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

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

.claude-plugin/marketplace.json

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
     {
       "name": "superpowers",
       "description": "Core skills library for Claude Code: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-      "version": "6.1.0",
+      "version": "6.1.1",
       "source": "./",
       "author": {
         "name": "Jesse Vincent",

.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "superpowers",
   "description": "Core skills library for Claude Code: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-  "version": "6.1.0",
+  "version": "6.1.1",
   "author": {
     "name": "Jesse Vincent",
     "email": "jesse@fsck.com"

.codex-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "superpowers",
-  "version": "6.1.0",
+  "version": "6.1.1",
   "description": "An agentic skills framework & software development methodology that works: planning, TDD, debugging, and collaboration workflows.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Jesse Vincent",

.cursor-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
   "name": "superpowers",
   "displayName": "Superpowers",
   "description": "Core skills library: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-  "version": "6.1.0",
+  "version": "6.1.1",
   "author": {
     "name": "Jesse Vincent",
     "email": "jesse@fsck.com"

.kimi-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "superpowers",
-  "version": "6.1.0",
+  "version": "6.1.1",
   "description": "An agentic skills framework and software development methodology.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Jesse Vincent",

RELEASE-NOTES.md

@@ -1,5 +1,16 @@
 # Superpowers Release Notes
 
+## v6.1.1 (2026-07-02)
+
+### Codex
+
+- **Codex no longer re-registers the Claude SessionStart hook.** v6.1.0 removed the Codex hook config and its manifest `hooks` pointer, meaning to stop Codex from installing a SessionStart hook — but with no `hooks` field, Codex fell back to auto-discovering `hooks/hooks.json`, the Claude Code SessionStart hook that the marketplace ships from the repo root, and re-registered it along with its install-time trust prompt. The Codex manifest now declares an explicit empty hooks object (`hooks: {}`), which Codex reads as "no hooks" instead of reaching the auto-discovery fallback. An absent field, `[]`, and an empty inline list all collapse back to the fallback, so the value has to be exactly `{}`.
+- **Removed orphaned Codex session-start dead code.** `hooks/session-start-codex` had no caller once the Codex hook config was deleted, so it and its redundant test cases are gone. The worked shell-hook example in `docs/porting-to-a-new-harness.md` moves from Codex — now native skill discovery with no session-start hook — to Cursor, a live shell-hook harness, and the stale `hooks-codex.json` pointer in `docs/windows/polyglot-hooks.md` is corrected. The Codex plugin category is also fixed to "Developer Tools".
+
+### Packaging
+
+- **New `package-codex-plugin.sh` for building the Codex portal package.** A maintainer script produces a deterministic Codex "portal" archive — `.zip` by default, `tar.gz` on request — that normalizes entry timestamps, preserves executable modes, verifies every packaged skill ships its OpenAI metadata, includes the app and composer icons, and refuses to run against a dirty worktree. The packaged manifest keeps the source `hooks: {}` object so a portal-installed plugin avoids the same SessionStart auto-discovery, and the script can rebuild a byte-identical archive from a saved metadata source. Covered by a new test suite.
+
 ## v6.1.0 (2026-06-30)
 
 ### Lower Per-Session Token Cost

gemini-extension.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "superpowers",
   "description": "Core skills library: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques",
-  "version": "6.1.0",
+  "version": "6.1.1",
   "contextFileName": "GEMINI.md"
 }

package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "superpowers",
-  "version": "6.1.0",
+  "version": "6.1.1",
   "description": "Superpowers skills and runtime bootstrap for coding agents",
   "type": "module",
   "main": ".opencode/plugins/superpowers.js",

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

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

skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

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

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

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

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

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

skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

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

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

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

skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior
 
 ## Overview
 
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
 **Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
 
 **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
@@ -286,11 +284,3 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 **Related skills:**
 - **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
 - **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging sessions:
-- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
-- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
-- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
-- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -203,56 +203,6 @@ Next failing test for next feature.
 | **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 |

skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md

@@ -156,47 +156,12 @@ Ready to implement <feature-name>
 | Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
 | No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |
 
-## Common Mistakes
+## Common Rationalizations
 
-### Fighting the harness
-
-- **Problem:** Using `git worktree add` when the platform already provides isolation
-- **Fix:** Step 0 detects existing isolation. Step 1a defers to native tools.
-
-### Skipping detection
-
-- **Problem:** Creating a nested worktree inside an existing one
-- **Fix:** Always run Step 0 before creating anything
-
-### Skipping ignore verification
-
-- **Problem:** Worktree contents get tracked, pollute git status
-- **Fix:** Always use `git check-ignore` before creating project-local worktree
-
-### Assuming directory location
-
-- **Problem:** Creates inconsistency, violates project conventions
-- **Fix:** Follow priority: explicit instructions > existing project-local directory > default
-
-### Proceeding with failing tests
-
-- **Problem:** Can't distinguish new bugs from pre-existing issues
-- **Fix:** Report failures, get explicit permission to proceed
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-- Create a worktree when Step 0 detects existing isolation
-- Use `git worktree add` when you have a native worktree tool (e.g., `EnterWorktree`). This is the #1 mistake — if you have it, use it.
-- Skip Step 1a by jumping straight to Step 1b's git commands
-- Create worktree without verifying it's ignored (project-local)
-- Skip baseline test verification
-- Proceed with failing tests without asking
-
-**Always:**
-- Run Step 0 detection first
-- Prefer native tools over git fallback
-- Follow directory priority: explicit instructions > existing project-local directory > default
-- Verify directory is ignored for project-local
-- Auto-detect and run project setup
-- Verify clean test baseline
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "I'm obviously not in a worktree — no need to check" | Run Step 0. Harness-created isolation and submodules both fool eyeballing; the detection commands settle it. |
+| "`git worktree add` is quicker than hunting for a native tool" | A native tool (e.g. `EnterWorktree`) owns placement, branching, and cleanup. Bypassing it is the #1 mistake — it creates phantom state your harness can't see or manage. |
+| "The worktree directory is surely ignored already" | Run `git check-ignore`. An unignored worktree directory commits the whole tree into the repo. |
+| "Any directory name works" | Explicit instructions beat an existing project-local directory, which beats the `.worktrees/` default. |
+| "The workspace is fresh — baseline tests can wait" | A dirty baseline makes every later failure ambiguous. Run the tests now; proceeding past failures is your human partner's call. |

skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

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

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

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

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

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