Staff-review findings (4-reviewer panel):
- CONTRADICTION FIX: Spec Context said "Subagents never read the spec
file themselves" while spec-reviewer-prompt grants exactly that
access. Now: implementers never read it; the spec reviewer may, at
the cited path.
- "a constant bump" was an unqualified trivial example — a one-line
BCRYPT_ROUNDS or session-TTL change is a security-posture change;
now qualified "with no security or behavioral consequences"
(matching brainstorming's config-change qualifier). The diff-property
definition adds "nothing security-relevant".
- Proportionality rewritten 146→~115 words (house style; one statement
of the multi-task containment instead of two).
- Red Flags Never-line trimmed 33→14 words (pointer to Proportionality
instead of third in-file restatement).
- Prompt-template rationale tails cut (the controller just read Spec
Context; subagents need the pasted text, not the policy rationale).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adversarial + consistency review findings (B1, B2, B3, B5, F1):
- Red Flags line read literally licensed skipping reviews on trivial
tasks INSIDE multi-task plans; now states the only exception is a
whole-plan trivial change and never-skip within multi-task plans.
- "a one-line edit" example blessed one-line behavioral changes
(e.g. adding "|| user.isOwner"); dropped. Trivial is now defined as
a property of the diff (no logic/control-flow/behavior change), not
of the plan's self-description. The "nothing for review to catch"
justification proved too much; replaced with the cost argument.
- "verify it" was undefined on the trivial path; now concrete (run
tests/command, confirm output, verification-before-completion).
- Flowchart diamond now matches the prose: "fully-specified" + "any
doubt = no" (the failing agents execute the flowchart literally).
- New Spec Context section + prompt-template updates: the controller
reads the spec cited in the plan header and pastes cited sections
into implementer/spec-reviewer prompts; the spec reviewer's
diff-only rule gets a spec-document exception. Without this, the
stack's reference-not-restate rule starves the SDD pipeline of
requirements.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add a conditional TDD Evidence field to the implementer report format so controllers can verify RED and GREEN output when TDD was required.
The field asks for the command run, relevant RED/GREEN output, and the expected RED failure reason rather than raw full logs.
Fixes#994.
Replace Claude-Code-specific tool names in skill prose, prompt
templates, and OpenCode-facing docs with action-language descriptions
that resolve to each runtime's native tool via the per-platform refs.
Changes by category:
- Prose mentions ("Use TodoWrite to track...", "Use Task tool with
general-purpose type") → action language ("Track each item as a
todo", "Dispatch a general-purpose subagent")
- Prompt template headers (6 files): "Task tool (general-purpose):"
→ "Subagent (general-purpose):" — preserves the type information
without naming Claude Code's specific dispatch tool
- DOT flowchart node labels: "Invoke Skill tool" → "Invoke the
skill"; "Create TodoWrite todo per item" → "Create a todo per
item"
- OpenCode INSTALL.md and docs/README.opencode.md: replace the old
"TodoWrite → todowrite, Task → @mention" mapping (which both
taught a vocabulary skills no longer use AND was wrong about
@mention being a real OpenCode syntax) with an action-language
mapping verified against the installed OpenCode CLI's tool
inventory.
The platform-tools refs landed in Phase B already document each
runtime's resolution; skills now speak in the actions those refs
map. Tool names that genuinely belong only in the per-platform
dispatch section ("In Claude Code: Use the `Skill` tool") and the
Claude-Code-specific Bash run_in_background flag note in
visual-companion remain — those are intentional carve-outs.
Add design-for-isolation and working-in-existing-codebases guidance to
brainstorming. Add file size awareness and escalation prompts to SDD
implementer and code quality reviewer. Writing-plans gets architecture
section sizing guidance. Spec and plan reviewers get architecture and
file size checks.
