e7ddc25 deleted claude-code-tools.md and copilot-tools.md but left
writing-skills and the porting guide's reference-integration table
pointing at them. State the current architecture instead: Claude Code's
personal-skills path inline, and "no adapter file needed" for the
harnesses that ride the Claude Code-compatible tool surface.
Reported by @rasibintang (#1969, with a fix proposed in #1970).
Fixes#1969
The pi tokens (subagent, pi-subagents, Task, TODO.md) also appear in the
surrounding prose, so matching the whole file passed even with the mapping
table deleted — the exact regression this test exists to catch. Filter to
table rows (lines starting with '|') so the assertion fails when the table
is gone and passes on dev.
Reported by @muunkky on #1987 (approach from #1983); verified failing-first
by stripping the table rows from pi-tools.md.
Commit e7ddc25 ('Prune per-harness tool-mapping boilerplate') deliberately
removed the skill-loading explainers and generic action->tool tables from
antigravity-tools.md and pi-tools.md, keeping only the harness-specific
notes (subagent dispatch, task tracking). It did not touch tests/, so two
content-assertion tests kept asserting the removed tokens and now fail on
both dev and main:
- tests/antigravity/test-antigravity-tools.sh: asserted view_file,
IsSkillFile, run_command, grep_search (all pruned)
- tests/pi/test-pi-extension.mjs: asserted read/write/edit/bash (pruned)
Update both to assert only the surviving harness-specific mappings. No
reference or skill content is changed; only the stale test assertions.
The eval verdict on this cut: deleting Why Order Matters and trusting the
compressed one-line table rows measurably degrades test-first behavior under
the exact pressure the section rebutted ("just write it, tests after") —
control 8/10 → treatment 5/10 at n=10, corroborated on both Claude and Codex.
Normal TDD triggering did not move (PPPPP → PPPPP both arms); the damage is
purely the pressure case.
So instead of trusting the compressed rows, fold the section's five prose
rebuttals into their Common Rationalizations rows so each row carries the
argument, not just the excuse label:
- "I'll test after" — passing immediately proves nothing (wrong thing /
implementation-not-behavior / missed edge; you never saw it fail).
- "Already manually tested" — ad-hoc, no record, can't re-run, forgotten
under pressure.
- "Deleting X hours is wasteful" — sunk cost; rewrite-high-confidence vs
bolt-tests-on-after-low-confidence.
- "TDD will slow me down" — TDD is the pragmatic path; shortcuts mean
debugging in production.
- "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" — what-does vs
what-should; biased by the code you wrote; coverage without proof.
Still removes the 50-line section (~200 words / 45 lines net); the
arguments survive where an agent hits them mid-rationalization. Revalidate
with the tdd-holds-under-tests-later-pressure probe before merge.
Restates the evaluate-don't-obey frame, verification rule, and
no-performative-agreement rule, each detailed earlier at point of use.
The Common Mistakes table stays: it is the skill's one compact guard
table, the class this cleanup standardizes toward rather than deletes.
All four lines restate the Overview (DRY/YAGNI/TDD/frequent commits),
Task Structure (exact paths, commands with expected output), and No
Placeholders (complete code in every step).
Five of six principles restated the Checklist and Process sections
verbatim-in-spirit. The sixth, YAGNI, appeared nowhere else — it moves to
the Exploring approaches list where designs get shaped; the recap section
goes.
Common Mistakes and Red Flags restated Steps 0-3 wholesale; both fold
into one Common Rationalizations table (house Excuse/Reality form) whose
five rows carry the tempting-thought version of each rule, including the
#1-mistake emphasis on bypassing native tools. Quick Reference stays as
the compact decision aid.
Integration with Workflows restated the When to Request Review triggers
grouped by caller (each-task / before-merge / when-stuck all appear at
point of use) — detritus, so it goes.
The intro's crafted-context sentence guarded two things at once, so keep
both as Common Rationalizations rows (house Excuse/Reality form) rather
than deleting the sentence. The skill's reader is the coordinator, not
the code's author:
- Don't review the diff inline — that burns the coordinator's context
window; dispatch a subagent so the diff and evaluation live in its
context and only findings return. ("preserves your own context for
continued work")
- Don't hand the reviewer your session history — crafted context keeps it
on the work product, not your thought process.
Five blocks of benefits and cost/benefit selling aimed at a reader who
has already invoked the skill; the vs-Executing-Plans comparison also
duplicates the one under When to Use. Integration section untouched
(PR #1932 owns it).
The tell-your-partner directive and the prefer-SDD instruction stay; the
significantly-higher-quality sentence restated them as a claim.
Integration section untouched (PR #1932 owns it).
Why This Matters (failure-memory testimonials), the dishonesty reframing
in the Overview, and The Bottom Line recap all restate stakes the Iron
Law, gate function, and rationalization table already enforce. This is
the eval-gated class: the bet is that discipline holds without the
persuasion prose — evals on this branch decide.
Real-World Impact was statistics; the Overview opener restated the core
principle as motivation. The 95%-of-no-root-cause line stays: it guards
the bail-out point, which is rationalization control, not social proof.
Supporting Techniques/Related skills untouched (PR #1932 owns that).
Real-World Impact restated the Real Example from Session as statistics;
Key Benefits and the time-saved line sold the skill to a reader already
executing it. Instructions unchanged.
2026-07-14 15:02:16 -07:00
4 changed files with 21 additions and 19 deletions
@@ -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.**
**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**(`~/.claude/skills/` on Claude Code) — see [codex-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md) or [gemini-tools.md](../using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md) for the path on those runtimes. Codex, Copilot CLI, and Gemini CLI all also recognize `~/.agents/skills/` as a cross-runtime alias.
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).
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).
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Jesse Vincent