Responds to maintainer review asking for better implementer
self-reflection. The report format already demands command+output for
TDD evidence and fix-round covering tests, but the full-suite claim
asked only for prose — and that is the claim that rotted in the field:
three consecutive fix rounds shipped a "full suite passes" claim the
fix reviewer found unreproducible, each time because the suite had run
before later edits made the result stale.
Two changes, both at the moment the report is written: every claimed
gate needs its exact command and the tail of fresh output — fresh
meaning after the final edit, otherwise rerun or report the gate as
unverified — and a missing pasted output is itself a defect for the
reviewer to flag, which puts enforcement at the consumption side the
same way the dispatch hints do. Fix reports claiming a full-suite pass
need a fresh run, not the pre-findings one.
This is verification-before-completion's gate function relocated into
the one prompt subagents actually receive.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Iteration-1 profiling: implementers and per-dispatch overhead dominate
(429 of 686 subagent turns; controller coordination is half the dollars
and scales with dispatch count), reviewers are individually lean, and
the controller pasted the diff in only 2 of 22 review dispatches when
the guidance was phrased as optional.
Changes: spec-reviewer-prompt.md + code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md
replaced by task-reviewer-prompt.md (one reviewer, one reading of a
pasted diff, two verdicts: spec compliance ✅/❌/⚠️ and task quality);
one fix dispatch can address both kinds of findings; controller now
runs git diff itself and pastes it (imperative, not optional);
implementers run focused tests while iterating and the full suite once
before committing; flowchart, example, Red Flags, tool tables updated.
The broad final whole-branch review is unchanged.
Live eval deliverables shipped five polish defects; tracing each through
the transcripts showed three mechanisms, each now addressed:
- reviewers answered pointed checklist items with unsupported yes
(evidence rule: every What-to-Check answer needs file:line evidence)
- no reviewer ever saw the design's global constraints (controllers now
paste binding constraints into task requirements)
- test output noise was invisible everywhere (pristine-output checks in
implementer self-review and quality review)
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.
