fix(skills): brainstorming gate exempts requests with nothing to design (SUP-333 #3)

The HARD-GATE ("EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity") plus
the anti-pattern list naming "a config change" made design+approval
mandatory even for fully-specified trivial asks — all 6 agents in the
2026-06-09 quorum sweep ran a multi-option design flow for "a basic
checkbox, nothing fancy" (cost-checkbox-over-trigger failed 6/6).

Two layers, because routing happens before skill content is read
(GREEN attempt 1 proved it: the agent invoked the skill on the
description's mandate and only then saw the in-skill exception, and
the invocation itself is the cost event):

- description: carve-out visible at skill-selection time — zero open
  design decisions, fully specified trivial change → implement
  directly without invoking.
- HARD-GATE: matching exception with objective re-gating tripwires
  (new file/dependency, schema/API/data question, >1 plausible
  interpretation, user frames it as a feature/project), and the
  anti-pattern section now distinguishes "seems simple" (a
  rationalization when decisions exist) from "contains every decision"
  (the exception). "A config change" moves from the all-of-them list
  to the exception's example.

The repo's acceptance test ("Let's make a react todo list" must
auto-trigger brainstorming) is unaffected: a react todo list leaves
many decisions open and todo lists remain in the anti-pattern list.

TDD evidence (quorum):
- RED: cost-checkbox-over-trigger fails 6/6 agents (batch 2026-06-09);
  GREEN attempt 1 with in-skill exception only: still fail (invoked
  via description, then asked a clarifying question)
- GREEN: cost-checkbox-over-trigger-claude-20260610T004320Z-a30e pass —
  no brainstorming invocation, agent cited the exception verbatim,
  checkbox landed in 31s
- Canary: cost-spec-plan-duplication-claude-20260610T004506Z-22ea pass —
  a real feature still triggers the full brainstorm→spec→plan flow
  (and the stacked writing-plans reference discipline holds)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: brainstorming
-description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation. The one exception (nothing-to-design) must be EARNED by a tripwire scan first - invoke this skill if the change: adds a file or dependency; touches a schema, API contract, or persisted data (even when the user stated the outcome); deletes or disables working functionality (even when asked); touches security posture at all (auth, sessions, timeouts, permissions, CORS, crypto - even with the exact value stated); alters user-visible behavior beyond the stated change; has more than one plausible reading; or is framed as a feature or project. Only when NO tripwire hits and the outcome is fully specified (e.g. 'add a basic checkbox, nothing fancy' where context leaves nothing to choose): state your scan in one line, then implement directly without invoking this skill."
+description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation. The one exception: a request that leaves zero design decisions open (a fully specified trivial change, e.g. 'add a basic checkbox, nothing fancy') needs no design - implement it directly without invoking this skill."
 ---
 
 # Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
@@ -10,22 +10,14 @@ Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborativ
 Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
 
 <HARD-GATE>
-Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity, with exactly one exception.
+Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
 
-Exception — nothing to design: when the exception in this skill's description applies (zero open design decisions; its tripwire list puts the gate back on), implement directly. TDD and verification-before-completion still apply. Brainstorming exists to surface decisions; when there are none, the user's request IS the design. Any doubt: the gate holds.
+Exception — nothing to design: if the request leaves no design decisions open — the user has fully specified the outcome and there is exactly one reasonable way to do it (e.g. "add a basic checkbox, nothing fancy", a literal config value change, a copy fix) — implement it directly. Brainstorming exists to surface decisions; when there are none, the user's request IS the design. Any of these put the gate back on: a new file or dependency, a schema/API/data question, more than one plausible interpretation, or the user framing it as a feature or project to think through.
 </HARD-GATE>
 
 ## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
 
-Anything with open decisions goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a data migration — "simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but if anything remains to decide, you MUST present it and get approval. Do not confuse this with the nothing-to-design exception above: "this seems simple, I'll skip the design" is a rationalization whenever decisions exist.
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "The codebase has an established pattern, so nothing is open" | A pattern answers HOW, not WHETHER or WHAT. Those decisions are still open unless the user made them. |
-| "I can infer the obvious choice" | If there is a choice to infer, a decision is open. Invoke. |
-| "The user said keep it simple / nothing fancy" | A hedge describes the solution's size, not the request's completeness. Check what remains undecided, not the tone. |
-| "Asking would waste the user's time" | One design question costs seconds; an unexamined assumption costs a rewrite. |
-| "The user already made that decision — they told me to delete it" | A requested deletion still has consequences the user may not have weighed (working feature, no usage data, alternatives). Surface them first; the tripwire applies to requested deletions. |
+Projects go through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a data migration — "simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but if anything remains to decide, you MUST present it and get approval. Do not confuse this with the nothing-to-design exception above: "this seems simple, I'll skip the design" is a rationalization whenever decisions exist — the exception applies only when the user's request already contains every decision.
 
 ## Checklist
 
@@ -36,7 +28,7 @@ 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
@@ -119,6 +111,7 @@ 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

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after
 
 **Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
 
+**Proportionality:** Review fanout scales with the change. When the entire plan is one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change — a one-line edit, a log statement, a constant bump — implement it directly (or with a single implementer subagent), verify it, and commit. Skip the review subagents and the final reviewer: a diff with no room for interpretation has nothing for a spec or quality review to catch, and three dispatches for one line cost more than the change itself. When in doubt whether a change is trivial, it is not — run the full pipeline. Within a multi-task plan, run the full pipeline for every task regardless of size; this exception applies only when the whole plan is one trivial change.
+
 **Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.
 
 ## When to Use
@@ -61,11 +63,16 @@ digraph process {
     }
 
     "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" [shape=box];
+    "Entire plan = one trivial mechanical change?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Implement directly, verify, commit (no review fanout)" [shape=box];
     "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
     "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
     "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
 
-    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" -> "Entire plan = one trivial mechanical change?";
+    "Entire plan = one trivial mechanical change?" -> "Implement directly, verify, commit (no review fanout)" [label="yes — see Proportionality"];
+    "Implement directly, verify, commit (no review fanout)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+    "Entire plan = one trivial mechanical change?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="no"];
     "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
     "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
     "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
@@ -237,7 +244,7 @@ Done!
 
 **Never:**
 - Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
-- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
+- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality) on a non-trivial task — the Proportionality exception covers only a plan that is one trivial mechanical change
 - Proceed with unfixed issues
 - Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
 - Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)

skills/using-superpowers/SKILL.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing
 
 IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.
 
-This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this. (The single carve-out: a skill whose own description says it does not apply — see The Rule.)
+This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this.
 </EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
 
 ## Instruction Priority
@@ -49,10 +49,6 @@ Skills speak in actions ("dispatch a subagent", "create a todo", "read a file")
 
 **Invoke relevant or requested skills BEFORE any response or action.** Even a 1% chance a skill might apply means that you should invoke the skill to check. If an invoked skill turns out to be wrong for the situation, you don't need to use it.
 
-**Documented exceptions in a skill's own description are authoritative.** When a description itself says the skill does not apply to a request (e.g. brainstorming's nothing-to-design exception), not invoking it is compliance, not rationalization. Any doubt about whether the exception's conditions hold means invoke. Only the skill's description can define such an exception; you cannot infer one.
-
-**An exception skip must be stated, never silent.** Before your first action, write one line naming the exception and the tripwire scan that came up empty — e.g. "Skipping brainstorming per its exception: no security/deletion/schema/new-file tripwires; outcome fully specified." If you did not write the scan line, you did not scan — invoke the skill instead.
-
 ```dot
 digraph skill_flow {
     "User message received" [shape=doublecircle];
@@ -73,12 +69,7 @@ digraph skill_flow {
     "Invoke brainstorming skill" -> "Might any skill apply?";
 
     "User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?";
-    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Skill's own description exempts this request?" [label="yes, even 1%"];
-    "Skill's own description exempts this request?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Skill's own description exempts this request?" -> "Invoke the skill" [label="no / any doubt"];
-    "Skill's own description exempts this request?" -> "State the one-line tripwire scan, then proceed" [label="yes, clearly"];
-    "State the one-line tripwire scan, then proceed" [shape=box];
-    "State the one-line tripwire scan, then proceed" -> "Respond (including clarifications)";
+    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke the skill" [label="yes, even 1%"];
     "Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"];
     "Invoke the skill" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
     "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?";
@@ -103,7 +94,6 @@ These thoughts mean STOP—you're rationalizing:
 | "I remember this skill" | Skills evolve. Read current version. |
 | "This doesn't count as a task" | Action = task. Check for skills. |
 | "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. |
-| "Too trivial to scan the tripwire list" | The scan is one sentence. Write it or invoke the skill. |
 | "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. |
 | "This feels productive" | Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this. |
 | "I know what that means" | Knowing the concept ≠ using the skill. Invoke it. |
@@ -128,6 +118,4 @@ The skill itself tells you which.
 
 ## User Instructions
 
-Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows — unless a skill's own description exempts the request (see The Rule above).
-
-Pressure phrasing — "don't ask questions", "make assumptions", "just build it" — changes how you interact (state assumptions instead of asking), not which skills you invoke. Only an instruction that names what to skip ("don't write a plan", "skip TDD") or a description exception skips a workflow step. "Your instruction wins per the priority rules" applied to an unnamed workflow step is a rationalization.
+Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows.

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -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]

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -151,8 +151,6 @@ Concrete results
 
 The description should ONLY describe triggering conditions. Do NOT summarize the skill's process or workflow in the description.
 
-(Negative triggering conditions are still triggering conditions: a description MAY state when the skill does NOT apply — including its tripwires — and per using-superpowers' Rule such description-level exceptions are authoritative, so they must live here, not only in the body. That is scope, not workflow.)
-
 **Why this matters:** Testing revealed that when a description summarizes the skill's workflow, an agent may follow the description instead of reading the full skill content. A description saying "code review between tasks" caused an agent to do ONE review, even though the skill's flowchart clearly showed TWO reviews (spec compliance then code quality).
 
 When the description was changed to just "Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks" (no workflow summary), the agent correctly read the flowchart and followed the two-stage review process.