fix(writing-skills): hang backfire mechanism on the separated prohibition-vs-recipe comparison (NEW-4); control comparison stated as trend

Adversarial review findings 1/3/9: the head-to-head result is now scoped
to its context (dispatch-prompt guidance) with an explicit micro-test-your-
own-case instruction; the nuance-clause result is reported as
consistent->noisy rather than 'measurably dilutes'; the checklist line is
scoped to behavior-shaping guidance and the micro method no longer assumes
raw API access.

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -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 (exactly this path — not `docs/specs/`)
+6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
 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
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ digraph brainstorming {
 **Documentation:**
 
 - Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
-  - (An explicit user instruction overrides this default; an existing differently-named docs directory does not)
+  - (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
 

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 ## The Process
 
 ### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
-1. Read plan file, and the spec it cites in its `**Spec:**` header (plans reference requirements rather than restating them)
+1. Read plan file
 2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
 3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
 4. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -86,10 +86,6 @@ digraph process {
 }
 ```
 
-## Spec Context
-
-If the plan's header cites a spec (`**Spec:** <path>`), read it once during plan extraction. Plans reference requirements rather than restating them — when a task cites a spec section, paste that section's text into the implementer and spec-reviewer prompts along with the task text. Implementer subagents never read the spec file themselves; the spec reviewer may additionally read it at the cited path (its prompt says so).
-
 ## Model Selection
 
 Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.

skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md

@@ -12,8 +12,6 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     [FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here, don't make subagent read file]
 
-    [If the task cites spec sections, paste the cited sections' text here too]
-
     ## Context
 
     [Scene-setting: where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]

skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     ## What Was Requested
 
-    [FULL TEXT of task requirements, including the text of any spec sections the task cites]
+    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
 
     ## What Implementer Claims They Built
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
     ```
 
-    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase. (One exception: if the requirements cite a spec document, you may read that spec at its cited path.)
+    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase.
 
     ## Read-Only Review
 

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -7,18 +7,16 @@ 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 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.
+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.
 
 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, paraphrase, or summarize it.** The spec owns the WHAT and WHY — requirements, acceptance criteria, design decisions; the plan owns the HOW — tasks, files, code, commands. Cite it by path in the header and by section where a task needs context. Reference discipline never means skipping the spec: if brainstorming produced one, it exists and the plan cites it. No Placeholders still requires repeating code and commands WITHIN the plan; copying FROM the spec is different: a step that needs a requirement's prose is under-specified — turn it into a concrete action. Snapshotting spec text into the plan hides drift, not prevents it. "Zero context" means each step is mechanically executable, not that the plan repeats the spec.
-
 **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.
 
 **Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
-- (An explicit user instruction overrides this default; an existing differently-named docs directory does not)
+- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
 
 ## Scope Check
 
@@ -55,8 +53,6 @@ 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. Only if no spec doc exists (requirements arrived conversationally; brainstorming never ran): write "none — requirements:" and state them once here, not per task]
-
 **Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
 
 **Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -456,10 +456,29 @@ Different skill types need different test approaches:
 
 **All of these mean: Test before deploying. No exceptions.**
 
+## Match the Form to the Failure
+
+Before writing guidance, classify the baseline failure. The form that bulletproofs one failure type measurably backfires on another.
+
+| Baseline failure | Right form | Wrong form |
+|---|---|---|
+| Skips/violates a rule under pressure (knows better, does it anyway) | Prohibition + rationalization table + red flags (see Bulletproofing below) | Soft guidance ("prefer...", "consider...") |
+| Complies, but output has the wrong shape (bloated prompt, buried verdict, restated spec) | Positive recipe or contract: state what the output IS — its parts, in order | Prohibition list ("don't restate", "never narrate") |
+| Omits a required element from something they already produce | Structural: REQUIRED field or slot in the template they fill in | Prose reminders near the template |
+| Behavior should depend on a condition | Conditional keyed to an observable predicate ("if the brief exists, reference it") | Unconditional rule + exemption clauses |
+
+**Why prohibitions backfire on shaping problems:** under a competing incentive ("make the prompt self-contained"), agents negotiate with "don't X". In head-to-head wording tests on dispatch-prompt guidance, the prohibition arm produced clearly more of the unwanted content than the recipe arm (fully separated distributions), and trended worse than even the no-guidance control — micro-test your own case rather than assuming, but never reach for the prohibition by default. A recipe leaves nothing to negotiate: the output matches the stated shape or it doesn't.
+
+**Rules for whichever form you pick:**
+- **No nuance clauses.** "Don't X unless it matters" reopens the negotiation — appending a single nuance clause to a winning recipe degraded it from consistent to noisy in the same wording tests. Express a real exception as its own conditional on an observable predicate.
+- **Exemption clauses don't scope.** "This limit doesn't apply to code blocks" still suppresses code blocks. If part of the output must be exempt, restructure so the rule can't reach it.
+
 ## Bulletproofing Skills Against Rationalization
 
 Skills that enforce discipline (like TDD) need to resist rationalization. Agents are smart and will find loopholes when under pressure.
 
+**Scope:** this toolkit is for discipline failures — an agent that knows the rule and skips it under pressure. For wrong-shaped output or omitted elements, prohibition-based bulletproofing backfires; use the forms in Match the Form to the Failure instead.
+
 **Psychology note:** Understanding WHY persuasion techniques work helps you apply them systematically. See persuasion-principles.md for research foundation (Cialdini, 2021; Meincke et al., 2025) on authority, commitment, scarcity, social proof, and unity principles.
 
 ### Close Every Loophole Explicitly
@@ -553,6 +572,18 @@ Run same scenarios WITH skill. Agent should now comply.
 
 Agent found new rationalization? Add explicit counter. Re-test until bulletproof.
 
+### Micro-Test Wording Before Full Scenarios
+
+Full pressure-scenario runs are the final gate, but they are slow and expensive per iteration. Verify the wording itself first with micro-tests:
+
+1. **One fresh-context sample per call** — a raw API call, or a single-shot subagent if you don't have API access. System prompt = the realistic context the guidance will live in (the full skill or prompt template, not the guidance in isolation); user message = a task that tempts the failure.
+2. **Always include a no-guidance control.** If the control doesn't exhibit the failure, there is nothing to fix — stop, don't author the guidance.
+3. **5+ reps per variant.** Single samples lie.
+4. **Manually read every flagged match.** Score programmatically if you like, but template echoes and quoted counter-examples masquerade as hits; automated counts alone overstate both failure and success.
+5. **Variance is a metric.** When guidance lands, reps converge on the same shape. Five different interpretations across five reps means the wording isn't binding — tighten the form before adding words.
+
+Micro-tests verify wording; they do not replace pressure scenarios for discipline skills.
+
 **Testing methodology:** See [testing-skills-with-subagents.md](testing-skills-with-subagents.md) for the complete testing methodology:
 - How to write pressure scenarios
 - Pressure types (time, sunk cost, authority, exhaustion)
@@ -610,6 +641,8 @@ Deploying untested skills = deploying untested code. It's a violation of quality
 - [ ] Keywords throughout for search (errors, symptoms, tools)
 - [ ] Clear overview with core principle
 - [ ] Address specific baseline failures identified in RED
+- [ ] Guidance form matches the failure type (see Match the Form to the Failure)
+- [ ] For behavior-shaping guidance: wording micro-tested against a no-guidance control (5+ reps, every flagged match read manually) — N/A for pure reference skills
 - [ ] Code inline OR link to separate file
 - [ ] One excellent example (not multi-language)
 - [ ] Run scenarios WITH skill - verify agents now comply