base Branch

-The base branch is whatever this work forked from — usually named in the
-plan, the conversation, or the branch's upstream. If it is not already
-known, ask: "This branch split from <your best guess> - is that correct?"
-Confirm before merging: merging into the wrong base is expensive to undo.
+```bash
+# Try common base branches
+git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
+```

-## Step 4: Present Options
+Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"

-**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 3 options:**
+### Step 4: Present Options
+
+**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 4 options:**

 ```
 Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
@@ -60,30 +73,28 @@ Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
 1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
 2. Push and create a Pull Request
 3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
+4. Discard this work

 Which option?
 ```

-**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 2 options:**
+**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 3 options:**

 ```
 Implementation complete. You're on a detached HEAD (externally managed workspace).

 1. Push as new branch and create a Pull Request
 2. Keep as-is (I'll handle it later)
+3. Discard this work

 Which option?
 ```

-Present the menu exactly as written — concise, with every option coming
-from the list above. Discarding the work happens only in response to your
-human partner explicitly asking for it (see "If your human partner asks to
-discard the work" below). Wait for their answer; the integration decision
-is theirs.
+**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.

-## Step 5: Execute Choice
+### Step 5: Execute Choice

-### Option 1: Merge Locally
+#### Option 1: Merge Locally

 ```bash
 # Get main repo root for CWD safety
@@ -97,43 +108,34 @@ git merge <feature-branch>

 # Verify tests on merged result
 <test command>
+
+# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch
 ```

-If tests fail on the merged result: stop, leave the worktree and branch in
-place, and investigate — nothing has been pushed, so the merge is local
-and recoverable.
-
-Once the merged result is green: clean up the worktree (Step 6), then
-delete the branch:
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch:

 ```bash
 git branch -d <feature-branch>
 ```

-### Option 2: Push and Create PR
+#### Option 2: Push and Create PR

 ```bash
+# Push branch
 git push -u origin <feature-branch>
-# From a detached HEAD, name the new branch on the remote:
-# git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/<new-branch>
 ```

-Then create the pull/merge request against <base-branch> with the forge's
-tooling — its CLI if one is available, or the creation URL most forges
-print when you push — following the repo's PR template and conventions if
-present, and report the URL to your human partner.
+**Do NOT clean up worktree** — user needs it alive to iterate on PR feedback.

-Keep the worktree — your human partner iterates on PR feedback there.
-
-### Option 3: Keep As-Is
+#### Option 3: Keep As-Is

 Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."

-### If your human partner asks to discard the work
+**Don't cleanup worktree.**

-This path exists only as a response to an explicit request to throw the
-work away. Confirm first:
+#### Option 4: Discard

+**Confirm first:**
 ```
 This will permanently delete:
 - Branch <name>
@@ -143,39 +145,41 @@ This will permanently delete:
 Type 'discard' to confirm.
 ```

-Wait for that exact confirmation. When it arrives:
+Wait for exact confirmation.

+If confirmed:
 ```bash
 MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
 cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 ```

-Then clean up the worktree (Step 6) and force-delete the branch:
-
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then force-delete branch:
 ```bash
 git branch -D <feature-branch>
 ```

-## Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
+### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace

-**Runs for Option 1 and confirmed discards.** Options 2 and 3 always
-preserve the worktree. Both callers have already changed directory to the
-main repo root — worktree removal must run from outside the worktree —
-and use the `GIT_DIR`/`GIT_COMMON`/`WORKTREE_PATH` values captured in
-Step 2, from before that directory change.
+**Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree.
+
+```bash
+GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+```

 **If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON`:** Normal repo, no worktree to clean up. Done.

-**If `WORKTREE_PATH` is under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`:** Superpowers
-created this worktree — we own cleanup:
+**If worktree path is under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`:** Superpowers created this worktree — we own cleanup.

 ```bash
+MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH"
 git worktree prune  # Self-healing: clean up any stale registrations
 ```

-**Otherwise:** The host environment owns this workspace — leave it in
-place. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it.
+**Otherwise:** The host environment (harness) owns this workspace. Do NOT remove it. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it. Otherwise, leave the workspace in place.

 ## Quick Reference

@@ -184,18 +188,54 @@ place. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it.
 | 1. Merge locally | yes | - | - | yes |
 | 2. Create PR | - | yes | yes | - |
 | 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - |
-| Discard (explicit request only) | - | - | - | yes (force) |
+| 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) |

-## Common Rationalizations
+## Common Mistakes

-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Tests passed earlier this session" | Run the suite on the tree you are about to integrate. A green run only proves the tree it ran on. |
-| "They obviously want it merged" | Integration is your human partner's decision. Present the menu and wait. |
-| "They seem done with this feature — I'll offer to discard it" | The menu is complete as written. Discard happens only when your human partner asks for it in so many words. |
-| "'Yeah, get rid of it' counts as confirmation" | Only the typed word `discard` authorizes deletion. |
-| "The PR is up, so the worktree is clutter now" | PR feedback gets fixed in that worktree. It stays until the work lands. |
-| "This other worktree looks stale — I'll clean it too" | Clean up only worktrees under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`. Everything else belongs to the host. |
-| "The merged-result failure is probably flaky" | A failing merged result stops everything. Branch and worktree stay put while you investigate. |
-| "The base branch is obviously main" | Confirm the fork point or ask. Merging into the wrong base is expensive to undo. |
-| "The push was rejected — force-push will fix it" | A rejected push means the remote moved. Investigate; force-push only on your human partner's explicit request. |
+**Skipping test verification**
+- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
+- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
+
+**Open-ended questions**
+- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" is ambiguous
+- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+
+**Cleaning up worktree for Option 2**
+- **Problem:** Remove worktree user needs for PR iteration
+- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
+
+**Deleting branch before removing worktree**
+- **Problem:** `git branch -d` fails because worktree still references the branch
+- **Fix:** Merge first, remove worktree, then delete branch
+
+**Running git worktree remove from inside the worktree**
+- **Problem:** Command fails silently when CWD is inside the worktree being removed
+- **Fix:** Always `cd` to main repo root before `git worktree remove`
+
+**Cleaning up harness-owned worktrees**
+- **Problem:** Removing a worktree the harness created causes phantom state
+- **Fix:** Only clean up worktrees under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`
+
+**No confirmation for discard**
+- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
+- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Merge without verifying tests on result
+- Delete work without confirmation
+- Force-push without explicit request
+- Remove a worktree before confirming merge success
+- Clean up worktrees you didn't create (provenance check)
+- Run `git worktree remove` from inside the worktree
+
+**Always:**
+- Verify tests before offering options
+- Detect environment before presenting menu
+- Present exactly 4 options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
+- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
+- `cd` to main repo root before worktree removal
+- Run `git worktree prune` after removal
@@ -203,3 +203,11 @@ You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
 ## GitHub Thread Replies

 When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before m

 # Requesting Code Review

-Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.

 **Core principle:** Review early, review often.

@@ -72,12 +72,20 @@ You: [Fix progress indicators]
 [Continue to Task 3]
 ```

-## Common Rationalizations
+## Integration with Workflows

-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. |
-| "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |
+**Subagent-Driven Development:**
+- Review after EACH task
+- Catch issues before they compound
+- Fix before moving to next task
+
+**Executing Plans:**
+- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
+- Get feedback, apply, continue
+
+**Ad-Hoc Development:**
+- Review before merge
+- Review when stuck

 ## Red Flags

@@ -51,85 +51,38 @@ digraph process {
    subgraph cluster_per_task {
        label="Per Task";
        "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Implementer asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
-        "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
-        "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [shape=diamond];
-        "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];
+        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
+        "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [shape=box];
+        "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [shape=box];
    }

-    "Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" [shape=box];
+    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
-    "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];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
    "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];

-    "Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
-    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer asks questions?";
-    "Implementer asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
-    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews";
-    "Implementer asks questions?" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
-    "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
-    "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec ✅ and quality approved?";
-    "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
-    "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [label="no"];
-    "Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Ask human partner which governs" [label="yes"];
-    "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?";
+    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
+    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
+    "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?";
+    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [label="no"];
+    "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [label="yes"];
+    "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" -> "More tasks remain?";
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
-    "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" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
 }
 ```

-## 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.
-
- At skill start, check for a ledger:
-  `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. 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.
- 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`.
-
-Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a
-todo per task.
+## Pre-Flight Plan Review

 Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:

@@ -157,11 +110,7 @@ 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. 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.
+most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does.

 **Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An
 omitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and
@@ -180,47 +129,7 @@ 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

-## 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
+## Handling Implementer Status

 Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:

@@ -238,37 +147,20 @@ 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.

-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.
+## Handling Reviewer ⚠️ Items

-### 3. Review the task
+The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
+that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
+review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
+complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
+lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
+review — send it back to the implementer and re-review.
+
+## Constructing Reviewer Prompts

 Per-task reviews are task-scoped gates. The broad review happens once, at the
-final whole-branch review. 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.
+final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:

- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
-  `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
-  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
-  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
-  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
-  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
-  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
-  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks. 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
@@ -279,153 +171,111 @@ needed.
  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 task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
-that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
-review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
-complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
-lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
-review — it enters the fix loop with the other findings.
-
-Template: [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md)
-
-### 4. The fix loop
-
-The loop triggers when the review reports spec ❌, any Critical or Important
-finding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.
-
-Before the loop starts, two routes leave it immediately:
-
- Record Minor findings in the progress ledger as you go
-  (`Task <N>: minor (deferred): <one-liner>`), and point the final
+- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
+  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
+  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
+  stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
+  Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
+  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
+  project's spec demands.
+- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
+  `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
+  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
+  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
+  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
+  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
+  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
+  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks.
+- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
+  paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
+  later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
+  was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
+  touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
+- Dispatch fix subagents for Critical and Important findings. Record Minor
+  findings in the progress ledger as you go, and point the final
  whole-branch review at that list so it can triage which must be fixed
-  before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard. Minor findings
-  never enter the loop.
+  before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard.
 - A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with
  what the plan's text requires — is the human's decision, like any plan
  contradiction: present the finding and the plan text, ask which governs.
  Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not
  dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without asking.
+- The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
+  `scripts/review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
+  branch started from, e.g. `git merge-base main HEAD`) and include the
+  printed path in the final review dispatch, so the final reviewer reads
+  one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands.
+- Every fix dispatch carries the implementer contract: the fix subagent
+  re-runs the tests covering its change and reports the results. Name the
+  covering test files in the dispatch — a one-line fix does not need the
+  whole suite. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report
+  contains the covering tests, the command run, and the output; dispatch
+  the re-review once all three are present.
+- If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix
+  subagent with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
+  Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
+  session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.

-Everything else enters the loop. A fix round is one fix dispatch plus one
-scoped re-review. Five rounds maximum per task:
+## File Handoffs

-**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.
+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:

-**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.
+- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
+  `scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
+  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
+  brief stays the single source of requirements. Your dispatch should
+  contain: (1) one line on where this task fits in the project; (2) the
+  brief path, introduced as "read this first — it is your requirements,
+  with the exact values to use verbatim"; (3) interfaces and decisions
+  from earlier tasks that the brief cannot know; (4) your resolution of
+  any ambiguity you noticed in the brief; (5) the report-file path and
+  report contract. Exact values (numbers, magic strings, signatures, test
+  cases) appear only in the brief.
+- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
+  (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
+  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
+  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
+- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
+  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
+  constraints that bind the task.
+- Fix dispatches append their fix report (with test results) to the same
+  report file and return a short summary; re-reviews read the updated file.

-**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.
+## Durable Progress

-**The re-review is scoped.** Run `scripts/review-package 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.
+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.

-**After each round,** append to the ledger:
-`Task <N>: fix round <R>/5 (<X> addressed, <Y> open — <finding one-liners>; commits <a7>..<b7>)`
+- 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.
+- When a task's review comes back clean, append one line to the ledger in
+  the same message as your other bookkeeping:
+  `Task N: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`.
+- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
+  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
+  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
+- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
+  that happens, recover from `git log`.

-Never fix findings yourself in the controller session — your context stays
-clean for coordination, and controller fixes skip review.
+## Prompt Templates

-**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 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. Dispatch
-on the most capable available model (see Model Selection), using
-superpowers:requesting-code-review's
-[code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md). Point it at
-the ledger's deferred-minor and parked lines so it can triage which must be
-fixed before merge.
-
-If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix subagent
-with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
-Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
-session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.
-Then run exactly one scoped re-review of the fix wave
-(`scripts/review-package` 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.
-
-## Finish
-
-Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Close enough on spec compliance" | Reviewer found spec gaps = not done. Fix or hit the cap and adjudicate — those are the only exits. |
-| "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. |
-| "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. |
-| "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. |
-| "The fix was small, skip the re-review" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. Every round ends with a scoped re-review. |
-| "Reviews slow the loop down" | The loop without reviews is just unverified churn. Reviews are the loop's brakes and steering. |
-| "Ledger bookkeeping is overhead" | The ledger is what survives compaction. Controllers without one have re-dispatched entire completed task sequences. |
+- [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, no ledger found, read plan, created todos]
+[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
+[Create todos for all tasks]

 Task 1: Hook installation script

@@ -435,7 +285,8 @@ Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system le

 You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"

-Implementer: [Later]
+Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
+[Later] Implementer:
  - Implemented install-hook command
  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
@@ -445,39 +296,123 @@ Implementer: [Later]
 Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
  Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.

-[Ledger: Task 1: complete (commits a1b2c3d..d4e5f6a, review clean)]
+[Mark Task 1 complete]

 Task 2: Recovery modes

 [Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]

-Implementer: [No questions]
+Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
+Implementer:
  - Added verify/repair modes
  - 8/8 tests passing
+  - Self-review: All good
  - Committed

 [Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
 Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
+  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
  Issues (Important): Magic number (100)

-[Fix round 1: resume the implementer with both findings]
-Implementer: Added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant.
-  Re-ran test/recovery.test.js — 10/10 passing. Fix report appended.
+[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
+Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant

-[Run review-package FIX_BASE HEAD; dispatch scoped re-review]
-Re-reviewer: Missing progress reporting — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:41).
-  Magic number — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:7). New breakage: none.
-  Verdict: all findings addressed.
+[Task reviewer reviews again]
+Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.

-[Ledger: Task 2: fix round 1/5 (2 addressed, 0 open; commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e)]
-[Ledger: Task 2: complete (commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e, review clean)]
+[Mark Task 2 complete]

 ...

 [After all tasks]
-[Run review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD; dispatch final code-reviewer, most capable model]
-Final reviewer: All requirements met. Deferred minors triaged: none block merge.
+[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
+Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge

-Done! Using superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
+Done!
 ```
+
+## Advantages
+
+**vs. Manual execution:**
+- Subagents follow TDD naturally
+- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
+- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
+- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
+
+**vs. Executing Plans:**
+- Same session (no handoff)
+- Continuous progress (no waiting)
+- Review checkpoints automatic
+
+**Efficiency gains:**
+- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
+  as files, not pasted text
+- Subagent gets complete information upfront
+- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
+
+**Quality gates:**
+- Self-review catches issues before handoff
+- Task review carries two verdicts: spec compliance and code quality
+- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
+- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
+- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
+
+**Cost:**
+- More subagent invocations (implementer + reviewer per task)
+- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
+- Review loops add iterations
+- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- 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)
+
+## Integration
+
+**Required workflow skills:**
+- **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
+- **superpowers:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
+- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for the final whole-branch review
+- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
+
+**Subagents should use:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - Subagents follow TDD for each task
+
+**Alternative workflow:**
+- **superpowers:executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution
@@ -106,12 +106,9 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):

    ## After Review Findings

-    If the task review finds issues, you will be resumed with the findings.
-    Fix them, re-run the tests that cover the amended code, and append a fix
-    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.
+    If a reviewer finds issues and you fix them, re-run the tests that cover
+    the amended code and append the results to your report file. Reviewers
+    will not re-run tests for you — your report is the test evidence.

    ## Report Format

@@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
-# 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 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.
@@ -183,3 +183,6 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):

 **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.
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior

 ## Overview

+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
 **Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.

 **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
@@ -186,7 +188,6 @@ You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
   - Test passes now?
   - No other tests broken?
   - Issue actually resolved?
-   - Use the `superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill before claiming success

 4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
   - STOP
@@ -281,3 +282,15 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 - **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
 - **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
 - **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
+
+**Related skills:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common
@@ -203,25 +203,69 @@ Next failing test for next feature.
 | **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
 | **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |

-When writing or changing any test, read [writing-good-tests.md](writing-good-tests.md) for the rules that keep tests honest:
- Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
- Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
- Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
- Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
+## Why Order Matters
+
+**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
+
+Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
+- Might test wrong thing
+- Might test implementation, not behavior
+- Might miss edge cases you forgot
+- You never saw it catch the bug
+
+Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
+
+**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
+
+Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
+- No record of what you tested
+- Can't re-run when code changes
+- Easy to forget cases under pressure
+- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
+
+Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
+
+**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
+
+Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
+- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
+- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
+
+The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
+
+**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
+
+TDD IS pragmatic:
+- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
+- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
+- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
+- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
+
+"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
+
+**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
+
+No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
+
+Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
+
+Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
+
+30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.

 ## Common Rationalizations

 | Excuse | Reality |
 |--------|---------|
 | "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
-| "I'll test after" | Tests written after pass immediately — which proves nothing. They may test the wrong thing, test the implementation instead of the behavior, or miss the edge case you forgot. You never watched it fail, so you never proved it can catch the bug. Test-first forces that failure. |
-| "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" | Tests-after answer "what does this do?"; tests-first answer "what should this do?" Tests written after are biased by the code you already wrote — you verify the cases you remembered, not the ones you'd have discovered. Coverage without proof the tests work. |
-| "Already manually tested" | Manual testing is ad-hoc: no record of what you covered, no way to re-run it when the code changes, easy to forget cases under pressure. "Worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive. Automated tests run the same way every time. |
-| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy — that time is already spent either way. The real choice: rewrite with TDD (high confidence) vs. keep it and bolt tests on after (low confidence, likely bugs). Keeping code you can't trust is the waste. |
+| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
+| "Tests after achieve same goals" | Tests-after = "what does this do?" Tests-first = "what should this do?" |
+| "Already manually tested" | Ad-hoc ≠ systematic. No record, can't re-run. |
+| "Deleting X hours is wasteful" | Sunk cost fallacy. Keeping unverified code is technical debt. |
 | "Keep as reference, write tests first" | You'll adapt it. That's testing after. Delete means delete. |
 | "Need to explore first" | Fine. Throw away exploration, start with TDD. |
 | "Test hard = design unclear" | Listen to test. Hard to test = hard to use. |
-| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD IS the pragmatic path: catches bugs before commit, prevents regressions, lets you refactor without fear. "Pragmatic" shortcuts mean debugging in production — slower, not faster. |
+| "TDD will slow me down" | TDD faster than debugging. Pragmatic = test-first. |
 | "Manual test faster" | Manual doesn't prove edge cases. You'll re-test every change. |
 | "Existing code has no tests" | You're improving it. Add tests for existing code. |

@@ -310,6 +354,13 @@ Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix

 Never fix bugs without a test.

+## Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+When adding mocks or test utilities, read [testing-anti-patterns.md](testing-anti-patterns.md) to avoid common pitfalls:
+- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
+- Adding test-only methods to production classes
+- Mocking without understanding dependencies
+
 ## Final Rule

 ```
@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+# Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.
+
+## Overview
+
+Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
+
+**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
+
+**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
+
+## The Iron Laws
+
+```
+1. NEVER test mock behavior
+2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
+3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);
+  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
+- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
+- Tells you nothing about real behavior
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
+test('renders sidebar', () => {
+  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
+  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});
+
+// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
+// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
+  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
+
+  IF testing mock existence:
+    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
+
+  Test real behavior instead
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
+class Session {
+  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
+    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
+    // ... cleanup
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => session.destroy());
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Production class polluted with test-only code
+- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
+- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
+- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
+// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
+
+// In test-utils/
+export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
+  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
+  if (workspace) {
+    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
+  }
+}
+
+// In tests
+afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE adding any method to production class:
+  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
+
+  IF yes:
+    STOP - Don't add it
+    Put it in test utilities instead
+
+  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
+
+  IF no:
+    STOP - Wrong class for this method
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
+  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
+    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+  }));
+
+  await addServer(config);
+  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
+});
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
+- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
+- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
+test('detects duplicate server', () => {
+  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
+  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
+
+  await addServer(config);  // Config written
+  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
+});
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE mocking any method:
+  STOP - Don't mock yet
+
+  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
+  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
+  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
+
+  IF depends on side effects:
+    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
+    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
+    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
+
+  IF unsure what test depends on:
+    Run test with real implementation FIRST
+    Observe what actually needs to happen
+    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
+
+  Red flags:
+    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
+    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
+    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
+  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
+};
+
+// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
+- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
+- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
+- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
+
+**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
+const mockResponse = {
+  status: 'success',
+  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
+  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
+  // All fields real API returns
+};
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE creating mock responses:
+  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
+
+  Actions:
+    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
+    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
+    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
+
+  Critical:
+    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
+    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
+
+  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
+```
+
+## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
+
+**The violation:**
+```
+✅ Implementation complete
+❌ No tests written
+"Ready for testing"
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
+- TDD would have caught this
+- Can't claim complete without tests
+
+**The fix:**
+```
+TDD cycle:
+1. Write failing test
+2. Implement to pass
+3. Refactor
+4. THEN claim complete
+```
+
+## When Mocks Become Too Complex
+
+**Warning signs:**
+- Mock setup longer than test logic
+- Mocking everything to make test pass
+- Mocks missing methods real components have
+- Test breaks when mock changes
+
+**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
+
+**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
+
+## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
+
+**Why TDD helps:**
+1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
+2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
+3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
+4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
+
+**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
+|--------------|-----|
+| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
+| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
+| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
+| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
+| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
+| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
+- Methods only called in test files
+- Mock setup is >50% of test
+- Test fails when you remove mock
+- Can't explain why mock is needed
+- Mocking "just to be safe"
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
+
+If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
+
+Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.
@@ -1,198 +0,0 @@
-# Writing Good Tests
-
-**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or
-adding cleanup/helper methods for tests.
-
-## Overview
-
-A test exists to catch a specific break. Two principles govern everything
-here:
-
-```
-1. Every test names the break it catches
-2. Every test exercises the real thing
-```
-
-Strict TDD produces both naturally: a test written first and watched
-failing against real code has already proven it can fail, and only earns
-a mock when the real dependency proves slow or external.
-
-## Principle 1: Name the Break
-
-Before writing the test body, answer: **what production change should
-make this test fail — and is that change a bug or a decision?** A test
-earns its place by catching a wrong branch, missing side effect, wrong
-argument, boundary case, or broken contract.
-
-**Derive expectations independently.** Use literals and hand-checked
-fixtures; table-driven tests with literal `want` values are the preferred
-shape. An expectation computed by the code under test — or its helpers —
-passes no matter what that code does:
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ Mirror assertion: the same builder computes both sides — always true
-const expected = buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' });
-expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe(expected);
-
-// ✅ Hand-derived literal
-expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe('tag:"urgent"');
-```
-
-**No change detectors.** If only intentional decisions can fail a test —
-a constant's value, exact message wording, private structure — it fires
-on redesign and sleeps through bugs. Test the behavior that depends on
-the decision: not `expect(MAX_RETRIES).toBe(5)` but "a failing call is
-retried 5 times and the 6th attempt never happens."
-
-**Behavior, not text.** Asserting that a script, skill, or config
-contains an exact line proves only that the source is the source. Run
-scripts against controlled inputs and assert outputs, side effects, or
-exit codes. Documents that instruct agents are tested by the consuming
-agent's behavior (superpowers:writing-skills); prose for humans earns no
-test at all.
-
-**Your code, not the framework.** Test the contract your code makes at
-its boundaries — the route you register, the query you emit, the payload
-you produce. Upstream mechanics are their maintainers' tests to write
-(the classic: asserting your router invokes a registered handler — that
-is the framework's test, not yours). When upstream behavior genuinely
-surprised you, write one narrow characterization test naming the
-assumption. The same boundary applies inside your code: constructors,
-getters, constants, and trivial forwarding earn tests only when they
-validate, normalize, default, derive, enforce, or cause side effects —
-otherwise assert the first consumer-visible result that depends on them.
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE writing the test body:
-  Name the production change that would make this test fail.
-
-  Cannot name one            → redesign around an observable behavior
-  "The source text changed"  → run the artifact and assert its effects
-  Only intentional decisions → change detector; test the behavior
-                               that depends on the decision
-
-  Confirm the expected value is derived without the code under test.
-  IF it reuses the code's logic or helpers:
-    Replace it with a literal or hand-checked fixture
-```
-
-## Principle 2: Exercise the Real Thing
-
-**The mock earns no assertions.** A mock assertion passes when the mock
-is present and fails when it is absent — it says nothing about the
-component. Assert the real component's behavior; if the mock is what you
-are checking, unmock it or delete the assertion.
-
-```typescript
-// ✅ Real behavior
-expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
-
-// ❌ Mock existence
-expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
-```
-
-**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a
-mock?"
-
-**Mock at the right level.** Learn every side effect of the real method
-before replacing it; mock the slow or external operation and keep what
-the test depends on real. When unsure, run the test against the real
-implementation first and observe what actually needs to happen.
-
-```typescript
-// ❌ The mock swallows the config write that duplicate detection reads
-vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
-  discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
-}));
-
-// ✅ Mock only the slow server startup; the config write stays real
-vi.mock('MCPServerManager');
-```
-
-**Make doubles specific.** When arguments, call counts, or ordering are
-part of the contract, assert them — a fake that accepts anything verifies
-nothing. Give each branch (success, error, malformed) its own fixture or
-spy, so the wrong branch cannot satisfy the expectation.
-
-**Mirror real data completely.** Mock the complete structure as it exists
-in reality — all documented fields — not just the ones your test reads.
-Partial mocks fail silently when downstream code reads an omitted field:
-the test passes while integration breaks.
-
-**Production classes carry production methods only.** Cleanup that only
-tests need lives in test utilities, never as a `destroy()` on the
-production class. Ask: is this method called only from tests? Does this
-class own this resource's lifecycle? Wrong answers → test utility.
-
-**Prefer real components over complex mocks.** When mock setup outgrows
-the test logic, mocks miss methods the real components have, or tests
-break when the mock changes, switch to an integration test with real
-components. **your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a
-mock here?"
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE adding a mock or test helper:
-  List the real method's side effects; keep the ones the test
-  depends on real — mock the slow/external level below them.
-
-  Mock responses mirror the complete real structure.
-
-  A method only tests call lives in test utilities, not production.
-
-  About to assert on the mock itself?
-    Unmock it or delete the assertion.
-```
-
-## Tests Ship With the Implementation
-
-The TDD cycle — failing test, minimal implementation, refactor — is what
-"complete" means. Ship the tests the behavior needs and only those:
-trivial code and human prose earn none, and a test written to satisfy
-process costs maintenance forever.
-
-## The Mutation Check
-
-Before finishing, mentally mutate the production code; at least one test
-should fail for each realistic mutation:
-
- Wrong constant or argument
- Wrong branch handler
- Missing state change or side effect
- Empty or default return
- Missing validation for zero, empty, nil, unauthorized, or malformed input
-
-A mutation nothing catches marks the behavior as unprotected — or the
-test as tautological.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| When you... | Do |
-|-------------|-----|
-| Write any test | Name the break it catches — a bug, not a decision |
-| Build an expected value | Derive it by hand; never with the code under test |
-| Test a script or document | Run it / pressure-test its consumer; never grep its text |
-| Reach for a dependency test | Test your boundary contract, not their documented mechanics |
-| Want to assert on a mocked element | Test the real component, or unmock it |
-| Are about to mock a method | Learn its side effects; mock the slow/external level |
-| Build a mock response | Mirror the real structure completely |
-| Need cleanup only tests use | Put it in test utilities |
-| Watch mock setup balloon | Switch to an integration test with real components |
-| Finish a test file | Run the mutation check |
-
-## Warning Signs
-
- Setup and assertion share the same object, guaranteeing equality
- The test can fail only through a panic, crash, or missing selector
- The test fails on every intentional change, never on accidental breakage
- Expected values are hidden behind loops, builders, or helpers
- The test greps source text, or asserts a removed symbol stays removed
- The test would still matter if only the framework remained
- The test exists for coverage, checking no side effect or outcome
- An assertion checks a `*-mock` test ID, or fails if you remove the mock
- A method is called only from test files
- Mock setup is more than half the test, or you can't explain why the mock is needed
- Mocking "just to be safe"
@@ -156,12 +156,47 @@ Ready to implement <feature-name>
 | Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
 | No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |

-## Common Rationalizations
+## Common Mistakes

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

 ## Environment Detection

@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-# Gemini CLI Tool Mapping
-
-Skills speak in actions ("dispatch a subagent", "create a todo", "read a file"). On Gemini CLI these resolve to the tools below.
-
-| Action skills request | Gemini CLI equivalent |
-|----------------------|----------------------|
-| Read a file | `read_file` |
-| Read multiple files at once | `read_many_files` |
-| Create a new file | `write_file` |
-| Edit a file | `replace` |
-| Run a shell command | `run_shell_command` |
-| Search file contents | `grep_search` |
-| Find files by name | `glob` |
-| List files and subdirectories | `list_directory` |
-| Fetch a URL | `web_fetch` |
-| Search the web | `google_web_search` |
-| Invoke a skill | `activate_skill` |
-| Dispatch a subagent (`Subagent (general-purpose):` template) | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` (invocable via `@generalist` chat syntax — see [Subagent support](#subagent-support)) |
-| Multiple parallel dispatches | Multiple `invoke_agent` calls in the same response |
-| Task tracking ("create a todo", "mark complete") | `write_todos` (statuses: pending, in_progress, completed, cancelled, blocked) |
-
-## Instructions file
-
-When a skill mentions "your instructions file", on Gemini CLI this is **`GEMINI.md`**. Gemini CLI loads `GEMINI.md` hierarchically: global at `~/.gemini/GEMINI.md`, project-level files in workspace directories and their ancestors, and sub-directory `GEMINI.md` files when a tool accesses files in those directories.
-
-## Personal skills directory
-
-User-level skills live at **`~/.gemini/skills/`**, with **`~/.agents/skills/`** as a cross-runtime alias (shared with Codex and Copilot CLI). When both directories exist at the same scope, `.agents/skills/` takes precedence. Each skill is a subdirectory containing a `SKILL.md` (with `name` and `description` frontmatter).
-
-## Subagent support
-
-Gemini CLI dispatches subagents through the `invoke_agent` tool, which takes `agent_name` and `prompt` parameters. The same dispatch is also surfaced as a chat-syntax shortcut: typing `@generalist <prompt>` is equivalent to calling `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"`. Built-in agent names include `generalist`, `cli_help`, `codebase_investigator`, and (with browser tooling enabled) `browser_agent`.
-
-Skills dispatch with `Subagent (general-purpose):` and either reference a prompt-template file (e.g., `superpowers:subagent-driven-development`'s `./implementer-prompt.md`) or supply an inline prompt. On Gemini CLI:
-
-| Skill dispatch form | Gemini CLI equivalent |
-|---------------------|----------------------|
-| References a `*-prompt.md` template (implementer, task-reviewer, code-reviewer, etc.) | Fill the template, then `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled prompt |
-| References `superpowers:requesting-code-review`'s `./code-reviewer.md` | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled review template |
-| Inline prompt (no template referenced) | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and your inline prompt |
-
-### Prompt filling
-
-Skills provide prompt templates with placeholders like `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` or `[FULL TEXT of task]`. Fill all placeholders before passing the complete prompt to `invoke_agent`. The prompt template itself contains the agent's role, review criteria, and expected output format — the subagent will follow it.
-
-### Parallel dispatch
-
-Gemini CLI supports parallel subagent dispatch. Issue multiple `invoke_agent` calls in the same response (or multiple `@generalist` invocations in one prompt) to run independent subagent work in parallel. Keep dependent tasks sequential, but do not serialize independent subagent tasks just to preserve a simpler history.
-
-## Additional Gemini CLI tools
-
-These tools are unique to Gemini CLI:
-
-| Tool | Purpose |
-|------|---------|
-| `save_memory` (legacy) | Persist facts across sessions when `experimental.memoryV2 = false` |
-| `get_internal_docs` | Look up Gemini CLI's bundled documentation |
-| `ask_user` | Pose structured questions to the user (text / single-select / multi-select) |
-| `enter_plan_mode` / `exit_plan_mode` | Switch into and out of read-only plan mode |
-| `update_topic` | Update the current conversation's topic / strategic-intent metadata |
-| `complete_task` | Signal that a Gemini subagent has completed and return its result to the parent agent |
-| `tracker_create_task`, `tracker_update_task`, `tracker_get_task`, `tracker_list_tasks`, `tracker_add_dependency`, `tracker_visualize` | Rich task tracker with dependency and visualization support |
-| `read_mcp_resource`, `list_mcp_resources` | MCP resource access |
@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before

 ## Overview

+Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
+
 **Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.

 **Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
@@ -103,6 +105,15 @@ Skip any step = lying, not verifying
 ❌ Trust agent report
 ```

+## Why This Matters
+
+From 24 failure memories:
+- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
+- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
+- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
+- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
+- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
+
 ## When To Apply

 **ALWAYS before:**
@@ -118,3 +129,11 @@ Skip any step = lying, not verifying
 - Paraphrases and synonyms
 - Implications of success
 - ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**No shortcuts for verification.**
+
+Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
+
+This is non-negotiable.
@@ -135,6 +135,12 @@ Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan f
 - Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
 - References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task

+## Remember
+- Exact file paths always
+- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
+- Exact commands with expected output
+- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
+
 ## Self-Review

 After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ description: Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying

 **Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**

-**Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory** — see [claude-code-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/claude-code-tools.md), [codex-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md), [copilot-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/copilot-tools.md), or [gemini-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md) for the path on your runtime. Codex, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all also recognize `~/.agents/skills/` as a cross-runtime alias.
+**Personal skills live in your runtime's skills directory** 

 You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes).

@@ -677,3 +677,13 @@ How future agents find your skill:
 6. **Loads example** (only when implementing)

 **Optimize for this flow** - put searchable terms early and often.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation.**
+
+Same Iron Law: No skill without failing test first.
+Same cycle: RED (baseline) → GREEN (write skill) → REFACTOR (close loopholes).
+Same benefits: Better quality, fewer surprises, bulletproof results.
+
+If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation.
@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@
 * Requires: graphviz (dot) installed on system
 */

-const fs = require('fs');
-const path = require('path');
-const { execSync } = require('child_process');
+import * as fs from 'fs';
+import * as path from 'path';
+import { execFileSync } from 'child_process';

 function extractDotBlocks(markdown) {
  const blocks = [];
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ ${bodies.join('\n\n')}

 function renderToSvg(dotContent) {
  try {
-    return execSync('dot -Tsvg', {
+    return execFileSync('dot', ['-Tsvg'], {
      input: dotContent,
      encoding: 'utf-8',
      maxBuffer: 10 * 1024 * 1024
@@ -107,9 +107,10 @@ function main() {
    process.exit(1);
  }

-  // Check if dot is available
+  // Check if dot is available. Run the binary directly rather than probing
+  // with `which`, which is not a command on Windows.
  try {
-    execSync('which dot', { encoding: 'utf-8' });
+    execFileSync('dot', ['-V'], { stdio: 'ignore' });
  } catch {
    console.error('Error: graphviz (dot) not found. Install with:');
    console.error('  brew install graphviz    # macOS');
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+set -u
+
+SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
+REPO_ROOT="$(cd "$SCRIPT_DIR/../.." && pwd)"
+SCRIPT_UNDER_TEST="$REPO_ROOT/skills/writing-skills/render-graphs.js"
+NODE_BIN="$(command -v node)"
+
+PASSES=0
+FAILURES=0
+TEST_ROOT="$(mktemp -d)"
+
+cleanup() {
+  rm -rf "$TEST_ROOT"
+}
+trap cleanup EXIT
+
+pass() {
+  echo "  [PASS] $1"
+  PASSES=$((PASSES + 1))
+}
+
+fail() {
+  echo "  [FAIL] $1"
+  FAILURES=$((FAILURES + 1))
+}
+
+assert_contains() {
+  local haystack="$1"
+  local needle="$2"
+  local description="$3"
+
+  if printf '%s' "$haystack" | grep -Fq -- "$needle"; then
+    pass "$description"
+  else
+    fail "$description"
+    echo "    expected to find: $needle"
+  fi
+}
+
+assert_not_contains() {
+  local haystack="$1"
+  local needle="$2"
+  local description="$3"
+
+  if printf '%s' "$haystack" | grep -Fq -- "$needle"; then
+    fail "$description"
+    echo "    did not expect to find: $needle"
+  else
+    pass "$description"
+  fi
+}
+
+fixture="$TEST_ROOT/fixture-skill"
+mkdir -p "$fixture" "$TEST_ROOT/empty-path"
+cat >"$fixture/SKILL.md" <<'EOF'
+---
+name: fixture-skill
+---
+
+# Fixture Skill
+
+```dot
+digraph fixture_graph {
+  start -> end;
+}
+```
+EOF
+
+echo "Writing-skills render-graphs tests"
+
+missing_dot_output="$(PATH="$TEST_ROOT/empty-path" "$NODE_BIN" "$SCRIPT_UNDER_TEST" "$fixture" 2>&1)"
+missing_dot_status=$?
+
+if [[ "$missing_dot_status" -ne 0 ]]; then
+  pass "missing Graphviz exits non-zero"
+else
+  fail "missing Graphviz exits non-zero"
+fi
+assert_contains "$missing_dot_output" "Error: graphviz (dot) not found." "missing Graphviz reports install guidance"
+assert_not_contains "$missing_dot_output" "ReferenceError: require is not defined" "script runs as an ES module"
+
+render_output="$("$NODE_BIN" "$SCRIPT_UNDER_TEST" "$fixture" 2>&1)"
+render_status=$?
+
+if [[ "$render_status" -eq 0 ]]; then
+  pass "fixture diagram renders"
+else
+  fail "fixture diagram renders"
+  printf '%s\n' "$render_output"
+fi
+
+assert_contains "$render_output" "Found 1 diagram(s)" "reports discovered diagram"
+assert_contains "$render_output" "Rendered: fixture_graph.svg" "reports rendered SVG"
+
+if [[ -f "$fixture/diagrams/fixture_graph.svg" ]]; then
+  pass "writes SVG output"
+else
+  fail "writes SVG output"
+fi
+
+if [[ -f "$fixture/diagrams/fixture_graph.svg" ]] && grep -Fq "<svg" "$fixture/diagrams/fixture_graph.svg"; then
+  pass "SVG output has SVG markup"
+else
+  fail "SVG output has SVG markup"
+fi
+
+echo
+echo "Results: $PASSES passed, $FAILURES failed"
+
+if [[ "$FAILURES" -gt 0 ]]; then
+  exit 1
+fi
Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Drew Ritter	4ab46fe700	test(writing-skills): cover render-graphs execution	2026-07-02 14:09:14 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	c3847f63d7	fix(writing-skills): run graphviz without a shell in render-graphs.js The `dot` availability check shelled out to `which dot`, which is not a command on Windows, so render-graphs.js reported graphviz as missing on Windows even when it was installed. Replace it with a direct `dot -V` probe via execFileSync. Also switch the SVG render call from execSync to execFileSync('dot', ['-Tsvg']). Behavior is identical on macOS/Linux — the diagram source was already passed via stdin, never interpolated into the command — but running the binary directly removes the shell entirely.	2026-07-02 14:04:00 -07:00
Drew Ritter	592dd0215a	Preserve hooks in Codex package manifest	2026-06-30 17:48:33 -07:00
Drew Ritter	6561afc87d	Strip hooks from Codex portal package	2026-06-30 17:48:33 -07:00
Drew Ritter	4575372ed3	docs: re-anchor Shape A examples away from Codex	2026-06-30 17:28:14 -07:00
Drew Ritter	af6104527b	chore(codex): remove orphaned session-start-codex hook + refresh hook docs hooks/session-start-codex has had no caller since "Remove Codex hooks" (#1845) deleted hooks-codex.json and its manifest registration; the Codex manifest now declares an empty hooks object so Codex registers no session-start hook at all. The script is Codex-specific dead code — nothing executes it on Codex or any other harness. - Delete hooks/session-start-codex. - tests/hooks/test-session-start.sh: drop the two Codex cases that are redundant with the generic session-start tests (nested-format and the legacy-warning omission are already covered by the Claude Code cases). Re-point the "wrapper dispatches" case to the live `session-start` script so run-hook.cmd dispatch coverage — used by Claude Code and Cursor in production — is preserved rather than lost. - docs/porting-to-a-new-harness.md: Codex is no longer a Shape A (shell-hook) harness, so re-anchor that worked example to Cursor (a live shell-hook harness that demonstrates the same per-harness field, schema, and matcher variance) and mark Codex as native skill discovery with no session-start hook. Clears the references to the deleted hooks-codex.json. - docs/windows/polyglot-hooks.md: the "check hooks-codex.json" pointer referenced a file deleted in #1845; re-point to hooks-cursor.json. RELEASE-NOTES.md keeps its historical mention of hooks-codex.json (it accurately records what that release did). The tests/codex-plugin-sync fixtures build their own synthetic session-start-codex and test the sync mechanism generically, so they are intentionally left as-is. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-30 17:28:14 -07:00
Drew Ritter	43c10985cf	Fix Codex plugin category	2026-06-30 17:27:33 -07:00
Drew Ritter	8e19a0c3e6	Default Codex portal package to zip	2026-06-30 17:02:56 -07:00
Drew Ritter	6770bfbcc5	Harden Codex package script checks	2026-06-30 17:02:56 -07:00
Drew Ritter	3a1d8fe8d7	Add Codex portal package script	2026-06-30 17:02:56 -07:00
Drew Ritter	b15ef6ebbe	fix(codex): suppress SessionStart hook auto-discovery with empty hooks object Codex auto-discovers a plugin's hooks/hooks.json whenever the Codex manifest has no `hooks` field: load_plugin_hooks falls back to a hardcoded DEFAULT_HOOKS_CONFIG_FILE = "hooks/hooks.json" and registers it. hooks/hooks.json is the Claude Code SessionStart hook, it is tracked in this repo, and the Codex marketplace installs the whole repo root (source url "./"), so the fallback re-registered the SessionStart hook and its install-time trust prompt on Codex. Removing the Codex hook file and the manifest `hooks` pointer (commit "Remove Codex hooks") did not disable the hook on Codex — it removed the explicit declaration that was overriding the fallback, so the fallback took over and found the Claude hooks/hooks.json. Declare an empty inline hooks object ({}) in .codex-plugin/plugin.json. It parses as an empty inline hook set and stops Codex reaching the auto-discovery fallback. An absent field, an empty array ([]), and an empty inline list all collapse back to the fallback, so the value must be exactly {}. Update the test to assert the manifest declares hooks: {} (and that hooks/hooks.json exists, which is what makes the declaration necessary), replacing the prior assertion that the field was absent — which passed while the hook was still being auto-discovered. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-30 15:52:20 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	8554b7215c	Release v6.1.0: leaner per-session bootstrap, Codex marketplace install, Gemini removed Bump all manifests to 6.1.0 and add RELEASE-NOTES for v6.1.0: - Compress the using-superpowers bootstrap and prune per-harness tool-mapping references (lower per-session token cost). - Add a Codex marketplace manifest so the plugin installs from Codex; drop the Codex SessionStart hook. - Remove Gemini CLI support (Google EOLed the Gemini CLI 2026-06-18).	2026-06-30 10:29:02 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	9c9b9bd7c8	test(codex): assert Codex manifest ships no hooks Commit `1f0c76e` removed the Codex SessionStart hook — dropping the hooks field from .codex-plugin/plugin.json and deleting hooks-codex.json — but left test-marketplace-manifest.sh asserting the old hooks pointer, so the test has failed on dev since. Assert the field is absent instead, locking in the no-Codex-hooks decision.	2026-06-30 10:28:53 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	98b080041d	Compress the using-superpowers bootstrap The bootstrap is injected into every session, so its token cost is paid constantly. Condense it without dropping behavior-shaping content: - Replace the graphviz skill-flow diagram with the prose it encoded (the 1% rule, the plan-mode to brainstorm gate, announce + checklist to todos). - Fold the standalone Instruction-Priority section into User Instructions. - Drop the per-platform 'How to Access Skills' walkthrough. - Trim the Platform Adaptation pointer to the harnesses that still have a reference file (Codex, Pi, Antigravity). Keeps the full Red Flags rationalization table, skill priority framed as process-before-implementation, and user-instruction precedence.	2026-06-24 19:35:57 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	4000288dac	Prune per-harness tool-mapping boilerplate The verbose action-to-tool tables and skill-loading explainers in the per-harness reference files restated guidance modern agents already follow. Trim each file to the harness-specific notes that still carry weight (subagent dispatch, task tracking, instructions-file paths), and delete claude-code-tools.md and copilot-tools.md, which had nothing left that wasn't generic.	2026-06-24 19:35:20 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	6be431b772	Remove Gemini CLI support Google EOLed the Gemini CLI on 2026-06-18; the extension can no longer be installed or updated. Remove Gemini from the install docs, the subagent-capable platform lists, and the eval-harness description, and delete its tool-mapping reference.	2026-06-24 19:34:40 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	1f0c76e0b0	Remove Codex hooks Codex reliably triggers skills on its own, and the SessionStart hook made the UX worse rather than better. Drop the Codex hook config and its registration in the plugin manifest.	2026-06-24 19:33:57 -07:00
Ada Sen	321c8cd24c	fix(codex): stop bootstrap re-firing on resume (match Claude startup\|clear\|compact) Bug: the SessionStart hook matcher in hooks-codex.json included "resume", causing the superpowers bootstrap to re-fire on every Codex session resume. Fix: align with Claude's hooks/hooks.json matcher "startup\|clear\|compact": - drop "resume" (the bug: resume should not trigger re-bootstrap) - add "compact" (so bootstrap re-injects after context compaction, like Claude) Before: "matcher": "startup\|resume\|clear" After: "matcher": "startup\|clear\|compact"	2026-06-23 16:15:56 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	bfa3e4137a	Keep Codex hooks manifest in plugin metadata Prompt: Jesse questioned whether the PR should remove the hooks config from the Codex plugin manifest. Runtime investigation showed Codex accepts a committed plugin manifest with hooks and installs the plugin successfully. Removing the field changes behavior: Codex falls back to the default hooks/hooks.json, which uses the non-Codex session-start hook and CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT path, instead of hooks/hooks-codex.json and the session-start-codex script. Changes: restore .codex-plugin/plugin.json hooks to ./hooks/hooks-codex.json and update the Codex marketplace manifest test to require that Codex-specific hook pointer instead of rejecting hooks. Validation: bash tests/codex/test-marketplace-manifest.sh; scripts/lint-shell.sh tests/codex/test-marketplace-manifest.sh; bash tests/codex-plugin-sync/test-sync-to-codex-plugin.sh; bash tests/kimi/test-plugin-manifest.sh; bash tests/shell-lint/test-lint-shell.sh.	2026-06-22 11:51:28 -07:00
Jesse Vincent	a17aaaef3a	Add Codex marketplace manifest Prompt: Jesse asked for a new worktree off the local superpowers dev branch to add the Codex manifest after diagnosing why github.com/obra/superpowers did not show installable Codex plugins. Root cause: Codex marketplace sources expect a .agents/plugins/marketplace.json at the marketplace root. The superpowers repo only had the Claude marketplace file and the Codex plugin manifest, so Codex could configure the marketplace name but found no installable plugin entries. Changes: add a repo-local Codex marketplace manifest for superpowers-dev that points at this same repository root via the same-root source pattern Codex already accepts; add a focused marketplace manifest test; remove the unsupported hooks field from .codex-plugin/plugin.json so the plugin validator accepts the manifest. Validation: bash tests/codex/test-marketplace-manifest.sh; uv run --with PyYAML python /Users/jesse/.codex/skills/.system/plugin-creator/scripts/validate_plugin.py /Users/jesse/git/superpowers/superpowers/.worktrees/codex-marketplace-manifest; throwaway HOME codex plugin marketplace add/list/add; bash tests/codex-plugin-sync/test-sync-to-codex-plugin.sh; bash tests/kimi/test-plugin-manifest.sh; bash tests/shell-lint/test-lint-shell.sh; scripts/lint-shell.sh tests/codex/test-marketplace-manifest.sh.	2026-06-22 11:51:28 -07:00