Compare commits

...

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Drew Ritter
fa07663322 fix(skills): plans reference the spec instead of restating it (SUP-333 #1)
writing-plans told agents to "document everything they need to know"
assuming zero context — every agent in the 2026-06-09 six-agent quorum
sweep obeyed and restated the entire spec inline in the plan
(cost-spec-plan-duplication failed 5/5 completed agents; pi's plan was
683 lines of duplicated spec).

- writing-plans: state the division of labor — spec owns WHAT/WHY,
  plan owns HOW; cite the spec by path/section, never restate it.
  "Zero context" means mechanically executable steps, not duplication.
  Add a **Spec:** line to the plan header template.
- brainstorming: close the path loophole the re-run exposed — claude
  shortened docs/superpowers/specs/ to docs/specs/ in 2/2 runs; both
  path mentions now explicitly forbid the shortening.

TDD evidence (quorum):
- RED: batch-20260609T023452Z-68aa et al — 5/5 agents fail
- GREEN: cost-spec-plan-duplication-claude-20260609T234142Z-9625 pass
  (plan: "this plan does not restate them" + spec cited by path;
  both docs in docs/superpowers/)
- Canary: triggering-writing-plans-claude pass (skill still fires)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-09 16:52:21 -07:00
Jesse Vincent
f55642e0dd Require contributors to disclose authoring environment and target dev
Add a mandatory self-identification disclosure (model, harness, harness
version, all installed plugins) to the PR template and all three issue
templates, and document the requirement in the contributor guidelines.
We weigh contributions differently depending on what produced them:
content reasoned from documentation is held to a different bar than work
grounded in a real session.

Also state explicitly, in both CLAUDE.md and the PR template, that all
PRs must target the dev branch rather than main.
2026-06-08 22:14:34 -07:00
Drew Ritter
ae1eefb7f9 chore(evals): bump submodule to --scenarios filter (ff3ee83)
Adds `run-all --scenarios` for resuming a scenario subset across the Code
Assist rate-limit windows. Follows the agy rate-limit fix (79f9963).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-02 22:46:00 -07:00
Drew Ritter
617168aff5 chore(evals): bump submodule to antigravity rate-limit fix (79f9963)
Serialize antigravity against the Gemini Code Assist rate limit
(max_concurrency=1), diagnose 429/RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED honestly instead of as
auth, fail-fast on a latched window, and tolerant preflight OK match.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-02 16:27:35 -07:00
8 changed files with 61 additions and 7 deletions

View File

@@ -12,14 +12,17 @@ add a comment or reaction to the existing one instead.
- [ ] I searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate
## Environment
## Environment (required)
<!-- Required. We assume an agent filed this report — tell us which one and
where it ran. We weigh reports by what produced them. -->
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Superpowers version | |
| Harness (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
| Harness version | |
| Model | |
| Your model + version | |
| All plugins installed | |
| OS + shell | |
## Is this a Superpowers issue or a platform issue?

View File

@@ -30,5 +30,18 @@ progress, and some were intentionally declined.
of project? If this is specific to your domain, workflow, or a
third-party tool, it may belong as its own plugin instead. -->
## Environment (required)
<!-- Required. We assume an agent wrote this request — tell us which one and
where it ran. We weigh proposals reasoned from documentation differently
than ones grounded in a real session where the problem actually came up. -->
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Superpowers version | |
| Harness (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
| Harness version | |
| Your model + version | |
| All plugins installed | |
## Context
<!-- Optional: version info, harness, model, workflow where you hit this. -->
<!-- Optional: the workflow where you hit this, links, transcripts. -->

View File

@@ -21,3 +21,14 @@ requested or discussed.
## Have you tried manual installation?
<!-- Many tools work with Superpowers through manual setup even without
official support. Did you try? What happened? -->
## Environment (required)
<!-- Required. We assume an agent wrote this request — tell us which one and
where it ran. -->
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Harness you currently use (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
| Harness version | |
| Your model + version | |
| All plugins installed | |

View File

@@ -4,6 +4,23 @@ sections blank, contain multiple unrelated changes, or show no evidence
of human involvement will be closed without review.
-->
> **This PR MUST target the `dev` branch, not `main`.** `main` is the
> released branch; active work lands on `dev` first. PRs opened against
> `main` will be asked to retarget `dev` before review.
## Who is submitting this PR? (required)
<!-- Required. PRs that omit this will be closed. We assume an agent wrote
this PR — tell us which one and where it ran. We weigh contributions by
what produced them: content reasoned from documentation is held to a
different bar than work grounded in a real session. -->
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Your model + version | |
| Harness + version | |
| All plugins installed | |
| Human partner who reviewed this diff | |
## What problem are you trying to solve?
<!-- Describe the specific problem you encountered. If this was a session
issue, include: what you were doing, what went wrong, the model's

View File

@@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ Before you open a PR against this repo, you MUST:
2. **Search for existing PRs** — open AND closed — that address the same problem. If duplicates exist, STOP and tell your human partner. Do not open another duplicate.
3. **Verify this is a real problem.** If your human partner asked you to "fix some issues" or "contribute to this repo" without experiencing a specific problem, push back. Ask them what broke, what failed, what the user experience was.
4. **Confirm the change belongs in core.** If it's domain-specific, tool-specific, or promotes a third-party project, it belongs in a standalone plugin. Tell your human partner.
5. **Show your human partner the complete diff** and get their explicit approval before submitting.
5. **Identify yourself.** Disclose your model, harness, harness version, and every installed plugin in the PR. Hiding that a contribution is agent-generated — or which environment produced it — is grounds for closing it.
6. **Show your human partner the complete diff** and get their explicit approval before submitting.
If any of these checks fail, do not open the PR. Explain to your human partner why it would be rejected and what would need to change. They will thank you for saving them the embarrassment.
@@ -26,6 +27,10 @@ If any of these checks fail, do not open the PR. Explain to your human partner w
**PRs that show no evidence of human involvement will be closed.** A human must review the complete proposed diff before submission.
**Submitters MUST identify themselves.** Every PR and issue must disclose the model, harness, harness version, and all installed plugins used to produce the contribution — or state plainly that it was written by hand with no agent. This is not optional. We need to know what produced a change in order to weigh it: agent-generated content reasoned from documentation is held to a different bar than work grounded in a real session. Contributions that hide their authoring environment will be closed.
**All PRs MUST target the `dev` branch, not `main`.** `main` is the released branch; active work lands on `dev` first. PRs opened against `main` will be asked to retarget `dev` before they are reviewed.
## What We Will Not Accept
### Third-party dependencies

2
evals

Submodule evals updated: e2b37138c8...ff3ee83f94

View File

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
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
6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit (exactly this path — not `docs/specs/`)
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
@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ digraph brainstorming {
**Documentation:**
- Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
- The `docs/superpowers/` prefix is the convention; do not shorten it to `docs/specs/`
- (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

View File

@@ -7,10 +7,12 @@ description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, bef
## 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.
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to execute: 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.
**Plans reference the spec; they never restate it.** The spec owns the WHAT and WHY — requirements, acceptance criteria, design decisions. The plan owns the HOW — tasks, files, code, commands. Cite the spec by path in the header and by section where a task needs context. Re-deriving spec content inline doubles the documents and lets them drift apart. "Zero context" means the engineer can execute each step mechanically; it does not mean the plan repeats what the spec already says — they can read the spec at the cited path.
**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.
@@ -53,6 +55,8 @@ This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-con
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Spec:** [Path to the spec doc, e.g. `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` — requirements and design decisions live there; do not restate them here]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]