Fix shell lint baseline warnings

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md

@@ -12,17 +12,14 @@ add a comment or reaction to the existing one instead.
 
 - [ ] I searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate
 
-## 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. -->
+## Environment
 
 | Field | Value |
 |-------|-------|
 | Superpowers version | |
 | Harness (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
 | Harness version | |
-| Your model + version | |
-| All plugins installed | |
+| Model | |
 | OS + shell | |
 
 ## Is this a Superpowers issue or a platform issue?

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md

@@ -30,18 +30,5 @@ 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: the workflow where you hit this, links, transcripts. -->
+<!-- Optional: version info, harness, model, workflow where you hit this. -->

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/platform_support.md

@@ -21,14 +21,3 @@ 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 | |

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -4,23 +4,6 @@ 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

CLAUDE.md

@@ -14,8 +14,7 @@ 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. **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.
+5. **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.
 
@@ -27,10 +26,6 @@ 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

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: a request that leaves zero design decisions open needs no design - implement it directly without invoking this skill (e.g. 'add a basic checkbox, nothing fancy' where the context leaves nothing to choose). Decisions ARE open - so invoke - 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 the deletion is exactly what was asked), touches security posture at all (auth, sessions, permissions, CORS, crypto - even with the exact value stated), alters user-visible behavior beyond the stated change, has more than one plausible reading, or the user frames it as a feature or project to think through."
+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."
 ---
 
 # Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
@@ -10,22 +10,12 @@ 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.
-
-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.
+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.
 </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. |
+Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
 
 ## Checklist
 
@@ -36,7 +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
@@ -119,7 +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/brainstorming/scripts/start-server.sh

@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ if [[ -f "$PID_FILE" ]]; then
   rm -f "$PID_FILE"
 fi
 
-cd "$SCRIPT_DIR"
+cd "$SCRIPT_DIR" || exit
 
 # Resolve the harness PID (grandparent of this script).
 # $PPID is the ephemeral shell the harness spawned to run us — it dies
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ disown "$SERVER_PID" 2>/dev/null
 echo "$SERVER_PID" > "$PID_FILE"
 
 # Wait for server-started message (check log file)
-for i in {1..50}; do
+for _ in {1..50}; do
   if grep -q "server-started" "$LOG_FILE" 2>/dev/null; then
     # Verify server is still alive after a short window (catches process reapers)
     alive="true"

skills/brainstorming/scripts/stop-server.sh

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ if [[ -f "$PID_FILE" ]]; then
   kill "$pid" 2>/dev/null || true
 
   # Wait for graceful shutdown (up to ~2s)
-  for i in {1..20}; do
+  for _ in {1..20}; do
     if ! kill -0 "$pid" 2>/dev/null; then
       break
     fi

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

@@ -11,8 +11,6 @@ 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 log statement, a typo fix, a constant bump with no security or behavioral consequences — implement it directly (or with a single implementer subagent), verify per superpowers:verification-before-completion (run the relevant command, confirm output), commit, and skip all review subagents, including the final reviewer: three review dispatches cost more than a one-line diff. Trivial is a property of the diff — it changes no logic, no control flow, and nothing security-relevant — not of the plan's self-description. Any doubt means not trivial: run the full pipeline. Within a multi-task plan, never skip reviews, regardless of task size.
-
 **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
@@ -63,16 +61,11 @@ digraph process {
     }
 
     "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" [shape=box];
-    "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)" [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" -> "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)";
-    "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)" -> "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, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="no"];
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
     "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)";
@@ -93,10 +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.
@@ -248,7 +237,7 @@ Done!
 
 **Never:**
 - Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
-- Skip reviews — sole exception: a plan that is entirely one trivial change (see Proportionality)
+- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
 - Proceed with unfixed issues
 - Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
 - Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)

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]
@@ -149,7 +145,7 @@ After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
 
 **If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
 - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
-- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (review fanout scales with the change — see that skill's Proportionality rule)
+- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
 
 **If Inline Execution chosen:**
 - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans

tests/claude-code/test-helpers.sh

@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@ run_claude() {
     local prompt="$1"
     local timeout="${2:-60}"
     local allowed_tools="${3:-}"
-    local output_file=$(mktemp)
+    local output_file
+    output_file="$(mktemp)"
 
     # Build command as an argv array so timeout wraps claude directly.
     local cmd=(claude -p "$prompt")
@@ -74,7 +75,8 @@ assert_count() {
     local expected="$3"
     local test_name="${4:-test}"
 
-    local actual=$(echo "$output" | grep -c "$pattern" || echo "0")
+    local actual
+    actual="$(echo "$output" | grep -c "$pattern" || true)"
 
     if [ "$actual" -eq "$expected" ]; then
         echo "  [PASS] $test_name (found $actual instances)"
@@ -98,8 +100,10 @@ assert_order() {
     local test_name="${4:-test}"
 
     # Get line numbers where patterns appear
-    local line_a=$(echo "$output" | grep -n "$pattern_a" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1)
-    local line_b=$(echo "$output" | grep -n "$pattern_b" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1)
+    local line_a
+    local line_b
+    line_a="$(echo "$output" | grep -n "$pattern_a" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1 || true)"
+    line_b="$(echo "$output" | grep -n "$pattern_b" | head -1 | cut -d: -f1 || true)"
 
     if [ -z "$line_a" ]; then
         echo "  [FAIL] $test_name: pattern A not found: $pattern_a"
@@ -125,7 +129,8 @@ assert_order() {
 # Create a temporary test project directory
 # Usage: test_project=$(create_test_project)
 create_test_project() {
-    local test_dir=$(mktemp -d)
+    local test_dir
+    test_dir="$(mktemp -d)"
     echo "$test_dir"
 }
 

tests/claude-code/test-subagent-driven-development-integration.sh

@@ -37,7 +37,10 @@ TEST_PROJECT=$(create_test_project)
 echo "Test project: $TEST_PROJECT"
 
 # Trap to cleanup
-trap "cleanup_test_project $TEST_PROJECT" EXIT
+cleanup_integration_test_project() {
+    cleanup_test_project "$TEST_PROJECT"
+}
+trap cleanup_integration_test_project EXIT
 
 # Set up minimal Node.js project
 cd "$TEST_PROJECT"
@@ -164,12 +167,19 @@ PLUGIN_DIR=$(cd "$SCRIPT_DIR/../.." && pwd)
 # other concurrent claude sessions.
 echo "Running Claude (plugin-dir: $PLUGIN_DIR, cwd: $TEST_PROJECT)..."
 echo "================================================================================"
-cd "$TEST_PROJECT" && timeout 1800 claude -p "$PROMPT" --plugin-dir "$PLUGIN_DIR" --allowed-tools=all --permission-mode bypassPermissions 2>&1 | tee "$OUTPUT_FILE" || {
+set +e
+(
+    cd "$TEST_PROJECT" &&
+        timeout 1800 claude -p "$PROMPT" --plugin-dir "$PLUGIN_DIR" --allowed-tools=all --permission-mode bypassPermissions
+) 2>&1 | tee "$OUTPUT_FILE"
+execution_status=$?
+set -e
+if [[ "$execution_status" -ne 0 ]]; then
     echo ""
     echo "================================================================================"
-    echo "EXECUTION FAILED (exit code: $?)"
+    echo "EXECUTION FAILED (exit code: $execution_status)"
     exit 1
-}
+fi
 echo "================================================================================"
 
 echo ""

tests/claude-code/test-worktree-path-policy.sh

@@ -47,16 +47,20 @@ assert_not_contains() {
 echo "=== Worktree Path Policy Test ==="
 echo ""
 
-assert_not_contains "$USING_SKILL" "~/.config/superpowers/worktrees" "using-git-worktrees does not mention old global path"
+# Intentionally search for the literal legacy path, not the current user's home.
+# shellcheck disable=SC2088
+legacy_global_worktree_path="~/.config/superpowers/worktrees"
+
+assert_not_contains "$USING_SKILL" "$legacy_global_worktree_path" "using-git-worktrees does not mention old global path"
 assert_not_contains "$USING_SKILL" "global legacy" "using-git-worktrees does not use unclear global legacy shorthand"
 assert_not_contains "$USING_SKILL" "Global path" "using-git-worktrees has no global path quick-reference row"
 assert_contains "$USING_SKILL" 'default to `.worktrees/` at the project root' "using-git-worktrees defaults new manual worktrees to .worktrees/"
 
-assert_not_contains "$FINISHING_SKILL" "~/.config/superpowers/worktrees" "finishing-a-development-branch does not treat old global path as owned"
+assert_not_contains "$FINISHING_SKILL" "$legacy_global_worktree_path" "finishing-a-development-branch does not treat old global path as owned"
 assert_contains "$FINISHING_SKILL" '`.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`' "finishing-a-development-branch keeps project-local cleanup ownership"
 
-assert_not_contains "$ROTOTILL_SPEC" "~/.config/superpowers/worktrees" "rototill spec does not preserve old global path policy"
-assert_not_contains "$ROTOTILL_PLAN" "~/.config/superpowers/worktrees" "rototill plan does not preserve old global path policy"
+assert_not_contains "$ROTOTILL_SPEC" "$legacy_global_worktree_path" "rototill spec does not preserve old global path policy"
+assert_not_contains "$ROTOTILL_PLAN" "$legacy_global_worktree_path" "rototill plan does not preserve old global path policy"
 assert_not_contains "$ROTOTILL_PLAN" "legacy path compat" "rototill plan does not advertise legacy path compatibility"
 
 echo ""