refine(skills): staff-review round — fix spec-access contradiction, qualify constant bumps

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>

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
+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
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ digraph brainstorming {
 **Documentation:**
 
 - Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
-  - (User preferences for spec location override this default)
+  - (An explicit user instruction overrides this default; an existing differently-named docs directory does not)
 - 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
+1. Read plan file, and the spec it cites in its `**Spec:**` header (plans reference requirements rather than restating them)
 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

@@ -93,6 +93,10 @@ 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

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ 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]
+    [FULL TEXT of task requirements, including the text of any spec sections the task cites]
 
     ## 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.
+    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.)
 
     ## Read-Only Review
 

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -7,16 +7,18 @@ 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, 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`
-- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+- (An explicit user instruction overrides this default; an existing differently-named docs directory does not)
 
 ## Scope Check
 
@@ -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. 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]