rogee/superpowers
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git synced 2026-07-22 01:44:02 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

writing-plans: constraint hygiene for commit rules and environment assumptions

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Drew Ritter
2026-07-20 02:47:21 -07:00
parent cc690476fc
commit 3472c5aecb
1 changed files with 12 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

13
skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -71,7 +71,11 @@ independently testable deliverable.
[The spec's project-wide requirements — version floors, dependency limits, [The spec's project-wide requirements — version floors, dependency limits,
naming and copy rules, platform requirements — one line each, with exact naming and copy rules, platform requirements — one line each, with exact
values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly values copied verbatim from the spec. Every task's requirements implicitly
include this section.] include this section. Three things may never enter it: cosmetic absolutes
on every commit (a fixed trailer or byline the work does not need), your
own identity or model name promoted into a rule, and environment
constraints (versions, platforms, paths) you have not verified against the
environment the plan will execute in.]
--- ---
``` ```
@@ -123,6 +127,8 @@ Expected: PASS
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature" git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
``` ```
Commit messages describe the change. Never mandate session boilerplate — trailers, bylines, model names — as a per-commit rule; what your session stamps on its commits is not a requirement of the work.
```` ````
## No Placeholders ## No Placeholders
@@ -145,6 +151,11 @@ After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the
**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. **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.
**4. Constraint hygiene:** Does any Global Constraint mandate a per-commit
cosmetic absolute, name the authoring model or session, or assert an
environment fact (version floor, platform, path) you did not verify? Cut
or verify it.
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. 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 ## Execution Handoff