Core skills library: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
<HARD-GATE>
Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
</HARD-GATE>
## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
## Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
2. **Offer visual companion** (if topic will involve visual questions) — this is its own message, not combined with a clarifying question. See the Visual Companion section below.
3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
## Process Flow
```dot
digraph brainstorming {
"Explore project context" [shape=box];
"Visual questions ahead?" [shape=diamond];
"Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [shape=box];
"Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
"Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
"Present design sections" [shape=box];
"User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
"Write design doc" [shape=box];
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" [shape=box];
"User reviews spec?" [shape=diamond];
"Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
"Explore project context" -> "Visual questions ahead?";
"Visual questions ahead?" -> "Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" [label="yes"];
"Visual questions ahead?" -> "Ask clarifying questions" [label="no"];
"Offer Visual Companion\n(own message, no other content)" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
"Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
"Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
"Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
"User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
"User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
"Write design doc" -> "Spec self-review\n(fix inline)";
"Spec self-review\n(fix inline)" -> "User reviews spec?";
"User reviews spec?" -> "Write design doc" [label="changes requested"];
"User reviews spec?" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill" [label="approved"];
}
```
**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
## The Process
**Understanding the idea:**
- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
- Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
- If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
- For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
**Exploring approaches:**
- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
**Presenting the design:**
- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
**Design for isolation and clarity:**
- Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
- For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
- Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
- Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.
**Working in existing codebases:**
- Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
- Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
- Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.
## After the Design
**Documentation:**
- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
- (User preferences for spec location override this default)
- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
- Commit the design document to git
**Spec Self-Review:**
After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:
1. **Placeholder scan:** Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
2. **Internal consistency:** Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
3. **Scope check:** Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
4. **Ambiguity check:** Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.
Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.
**User Review Gate:**
After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:
> "Spec written and committed to `<path>`. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."
Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.
**Implementation:**
- 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.
**Offering the companion:** When you anticipate that upcoming questions will involve visual content (mockups, layouts, diagrams), offer it once for consent:
> "Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser. I can put together mockups, diagrams, comparisons, and other visuals as we go. This feature is still new and can be token-intensive. Want to try it? (Requires opening a local URL)"
**This offer MUST be its own message.** Do not combine it with clarifying questions, context summaries, or any other content. The message should contain ONLY the offer above and nothing else. Wait for the user's response before continuing. If they decline, proceed with text-only brainstorming.
**Per-question decision:** Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: **would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?**
- **Use the browser** for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
- **Use the terminal** for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions
A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.
If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding:
`skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md`Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
# Dispatching Parallel Agents
## Overview
You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.
When you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.
**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently.
## When to Use
```dot
digraph when_to_use {
"Multiple failures?" [shape=diamond];
"Are they independent?" [shape=diamond];
"Single agent investigates all" [shape=box];
"One agent per problem domain" [shape=box];
"Can they work in parallel?" [shape=diamond];
"Sequential agents" [shape=box];
"Parallel dispatch" [shape=box];
"Multiple failures?" -> "Are they independent?" [label="yes"];
"Are they independent?" -> "Single agent investigates all" [label="no - related"];
"Are they independent?" -> "Can they work in parallel?" [label="yes"];
"Can they work in parallel?" -> "Parallel dispatch" [label="yes"];
"Can they work in parallel?" -> "Sequential agents" [label="no - shared state"];
}
```
**Use when:**
- 3+ test files failing with different root causes
- Multiple subsystems broken independently
- Each problem can be understood without context from others
- No shared state between investigations
**Don't use when:**
- Failures are related (fix one might fix others)
- Need to understand full system state
- Agents would interfere with each other
## The Pattern
### 1. Identify Independent Domains
Group failures by what's broken:
- File A tests: Tool approval flow
- File B tests: Batch completion behavior
- File C tests: Abort functionality
Each domain is independent - fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests.
### 2. Create Focused Agent Tasks
Each agent gets:
- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem
- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass
- **Constraints:** Don't change other code
- **Expected output:** Summary of what you found and fixed
### 3. Dispatch in Parallel
```typescript
// In Claude Code / AI environment
Task("Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures")
Task("Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures")
Task("Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures")
// All three run concurrently
```
### 4. Review and Integrate
When agents return:
- Read each summary
- Verify fixes don't conflict
- Run full test suite
- Integrate all changes
## Agent Prompt Structure
Good agent prompts are:
1. **Focused** - One clear problem domain
2. **Self-contained** - All context needed to understand the problem
3. **Specific about output** - What should the agent return?
```markdown
Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:
1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" - expects 'interrupted at' in message
2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" - fast tool aborted instead of completed
3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" - expects 3 results but gets 0
These are timing/race condition issues. Your task:
1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?
3. Fix by:
- Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting
- Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found
- Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior
Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.
Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.
```
## Common Mistakes
**❌ Too broad:** "Fix all the tests" - agent gets lost
**✅ Specific:** "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts" - focused scope
**❌ No context:** "Fix the race condition" - agent doesn't know where
**✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names
**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything
**✅ Constraints:** "Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only"
**❌ Vague output:** "Fix it" - you don't know what changed
**✅ Specific:** "Return summary of root cause and changes"
## When NOT to Use
**Related failures:** Fixing one might fix others - investigate together first
**Need full context:** Understanding requires seeing entire system
**Exploratory debugging:** You don't know what's broken yet
**Shared state:** Agents would interfere (editing same files, using same resources)
## Real Example from Session
**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring
**Failures:**
- agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)
- batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)
- tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)
**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions
**Dispatch:**
```
Agent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts
Agent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts
Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts
```
**Results:**
- Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting
- Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)
- Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete
**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:
1. **Review each summary** - Understand what changed
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 changesUse when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
# Executing Plans
## Overview
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 (such as Claude Code or Codex). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
## The Process
### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
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 TodoWrite and proceed
### Step 2: Execute Tasks
For each task:
1. Mark as in_progress
2. Follow each step exactly (plan has bite-sized steps)
3. Run verifications as specified
4. Mark as completed
### Step 3: Complete Development
After all tasks complete and verified:
- Announce: "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch
- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice
## When to Stop and Ask for Help
**STOP executing immediately when:**
- Hit a blocker (missing dependency, test fails, instruction unclear)
- Plan has critical gaps preventing starting
- You don't understand an instruction
- Verification fails repeatedly
**Ask for clarification rather than guessing.**
## When to Revisit Earlier Steps
**Return to Review (Step 1) when:**
- Partner updates the plan based on your feedback
- Fundamental approach needs rethinking
**Don't force through blockers** - stop and ask.
## Remember
- Review plan critically first
- Follow plan steps exactly
- Don't skip verifications
- 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 tasksUse 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."
## The Process
### Step 1: Verify Tests
**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.
```
Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
**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)
```
This determines which menu to show and how cleanup works:
| State | Menu | Cleanup |
|-------|------|---------|
| `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
```bash
# Try common base branches
git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
```
Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
### Step 4: Present Options
**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 4 options:**
```
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 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?
```
**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
### Step 5: Execute Choice
#### Option 1: Merge Locally
```bash
# Get main repo root for CWD safety
MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
# Merge first — verify success before removing anything
git checkout <base-branch>
git pull
git merge <feature-branch>
# Verify tests on merged result
<test command>
# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch
```
Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch:
```bash
git branch -d <feature-branch>
```
#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
```bash
# Push branch
git push -u origin <feature-branch>
# Create PR
gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
## Summary
<2-3 bullets of what changed>
## Test Plan
- [ ] <verification steps>
EOF
)"
```
**Do NOT clean up worktree** — user needs it alive to iterate on PR feedback.
#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
**Don't cleanup worktree.**
#### Option 4: Discard
**Confirm first:**
```
This will permanently delete:
- Branch <name>
- All commits: <commit-list>
- Worktree at <path>
Type 'discard' to confirm.
```
Wait for exact confirmation.
If confirmed:
```bash
MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
```
Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then force-delete branch:
```bash
git branch -D <feature-branch>
```
### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
**Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree.
```bash
GIT_DIR=$(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/`, `worktrees/`, or `~/.config/superpowers/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 (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
| Option | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch |
|--------|-------|------|---------------|----------------|
| 1. Merge locally | yes | - | - | yes |
| 2. Create PR | - | yes | yes | - |
| 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - |
| 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) |
## Common Mistakes
**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/`, `worktrees/`, or `~/.config/superpowers/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 removalUse when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
# Code Review Reception
## Overview
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
## The Response Pattern
```
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
```
## Forbidden Responses
**NEVER:**
- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
**INSTEAD:**
- Restate the technical requirement
- Ask clarifying questions
- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
- Just start working (actions > words)
## Handling Unclear Feedback
```
IF any item is unclear:
STOP - do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
```
**Example:**
```
your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
```
## Source-Specific Handling
### From your human partner
- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
- **Still ask** if scope unclear
- **No performative agreement**
- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
### From External Reviewers
```
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
Stop and discuss with your human partner first
```
**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
```
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
grep codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
```
**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
## Implementation Order
```
FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions
```
## When To Push Back
Push back when:
- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
- Reviewer lacks full context
- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
- Technically incorrect for this stack
- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
**How to push back:**
- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
- Ask specific questions
- Reference working tests/code
- Involve your human partner if architectural
**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
When feedback IS correct:
```
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
```
**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
If you pushed back and were wrong:
```
✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining
```
State the correction factually and move on.
## Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
## Real Examples
**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
```
**Technical Verification (Good):**
```
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
```
**YAGNI (Good):**
```
Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
```
**Unclear Item (Good):**
```
your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
```
## 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.Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
# 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.
**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
## When to Request Review
**Mandatory:**
- After each task in subagent-driven development
- After completing major feature
- Before merge to main
**Optional but valuable:**
- When stuck (fresh perspective)
- Before refactoring (baseline check)
- After fixing complex bug
## How to Request
**1. Get git SHAs:**
```bash
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
```
**2. Dispatch code reviewer subagent:**
Use Task tool with `general-purpose` type, fill template at `code-reviewer.md`
**Placeholders:**
- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of what you built
- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do
- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
**3. Act on feedback:**
- Fix Critical issues immediately
- Fix Important issues before proceeding
- Note Minor issues for later
- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)
## Example
```
[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
[Dispatch code reviewer subagent]
DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from docs/superpowers/plans/deployment-plan.md
BASE_SHA: a7981ec
HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
[Subagent returns]:
Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
Issues:
Important: Missing progress indicators
Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
Assessment: Ready to proceed
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:**
- Skip review because "it's simple"
- Ignore Critical issues
- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
- Argue with valid technical feedback
**If reviewer wrong:**
- Push back with technical reasoning
- Show code/tests that prove it works
- Request clarification
See template at: requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.mdUse when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
# Subagent-Driven Development
Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.
**Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.
**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.
## When to Use
```dot
digraph when_to_use {
"Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
"Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
"Stay in this session?" [shape=diamond];
"subagent-driven-development" [shape=box];
"executing-plans" [shape=box];
"Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];
"Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
"Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
"Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Stay in this session?" [label="yes"];
"Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
"Stay in this session?" -> "subagent-driven-development" [label="yes"];
"Stay in this session?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - parallel session"];
}
```
**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
- Same session (no context switch)
- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
## The Process
```dot
digraph process {
rankdir=TB;
subgraph cluster_per_task {
label="Per Task";
"Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
"Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
"Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
"Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
"Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
"Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
"Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
"Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [shape=box];
}
"Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
"More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
"Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
"Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "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" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
"Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
"Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
"Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
"Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
"Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
"Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
"Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
"Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
"Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
"More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
"More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
"Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
}
```
## Model Selection
Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.
**Mechanical implementation tasks** (isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files): use a fast, cheap model. Most implementation tasks are mechanical when the plan is well-specified.
**Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.
**Architecture, design, and review tasks**: use the most capable available model.
**Task complexity signals:**
- Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model
- Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
- Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
## Handling Implementer Status
Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
**DONE:** Proceed to spec compliance review.
**DONE_WITH_CONCERNS:** The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.
**NEEDS_CONTEXT:** The implementer needs information that wasn't provided. Provide the missing context and re-dispatch.
**BLOCKED:** The implementer cannot complete the task. Assess the blocker:
1. If it's a context problem, provide more context and re-dispatch with the same model
2. If the task requires more reasoning, re-dispatch with a more capable model
3. If the task is too large, break it into smaller pieces
4. If the plan itself is wrong, escalate to the human
**Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.
## Prompt Templates
- `./implementer-prompt.md` - Dispatch implementer subagent
- `./spec-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
- `./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
## Example Workflow
```
You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]
Task 1: Hook installation script
[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
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
- Committed
[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra
[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
[Mark Task 1 complete]
Task 2: Recovery modes
[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
- Added verify/repair modes
- 8/8 tests passing
- Self-review: All good
- Committed
[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
- Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
- Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
[Implementer fixes issues]
Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting
[Spec reviewer reviews again]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now
[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
[Implementer fixes]
Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
[Code reviewer reviews again]
Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
[Mark Task 2 complete]
...
[After all tasks]
[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
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:**
- No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
- Controller curates exactly what context is needed
- Subagent gets complete information upfront
- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
**Quality gates:**
- Self-review catches issues before handoff
- Two-stage review: spec compliance, then 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 + 2 reviewers 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 reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
- Proceed with unfixed issues
- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
- Make subagent read plan file (provide full text 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 (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order)
- Move to next task while either review has open issues
**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 reviewer subagents
- **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 executionUse when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
# Systematic Debugging
## 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.**
## The Iron Law
```
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
```
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
## When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue
**Don't skip when:**
- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
## The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
2. **Reproduce Consistently**
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
3. **Check Recent Changes**
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
**WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
**BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
```
For EACH component boundary:
- Log what data enters component
- Log what data exits component
- Verify environment/config propagation
- Check state at each layer
Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
THEN investigate that specific component
```
**Example (multi-layer system):**
```bash
# Layer 1: Workflow
echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
# Layer 2: Build script
echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
# Layer 3: Signing script
echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
security list-keychains
security find-identity -v
# Layer 4: Actual signing
codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
```
**This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
5. **Trace Data Flow**
**WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
**Quick version:**
- Where does bad value originate?
- What called this with bad value?
- Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Fix at source, not at symptom
### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
**Find the pattern before fixing:**
1. **Find Working Examples**
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
2. **Compare Against References**
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
3. **Identify Differences**
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
4. **Understand Dependencies**
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
**Scientific method:**
1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
2. **Test Minimally**
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
3. **Verify Before Continuing**
- Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
- Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
- DON'T add more fixes on top
4. **When You Don't Know**
- Say "I don't understand X"
- Don't pretend to know
- Ask for help
- Research more
### Phase 4: Implementation
**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
1. **Create Failing Test Case**
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- One-off test script if no framework
- MUST have before fixing
- Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
2. **Implement Single Fix**
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- No bundled refactoring
3. **Verify Fix**
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
- STOP
- Count: How many fixes have you tried?
- If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
- **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
- DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
**Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
- Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
**STOP and question fundamentals:**
- Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
- Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
- Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
**Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
**Watch for these redirections:**
- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
## Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
## Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|-------|---------------|------------------|
| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
1. You've completed the process
2. Document what you investigated
3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
## Supporting Techniques
These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
- **`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 commonUse when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
# Test-Driven Development (TDD)
## Overview
Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass.
**Core principle:** If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.
**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
## When to Use
**Always:**
- New features
- Bug fixes
- Refactoring
- Behavior changes
**Exceptions (ask your human partner):**
- Throwaway prototypes
- Generated code
- Configuration files
Thinking "skip TDD just this once"? Stop. That's rationalization.
## The Iron Law
```
NO PRODUCTION CODE WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```
Write code before the test? Delete it. Start over.
**No exceptions:**
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
Implement fresh from tests. Period.
## Red-Green-Refactor
```dot
digraph tdd_cycle {
rankdir=LR;
red [label="RED\nWrite failing test", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
verify_red [label="Verify fails\ncorrectly", shape=diamond];
green [label="GREEN\nMinimal code", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
verify_green [label="Verify passes\nAll green", shape=diamond];
refactor [label="REFACTOR\nClean up", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
next [label="Next", shape=ellipse];
red -> verify_red;
verify_red -> green [label="yes"];
verify_red -> red [label="wrong\nfailure"];
green -> verify_green;
verify_green -> refactor [label="yes"];
verify_green -> green [label="no"];
refactor -> verify_green [label="stay\ngreen"];
verify_green -> next;
next -> red;
}
```
### RED - Write Failing Test
Write one minimal test showing what should happen.
<Good>
```typescript
test('retries failed operations 3 times', async () => {
let attempts = 0;
const operation = () => {
attempts++;
if (attempts < 3) throw new Error('fail');
return 'success';
};
const result = await retryOperation(operation);
expect(result).toBe('success');
expect(attempts).toBe(3);
});
```
Clear name, tests real behavior, one thing
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
test('retry works', async () => {
const mock = jest.fn()
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockRejectedValueOnce(new Error())
.mockResolvedValueOnce('success');
await retryOperation(mock);
expect(mock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(3);
});
```
Vague name, tests mock not code
</Bad>
**Requirements:**
- One behavior
- Clear name
- Real code (no mocks unless unavoidable)
### Verify RED - Watch It Fail
**MANDATORY. Never skip.**
```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test fails (not errors)
- Failure message is expected
- Fails because feature missing (not typos)
**Test passes?** You're testing existing behavior. Fix test.
**Test errors?** Fix error, re-run until it fails correctly.
### GREEN - Minimal Code
Write simplest code to pass the test.
<Good>
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
try {
return await fn();
} catch (e) {
if (i === 2) throw e;
}
}
throw new Error('unreachable');
}
```
Just enough to pass
</Good>
<Bad>
```typescript
async function retryOperation<T>(
fn: () => Promise<T>,
options?: {
maxRetries?: number;
backoff?: 'linear' | 'exponential';
onRetry?: (attempt: number) => void;
}
): Promise<T> {
// YAGNI
}
```
Over-engineered
</Bad>
Don't add features, refactor other code, or "improve" beyond the test.
### Verify GREEN - Watch It Pass
**MANDATORY.**
```bash
npm test path/to/test.test.ts
```
Confirm:
- Test passes
- Other tests still pass
- Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
**Test fails?** Fix code, not test.
**Other tests fail?** Fix now.
### REFACTOR - Clean Up
After green only:
- Remove duplication
- Improve names
- Extract helpers
Keep tests green. Don't add behavior.
### Repeat
Next failing test for next feature.
## Good Tests
| Quality | Good | Bad |
|---------|------|-----|
| **Minimal** | One thing. "and" in name? Split it. | `test('validates email and domain and whitespace')` |
| **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
| **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
## Why Order Matters
**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
- Might test wrong thing
- Might test implementation, not behavior
- Might miss edge cases you forgot
- You never saw it catch the bug
Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
- No record of what you tested
- Can't re-run when code changes
- Easy to forget cases under pressure
- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
TDD IS pragmatic:
- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
## Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "I'll test after" | Tests passing immediately prove nothing. |
| "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 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. |
## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
- Code before test
- Test after implementation
- Test passes immediately
- Can't explain why test failed
- Tests added "later"
- Rationalizing "just this once"
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "Keep as reference" or "adapt existing code"
- "Already spent X hours, deleting is wasteful"
- "TDD is dogmatic, I'm being pragmatic"
- "This is different because..."
**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
## Example: Bug Fix
**Bug:** Empty email accepted
**RED**
```typescript
test('rejects empty email', async () => {
const result = await submitForm({ email: '' });
expect(result.error).toBe('Email required');
});
```
**Verify RED**
```bash
$ npm test
FAIL: expected 'Email required', got undefined
```
**GREEN**
```typescript
function submitForm(data: FormData) {
if (!data.email?.trim()) {
return { error: 'Email required' };
}
// ...
}
```
**Verify GREEN**
```bash
$ npm test
PASS
```
**REFACTOR**
Extract validation for multiple fields if needed.
## Verification Checklist
Before marking work complete:
- [ ] Every new function/method has a test
- [ ] Watched each test fail before implementing
- [ ] Each test failed for expected reason (feature missing, not typo)
- [ ] Wrote minimal code to pass each test
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Output pristine (no errors, warnings)
- [ ] Tests use real code (mocks only if unavoidable)
- [ ] Edge cases and errors covered
Can't check all boxes? You skipped TDD. Start over.
## When Stuck
| Problem | Solution |
|---------|----------|
| Don't know how to test | Write wished-for API. Write assertion first. Ask your human partner. |
| Test too complicated | Design too complicated. Simplify interface. |
| Must mock everything | Code too coupled. Use dependency injection. |
| Test setup huge | Extract helpers. Still complex? Simplify design. |
## Debugging Integration
Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix and prevents regression.
Never fix bugs without a test.
## Testing Anti-Patterns
When adding mocks or test utilities, read @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
```
Production code → test exists and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
```
No exceptions without your human partner's permission.Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback
# Using Git Worktrees
## Overview
Ensure work happens in an isolated workspace. Prefer your platform's native worktree tools. Fall back to manual git worktrees only when no native tool is available.
**Core principle:** Detect existing isolation first. Then use native tools. Then fall back to git. Never fight the harness.
**Announce at start:** "I'm using the using-git-worktrees skill to set up an isolated workspace."
## Step 0: Detect Existing Isolation
**Before creating anything, check if you are already in an isolated workspace.**
```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)
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
```
**Submodule guard:** `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON` is also true inside git submodules. Before concluding "already in a worktree," verify you are not in a submodule:
```bash
# If this returns a path, you're in a submodule, not a worktree — treat as normal repo
git rev-parse --show-superproject-working-tree 2>/dev/null
```
**If `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON` (and not a submodule):** You are already in a linked worktree. Skip to Step 3 (Project Setup). Do NOT create another worktree.
Report with branch state:
- On a branch: "Already in isolated workspace at `<path>` on branch `<name>`."
- Detached HEAD: "Already in isolated workspace at `<path>` (detached HEAD, externally managed). Branch creation needed at finish time."
**If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (or in a submodule):** You are in a normal repo checkout.
Has the user already indicated their worktree preference in your instructions? If not, ask for consent before creating a worktree:
> "Would you like me to set up an isolated worktree? It protects your current branch from changes."
Honor any existing declared preference without asking. If the user declines consent, work in place and skip to Step 3.
## Step 1: Create Isolated Workspace
**You have two mechanisms. Try them in this order.**
### 1a. Native Worktree Tools (preferred)
The user has asked for an isolated workspace (Step 0 consent). Do you already have a way to create a worktree? It might be a tool with a name like `EnterWorktree`, `WorktreeCreate`, a `/worktree` command, or a `--worktree` flag. If you do, use it and skip to Step 3.
Native tools handle directory placement, branch creation, and cleanup automatically. Using `git worktree add` when you have a native tool creates phantom state your harness can't see or manage.
Only proceed to Step 1b if you have no native worktree tool available.
### 1b. Git Worktree Fallback
**Only use this if Step 1a does not apply** — you have no native worktree tool available. Create a worktree manually using git.
#### Directory Selection
Follow this priority order. Explicit user preference always beats observed filesystem state.
1. **Check your instructions for a declared worktree directory preference.** If the user has already specified one, use it without asking.
2. **Check for an existing project-local worktree directory:**
```bash
ls -d .worktrees 2>/dev/null # Preferred (hidden)
ls -d worktrees 2>/dev/null # Alternative
```
If found, use it. If both exist, `.worktrees` wins.
3. **Check for an existing global directory:**
```bash
project=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)")
ls -d ~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/$project 2>/dev/null
```
If found, use it (backward compatibility with legacy global path).
4. **If there is no other guidance available**, default to `.worktrees/` at the project root.
#### Safety Verification (project-local directories only)
**MUST verify directory is ignored before creating worktree:**
```bash
git check-ignore -q .worktrees 2>/dev/null || git check-ignore -q worktrees 2>/dev/null
```
**If NOT ignored:** Add to .gitignore, commit the change, then proceed.
**Why critical:** Prevents accidentally committing worktree contents to repository.
Global directories (`~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/`) need no verification.
#### Create the Worktree
```bash
project=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)")
# Determine path based on chosen location
# For project-local: path="$LOCATION/$BRANCH_NAME"
# For global: path="~/.config/superpowers/worktrees/$project/$BRANCH_NAME"
git worktree add "$path" -b "$BRANCH_NAME"
cd "$path"
```
**Sandbox fallback:** If `git worktree add` fails with a permission error (sandbox denial), tell the user the sandbox blocked worktree creation and you're working in the current directory instead. Then run setup and baseline tests in place.
## Step 3: Project Setup
Auto-detect and run appropriate setup:
```bash
# Node.js
if [ -f package.json ]; then npm install; fi
# Rust
if [ -f Cargo.toml ]; then cargo build; fi
# Python
if [ -f requirements.txt ]; then pip install -r requirements.txt; fi
if [ -f pyproject.toml ]; then poetry install; fi
# Go
if [ -f go.mod ]; then go mod download; fi
```
## Step 4: Verify Clean Baseline
Run tests to ensure workspace starts clean:
```bash
# Use project-appropriate command
npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
```
**If tests fail:** Report failures, ask whether to proceed or investigate.
**If tests pass:** Report ready.
### Report
```
Worktree ready at <full-path>
Tests passing (<N> tests, 0 failures)
Ready to implement <feature-name>
```
## Quick Reference
| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Already in linked worktree | Skip creation (Step 0) |
| In a submodule | Treat as normal repo (Step 0 guard) |
| Native worktree tool available | Use it (Step 1a) |
| No native tool | Git worktree fallback (Step 1b) |
| `.worktrees/` exists | Use it (verify ignored) |
| `worktrees/` exists | Use it (verify ignored) |
| Both exist | Use `.worktrees/` |
| Neither exists | Check instruction file, then default `.worktrees/` |
| Global path exists | Use it (backward compat) |
| Directory not ignored | Add to .gitignore + commit |
| Permission error on create | Sandbox fallback, work in place |
| Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
| No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |
## Common Mistakes
### 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: existing > global legacy > instruction file > 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: existing > global legacy > instruction file > default
- Verify directory is ignored for project-local
- Auto-detect and run project setup
- Verify clean test baselineUse when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring Skill tool invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions
<SUBAGENT-STOP>
If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill.
</SUBAGENT-STOP>
<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke the skill.
IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.
This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this.
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
## Instruction Priority
Superpowers skills override default system prompt behavior, but **user instructions always take precedence**:
1. **User's explicit instructions** (CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, AGENTS.md, direct requests) — highest priority
2. **Superpowers skills** — override default system behavior where they conflict
3. **Default system prompt** — lowest priority
If CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, or AGENTS.md says "don't use TDD" and a skill says "always use TDD," follow the user's instructions. The user is in control.
## How to Access Skills
**In Claude Code:** Use the `Skill` tool. When you invoke a skill, its content is loaded and presented to you—follow it directly. Never use the Read tool on skill files.
**In Copilot CLI:** Use the `skill` tool. Skills are auto-discovered from installed plugins. The `skill` tool works the same as Claude Code's `Skill` tool.
**In Gemini CLI:** Skills activate via the `activate_skill` tool. Gemini loads skill metadata at session start and activates the full content on demand.
**In other environments:** Check your platform's documentation for how skills are loaded.
## Platform Adaptation
Skills use Claude Code tool names. Non-CC platforms: see `references/copilot-tools.md` (Copilot CLI), `references/codex-tools.md` (Codex) for tool equivalents. Gemini CLI users get the tool mapping loaded automatically via GEMINI.md.
# Using Skills
## The Rule
**Invoke relevant or requested skills BEFORE any response or action.** Even a 1% chance a skill might apply means that you should invoke the skill to check. If an invoked skill turns out to be wrong for the situation, you don't need to use it.
```dot
digraph skill_flow {
"User message received" [shape=doublecircle];
"About to EnterPlanMode?" [shape=doublecircle];
"Already brainstormed?" [shape=diamond];
"Invoke brainstorming skill" [shape=box];
"Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond];
"Invoke Skill tool" [shape=box];
"Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box];
"Has checklist?" [shape=diamond];
"Create TodoWrite todo per item" [shape=box];
"Follow skill exactly" [shape=box];
"Respond (including clarifications)" [shape=doublecircle];
"About to EnterPlanMode?" -> "Already brainstormed?";
"Already brainstormed?" -> "Invoke brainstorming skill" [label="no"];
"Already brainstormed?" -> "Might any skill apply?" [label="yes"];
"Invoke brainstorming skill" -> "Might any skill apply?";
"User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?";
"Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke Skill tool" [label="yes, even 1%"];
"Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"];
"Invoke Skill tool" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
"Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?";
"Has checklist?" -> "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [label="yes"];
"Has checklist?" -> "Follow skill exactly" [label="no"];
"Create TodoWrite todo per item" -> "Follow skill exactly";
}
```
## Red Flags
These thoughts mean STOP—you're rationalizing:
| Thought | Reality |
|---------|---------|
| "This is just a simple question" | Questions are tasks. Check for skills. |
| "I need more context first" | Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions. |
| "Let me explore the codebase first" | Skills tell you HOW to explore. Check first. |
| "I can check git/files quickly" | Files lack conversation context. Check for skills. |
| "Let me gather information first" | Skills tell you HOW to gather information. |
| "This doesn't need a formal skill" | If a skill exists, use it. |
| "I remember this skill" | Skills evolve. Read current version. |
| "This doesn't count as a task" | Action = task. Check for skills. |
| "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. |
| "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. |
| "This feels productive" | Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this. |
| "I know what that means" | Knowing the concept ≠ using the skill. Invoke it. |
## Skill Priority
When multiple skills could apply, use this order:
1. **Process skills first** (brainstorming, debugging) - these determine HOW to approach the task
2. **Implementation skills second** (frontend-design, mcp-builder) - these guide execution
"Let's build X" → brainstorming first, then implementation skills.
"Fix this bug" → debugging first, then domain-specific skills.
## Skill Types
**Rigid** (TDD, debugging): Follow exactly. Don't adapt away discipline.
**Flexible** (patterns): Adapt principles to context.
The skill itself tells you which.
## User Instructions
Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows.Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
# Verification Before Completion
## 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.**
## The Iron Law
```
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
```
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
## The Gate Function
```
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
```
## Common Failures
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|-------|----------|----------------|
| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
## Red Flags - STOP
- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
- About to commit/push/PR without verification
- Trusting agent success reports
- Relying on partial verification
- Thinking "just this once"
- Tired and wanting work over
- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
## Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
## Key Patterns
**Tests:**
```
✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
```
**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
```
✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
```
**Build:**
```
✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
```
**Requirements:**
```
✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
```
**Agent delegation:**
```
✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ 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:**
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
**Rule applies to:**
- Exact phrases
- 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.Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
# Writing Plans
## Overview
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
**Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.
**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
## Scope Check
If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
## File Structure
Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
- "Write the failing test" - step
- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
- "Commit" - step
## Plan Document Header
**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
```markdown
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---
```
## Task Structure
````markdown
### Task N: [Component Name]
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
```python
def test_specific_behavior():
result = function(input)
assert result == expected
```
- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
```python
def function(input):
return expected
```
- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: PASS
- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```
````
## No Placeholders
Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
- 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.
**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
## Execution Handoff
After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
**Which approach?"**
**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
**If Inline Execution chosen:**
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
- Batch execution with checkpoints for reviewUse when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment
# Writing Skills
## Overview
**Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.**
**Personal skills live in agent-specific directories (`~/.claude/skills` for Claude Code, `~/.agents/skills/` for Codex)**
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).
**Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the skill, you don't know if the skill teaches the right thing.
**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:test-driven-development before using this skill. That skill defines the fundamental RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle. This skill adapts TDD to documentation.
**Official guidance:** For Anthropic's official skill authoring best practices, see anthropic-best-practices.md. This document provides additional patterns and guidelines that complement the TDD-focused approach in this skill.
## What is a Skill?
A **skill** is a reference guide for proven techniques, patterns, or tools. Skills help future Claude instances find and apply effective approaches.
**Skills are:** Reusable techniques, patterns, tools, reference guides
**Skills are NOT:** Narratives about how you solved a problem once
## TDD Mapping for Skills
| TDD Concept | Skill Creation |
|-------------|----------------|
| **Test case** | Pressure scenario with subagent |
| **Production code** | Skill document (SKILL.md) |
| **Test fails (RED)** | Agent violates rule without skill (baseline) |
| **Test passes (GREEN)** | Agent complies with skill present |
| **Refactor** | Close loopholes while maintaining compliance |
| **Write test first** | Run baseline scenario BEFORE writing skill |
| **Watch it fail** | Document exact rationalizations agent uses |
| **Minimal code** | Write skill addressing those specific violations |
| **Watch it pass** | Verify agent now complies |
| **Refactor cycle** | Find new rationalizations → plug → re-verify |
The entire skill creation process follows RED-GREEN-REFACTOR.
## When to Create a Skill
**Create when:**
- Technique wasn't intuitively obvious to you
- You'd reference this again across projects
- Pattern applies broadly (not project-specific)
- Others would benefit
**Don't create for:**
- One-off solutions
- Standard practices well-documented elsewhere
- Project-specific conventions (put in CLAUDE.md)
- Mechanical constraints (if it's enforceable with regex/validation, automate it—save documentation for judgment calls)
## Skill Types
### Technique
Concrete method with steps to follow (condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing)
### Pattern
Way of thinking about problems (flatten-with-flags, test-invariants)
### Reference
API docs, syntax guides, tool documentation (office docs)
## Directory Structure
```
skills/
skill-name/
SKILL.md # Main reference (required)
supporting-file.* # Only if needed
```
**Flat namespace** - all skills in one searchable namespace
**Separate files for:**
1. **Heavy reference** (100+ lines) - API docs, comprehensive syntax
2. **Reusable tools** - Scripts, utilities, templates
**Keep inline:**
- Principles and concepts
- Code patterns (< 50 lines)
- Everything else
## SKILL.md Structure
**Frontmatter (YAML):**
- Two required fields: `name` and `description` (see [agentskills.io/specification](https://agentskills.io/specification) for all supported fields)
- Max 1024 characters total
- `name`: Use letters, numbers, and hyphens only (no parentheses, special chars)
- `description`: Third-person, describes ONLY when to use (NOT what it does)
- Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions
- Include specific symptoms, situations, and contexts
- **NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow** (see CSO section for why)
- Keep under 500 characters if possible
```markdown
---
name: Skill-Name-With-Hyphens
description: Use when [specific triggering conditions and symptoms]
---
# Skill Name
## Overview
What is this? Core principle in 1-2 sentences.
## When to Use
[Small inline flowchart IF decision non-obvious]
Bullet list with SYMPTOMS and use cases
When NOT to use
## Core Pattern (for techniques/patterns)
Before/after code comparison
## Quick Reference
Table or bullets for scanning common operations
## Implementation
Inline code for simple patterns
Link to file for heavy reference or reusable tools
## Common Mistakes
What goes wrong + fixes
## Real-World Impact (optional)
Concrete results
```
## Claude Search Optimization (CSO)
**Critical for discovery:** Future Claude needs to FIND your skill
### 1. Rich Description Field
**Purpose:** Claude reads description to decide which skills to load for a given task. Make it answer: "Should I read this skill right now?"
**Format:** Start with "Use when..." to focus on triggering conditions
**CRITICAL: Description = When to Use, NOT What the Skill Does**
The description should ONLY describe triggering conditions. Do NOT summarize the skill's process or workflow in the description.
**Why this matters:** Testing revealed that when a description summarizes the skill's workflow, Claude may follow the description instead of reading the full skill content. A description saying "code review between tasks" caused Claude to do ONE review, even though the skill's flowchart clearly showed TWO reviews (spec compliance then code quality).
When the description was changed to just "Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks" (no workflow summary), Claude correctly read the flowchart and followed the two-stage review process.
**The trap:** Descriptions that summarize workflow create a shortcut Claude will take. The skill body becomes documentation Claude skips.
```yaml
# ❌ BAD: Summarizes workflow - Claude may follow this instead of reading skill
description: Use when executing plans - dispatches subagent per task with code review between tasks
# ❌ BAD: Too much process detail
description: Use for TDD - write test first, watch it fail, write minimal code, refactor
# ✅ GOOD: Just triggering conditions, no workflow summary
description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
# ✅ GOOD: Triggering conditions only
description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
```
**Content:**
- Use concrete triggers, symptoms, and situations that signal this skill applies
- Describe the *problem* (race conditions, inconsistent behavior) not *language-specific symptoms* (setTimeout, sleep)
- Keep triggers technology-agnostic unless the skill itself is technology-specific
- If skill is technology-specific, make that explicit in the trigger
- Write in third person (injected into system prompt)
- **NEVER summarize the skill's process or workflow**
```yaml
# ❌ BAD: Too abstract, vague, doesn't include when to use
description: For async testing
# ❌ BAD: First person
description: I can help you with async tests when they're flaky
# ❌ BAD: Mentions technology but skill isn't specific to it
description: Use when tests use setTimeout/sleep and are flaky
# ✅ GOOD: Starts with "Use when", describes problem, no workflow
description: Use when tests have race conditions, timing dependencies, or pass/fail inconsistently
# ✅ GOOD: Technology-specific skill with explicit trigger
description: Use when using React Router and handling authentication redirects
```
### 2. Keyword Coverage
Use words Claude would search for:
- Error messages: "Hook timed out", "ENOTEMPTY", "race condition"
- Symptoms: "flaky", "hanging", "zombie", "pollution"
- Synonyms: "timeout/hang/freeze", "cleanup/teardown/afterEach"
- Tools: Actual commands, library names, file types
### 3. Descriptive Naming
**Use active voice, verb-first:**
- ✅ `creating-skills` not `skill-creation`
- ✅ `condition-based-waiting` not `async-test-helpers`
### 4. Token Efficiency (Critical)
**Problem:** getting-started and frequently-referenced skills load into EVERY conversation. Every token counts.
**Target word counts:**
- getting-started workflows: <150 words each
- Frequently-loaded skills: <200 words total
- Other skills: <500 words (still be concise)
**Techniques:**
**Move details to tool help:**
```bash
# ❌ BAD: Document all flags in SKILL.md
search-conversations supports --text, --both, --after DATE, --before DATE, --limit N
# ✅ GOOD: Reference --help
search-conversations supports multiple modes and filters. Run --help for details.
```
**Use cross-references:**
```markdown
# ❌ BAD: Repeat workflow details
When searching, dispatch subagent with template...
[20 lines of repeated instructions]
# ✅ GOOD: Reference other skill
Always use subagents (50-100x context savings). REQUIRED: Use [other-skill-name] for workflow.
```
**Compress examples:**
```markdown
# ❌ BAD: Verbose example (42 words)
your human partner: "How did we handle authentication errors in React Router before?"
You: I'll search past conversations for React Router authentication patterns.
[Dispatch subagent with search query: "React Router authentication error handling 401"]
# ✅ GOOD: Minimal example (20 words)
Partner: "How did we handle auth errors in React Router?"
You: Searching...
[Dispatch subagent → synthesis]
```
**Eliminate redundancy:**
- Don't repeat what's in cross-referenced skills
- Don't explain what's obvious from command
- Don't include multiple examples of same pattern
**Verification:**
```bash
wc -w skills/path/SKILL.md
# getting-started workflows: aim for <150 each
# Other frequently-loaded: aim for <200 total
```
**Name by what you DO or core insight:**
- ✅ `condition-based-waiting` > `async-test-helpers`
- ✅ `using-skills` not `skill-usage`
- ✅ `flatten-with-flags` > `data-structure-refactoring`
- ✅ `root-cause-tracing` > `debugging-techniques`
**Gerunds (-ing) work well for processes:**
- `creating-skills`, `testing-skills`, `debugging-with-logs`
- Active, describes the action you're taking
### 4. Cross-Referencing Other Skills
**When writing documentation that references other skills:**
Use skill name only, with explicit requirement markers:
- ✅ Good: `**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:test-driven-development`
- ✅ Good: `**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand superpowers:systematic-debugging`
- ❌ Bad: `See skills/testing/test-driven-development` (unclear if required)
- ❌ Bad: `@skills/testing/test-driven-development/SKILL.md` (force-loads, burns context)
**Why no @ links:** `@` syntax force-loads files immediately, consuming 200k+ context before you need them.
## Flowchart Usage
```dot
digraph when_flowchart {
"Need to show information?" [shape=diamond];
"Decision where I might go wrong?" [shape=diamond];
"Use markdown" [shape=box];
"Small inline flowchart" [shape=box];
"Need to show information?" -> "Decision where I might go wrong?" [label="yes"];
"Decision where I might go wrong?" -> "Small inline flowchart" [label="yes"];
"Decision where I might go wrong?" -> "Use markdown" [label="no"];
}
```
**Use flowcharts ONLY for:**
- Non-obvious decision points
- Process loops where you might stop too early
- "When to use A vs B" decisions
**Never use flowcharts for:**
- Reference material → Tables, lists
- Code examples → Markdown blocks
- Linear instructions → Numbered lists
- Labels without semantic meaning (step1, helper2)
See @graphviz-conventions.dot for graphviz style rules.
**Visualizing for your human partner:** Use `render-graphs.js` in this directory to render a skill's flowcharts to SVG:
```bash
./render-graphs.js ../some-skill # Each diagram separately
./render-graphs.js ../some-skill --combine # All diagrams in one SVG
```
## Code Examples
**One excellent example beats many mediocre ones**
Choose most relevant language:
- Testing techniques → TypeScript/JavaScript
- System debugging → Shell/Python
- Data processing → Python
**Good example:**
- Complete and runnable
- Well-commented explaining WHY
- From real scenario
- Shows pattern clearly
- Ready to adapt (not generic template)
**Don't:**
- Implement in 5+ languages
- Create fill-in-the-blank templates
- Write contrived examples
You're good at porting - one great example is enough.
## File Organization
### Self-Contained Skill
```
defense-in-depth/
SKILL.md # Everything inline
```
When: All content fits, no heavy reference needed
### Skill with Reusable Tool
```
condition-based-waiting/
SKILL.md # Overview + patterns
example.ts # Working helpers to adapt
```
When: Tool is reusable code, not just narrative
### Skill with Heavy Reference
```
pptx/
SKILL.md # Overview + workflows
pptxgenjs.md # 600 lines API reference
ooxml.md # 500 lines XML structure
scripts/ # Executable tools
```
When: Reference material too large for inline
## The Iron Law (Same as TDD)
```
NO SKILL WITHOUT A FAILING TEST FIRST
```
This applies to NEW skills AND EDITS to existing skills.
Write skill before testing? Delete it. Start over.
Edit skill without testing? Same violation.
**No exceptions:**
- Not for "simple additions"
- Not for "just adding a section"
- Not for "documentation updates"
- Don't keep untested changes as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" while running tests
- Delete means delete
**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** The superpowers:test-driven-development skill explains why this matters. Same principles apply to documentation.
## Testing All Skill Types
Different skill types need different test approaches:
### Discipline-Enforcing Skills (rules/requirements)
**Examples:** TDD, verification-before-completion, designing-before-coding
**Test with:**
- Academic questions: Do they understand the rules?
- Pressure scenarios: Do they comply under stress?
- Multiple pressures combined: time + sunk cost + exhaustion
- Identify rationalizations and add explicit counters
**Success criteria:** Agent follows rule under maximum pressure
### Technique Skills (how-to guides)
**Examples:** condition-based-waiting, root-cause-tracing, defensive-programming
**Test with:**
- Application scenarios: Can they apply the technique correctly?
- Variation scenarios: Do they handle edge cases?
- Missing information tests: Do instructions have gaps?
**Success criteria:** Agent successfully applies technique to new scenario
### Pattern Skills (mental models)
**Examples:** reducing-complexity, information-hiding concepts
**Test with:**
- Recognition scenarios: Do they recognize when pattern applies?
- Application scenarios: Can they use the mental model?
- Counter-examples: Do they know when NOT to apply?
**Success criteria:** Agent correctly identifies when/how to apply pattern
### Reference Skills (documentation/APIs)
**Examples:** API documentation, command references, library guides
**Test with:**
- Retrieval scenarios: Can they find the right information?
- Application scenarios: Can they use what they found correctly?
- Gap testing: Are common use cases covered?
**Success criteria:** Agent finds and correctly applies reference information
## Common Rationalizations for Skipping Testing
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Skill is obviously clear" | Clear to you ≠ clear to other agents. Test it. |
| "It's just a reference" | References can have gaps, unclear sections. Test retrieval. |
| "Testing is overkill" | Untested skills have issues. Always. 15 min testing saves hours. |
| "I'll test if problems emerge" | Problems = agents can't use skill. Test BEFORE deploying. |
| "Too tedious to test" | Testing is less tedious than debugging bad skill in production. |
| "I'm confident it's good" | Overconfidence guarantees issues. Test anyway. |
| "Academic review is enough" | Reading ≠ using. Test application scenarios. |
| "No time to test" | Deploying untested skill wastes more time fixing it later. |
**All of these mean: Test before deploying. No exceptions.**
## Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization
Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.
**Psychology note:** Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.
### Close Every Loophole Explicitly
Don't just state the rule - forbid specific workarounds:
<Bad>
```markdown
Write code before test? Delete it.
```
</Bad>
<Good>
```markdown
Write code before test? Delete it. Start over.
**No exceptions:**
- Don't keep it as "reference"
- Don't "adapt" it while writing tests
- Don't look at it
- Delete means delete
```
</Good>
### Address "Spirit vs Letter" Arguments
Add foundational principle early:
```markdown
**Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.**
```
This cuts off entire class of "I'm following the spirit" rationalizations.
### Build Rationalization Table
Capture rationalizations from baseline testing (see Testing section below). Every excuse agents make goes in the table:
```markdown
| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Too simple to test" | Simple code breaks. Test takes 30 seconds. |
| "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?" |
```
### Create Red Flags List
Make it easy for agents to self-check when rationalizing:
```markdown
## Red Flags - STOP and Start Over
- Code before test
- "I already manually tested it"
- "Tests after achieve the same purpose"
- "It's about spirit not ritual"
- "This is different because..."
**All of these mean: Delete code. Start over with TDD.**
```
### Update CSO for Violation Symptoms
Add to description: symptoms of when you're ABOUT to violate the rule:
```yaml
description: use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
```
## RED-GREEN-REFACTOR for Skills
Follow the TDD cycle:
### RED: Write Failing Test (Baseline)
Run pressure scenario with subagent WITHOUT the skill. Document exact behavior:
- What choices did they make?
- What rationalizations did they use (verbatim)?
- Which pressures triggered violations?
This is "watch the test fail" - you must see what agents naturally do before writing the skill.
### GREEN: Write Minimal Skill
Write skill that addresses those specific rationalizations. Don't add extra content for hypothetical cases.
Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
### REFACTOR: Close Loopholes
Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.
**Testing methodology:** See @testing-skills-with-subagents.md for the complete testing methodology:
- How to write pressure scenarios
- Pressure types (time, sunk cost, authority, exhaustion)
- Plugging holes systematically
- Meta-testing techniques
## Anti-Patterns
### ❌ Narrative Example
"In session 2025-10-03, we found empty projectDir caused..."
**Why bad:** Too specific, not reusable
### ❌ Multi-Language Dilution
example-js.js, example-py.py, example-go.go
**Why bad:** Mediocre quality, maintenance burden
### ❌ Code in Flowcharts
```dot
step1 [label="import fs"];
step2 [label="read file"];
```
**Why bad:** Can't copy-paste, hard to read
### ❌ Generic Labels
helper1, helper2, step3, pattern4
**Why bad:** Labels should have semantic meaning
## STOP: Before Moving to Next Skill
**After writing ANY skill, you MUST STOP and complete the deployment process.**
**Do NOT:**
- Create multiple skills in batch without testing each
- Move to next skill before current one is verified
- Skip testing because "batching is more efficient"
**The deployment checklist below is MANDATORY for EACH skill.**
Deploying untested skills = deploying untested code. It's a violation of quality standards.
## Skill Creation Checklist (TDD Adapted)
**IMPORTANT: Use TodoWrite to create todos for EACH checklist item below.**
**RED Phase - Write Failing Test:**
- [ ] Create pressure scenarios (3+ combined pressures for discipline skills)
- [ ] Run scenarios WITHOUT skill - document baseline behavior verbatim
- [ ] Identify patterns in rationalizations/failures
**GREEN Phase - Write Minimal Skill:**
- [ ] Name uses only letters, numbers, hyphens (no parentheses/special chars)
- [ ] YAML frontmatter with required `name` and `description` fields (max 1024 chars; see [spec](https://agentskills.io/specification))
- [ ] Description starts with "Use when..." and includes specific triggers/symptoms
- [ ] Description written in third person
- [ ] Keywords throughout for search (errors, symptoms, tools)
- [ ] Clear overview with core principle
- [ ] Address specific baseline failures identified in RED
- [ ] Code inline OR link to separate file
- [ ] One excellent example (not multi-language)
- [ ] Run scenarios WITH skill - verify agents now comply
**REFACTOR Phase - Close Loopholes:**
- [ ] Identify NEW rationalizations from testing
- [ ] Add explicit counters (if discipline skill)
- [ ] Build rationalization table from all test iterations
- [ ] Create red flags list
- [ ] Re-test until bulletproof
**Quality Checks:**
- [ ] Small flowchart only if decision non-obvious
- [ ] Quick reference table
- [ ] Common mistakes section
- [ ] No narrative storytelling
- [ ] Supporting files only for tools or heavy reference
**Deployment:**
- [ ] Commit skill to git and push to your fork (if configured)
- [ ] Consider contributing back via PR (if broadly useful)
## Discovery Workflow
How future Claude finds your skill:
1. **Encounters problem** ("tests are flaky")
3. **Finds SKILL** (description matches)
4. **Scans overview** (is this relevant?)
5. **Reads patterns** (quick reference table)
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.