refactor(skills): drop Why Order Matters narrative from test-driven-development

The section's five prose rebuttals each map to a Common Rationalizations
row (test-after, manual-tested, sunk-cost, dogmatic, spirit-not-ritual),
and every excuse phrasing also appears in the Red Flags list. This is the
highest-stakes cut on the branch: TDD is the most pressure-tested
discipline skill, and the bet that the table alone holds under pressure
is exactly what the eval pass must decide.

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

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

skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

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

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
 
-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, 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.
+**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
 
 ## The Process
 

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

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

skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before m
 
 # Requesting Code Review
 
-Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
 
 **Core principle:** Review early, review often.
 
@@ -72,21 +72,6 @@ You: [Fix progress indicators]
 [Continue to Task 3]
 ```
 
-## Integration with Workflows
-
-**Subagent-Driven Development:**
-- Review after EACH task
-- Catch issues before they compound
-- Fix before moving to next task
-
-**Executing Plans:**
-- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
-- Get feedback, apply, continue
-
-**Ad-Hoc Development:**
-- Review before merge
-- Review when stuck
-
 ## Red Flags
 
 **Never:**

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -332,38 +332,6 @@ Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
 Done!
 ```
 
-## Advantages
-
-**vs. Manual execution:**
-- Subagents follow TDD naturally
-- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
-- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
-- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
-
-**vs. Executing Plans:**
-- Same session (no handoff)
-- Continuous progress (no waiting)
-- Review checkpoints automatic
-
-**Efficiency gains:**
-- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
-  as files, not pasted text
-- Subagent gets complete information upfront
-- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
-
-**Quality gates:**
-- Self-review catches issues before handoff
-- Task review carries two verdicts: spec compliance and code quality
-- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
-- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
-- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
-
-**Cost:**
-- More subagent invocations (implementer + reviewer per task)
-- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
-- Review loops add iterations
-- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
-
 ## Red Flags
 
 **Never:**

skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior
 
 ## Overview
 
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
 **Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
 
 **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
@@ -286,11 +284,3 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 **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

skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -203,62 +203,6 @@ 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 |
@@ -360,6 +304,13 @@ Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix
 
 Never fix bugs without a test.
 
+## Testing Anti-Patterns
+
+When adding mocks or test utilities, read [testing-anti-patterns.md](testing-anti-patterns.md) to avoid common pitfalls:
+- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
+- Adding test-only methods to production classes
+- Mocking without understanding dependencies
+
 ## Final Rule
 
 ```

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

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

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

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

skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md

@@ -156,47 +156,12 @@ Ready to implement <feature-name>
 | Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
 | No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |
 
-## Common Mistakes
+## Common Rationalizations
 
-### Fighting the harness
-
-- **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
+| 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. |

skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

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

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

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

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -677,13 +677,3 @@ How future agents find your skill:
 6. **Loads example** (only when implementing)
 
 **Optimize for this flow** - put searchable terms early and often.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation.**
-
-Same Iron Law: No skill without failing test first.
-Same cycle: RED (baseline) → GREEN (write skill) → REFACTOR (close loopholes).
-Same benefits: Better quality, fewer surprises, bulletproof results.
-
-If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation.