refactor(skills): drop Why Order Matters narrative from test-driven-development

The section's five prose rebuttals each map to a Common Rationalizations
row (test-after, manual-tested, sunk-cost, dogmatic, spirit-not-ritual),
and every excuse phrasing also appears in the Red Flags list. This is the
highest-stakes cut on the branch: TDD is the most pressure-tested
discipline skill, and the bet that the table alone holds under pressure
is exactly what the eval pass must decide.

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ digraph brainstorming {
 - Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
 - Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
 - Lead with your recommended option and explain why
+- YAGNI ruthlessly - remove unnecessary features from every approach and design
 
 **Presenting the design:**
 
@@ -130,15 +131,6 @@ Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the
 - Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
 - Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
 
-## Key Principles
-
-- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
-- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
-- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
-- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
-- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on
-- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense
-
 ## Visual Companion
 
 A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.

skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -158,15 +158,6 @@ Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts
 
 **Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green
 
-**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially
-
-## Key Benefits
-
-1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously
-2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track
-3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other
-4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1
-
 ## Verification
 
 After agents return:
@@ -174,12 +165,3 @@ After agents return:
 2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?
 3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together
 4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging session (2025-10-03):
-- 6 failures across 3 files
-- 3 agents dispatched in parallel
-- All investigations completed concurrently
-- All fixes integrated successfully
-- Zero conflicts between agent changes

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
 
-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
+**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
 
 ## The Process
 

skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md

@@ -1,58 +1,71 @@
 ---
 name: finishing-a-development-branch
-description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work
+description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
 ---
 
 # Finishing a Development Branch
 
 ## Overview
 
+Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
+
 **Core principle:** Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
 
-## Step 1: Verify Tests
+## The Process
 
-Run the project's full test suite (`npm test` / `cargo test` / `pytest` / `go test ./...`).
+### Step 1: Verify Tests
 
-**If tests fail**, report the failures and stop — the menu comes after a green suite:
+**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
 
+```bash
+# Run project's test suite
+npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
+```
+
+**If tests fail:**
 ```
 Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
 
 [Show failures]
+
+Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
 ```
 
-**If tests pass:** continue to Step 2.
+Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
 
-## Step 2: Detect Environment
+**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
+
+### Step 2: Detect Environment
+
+**Determine workspace state before presenting options:**
 
 ```bash
 GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
 GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
-# Capture now, while still inside the workspace — Step 5 changes directory
-# before cleanup (Step 6) needs this value
-WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
 ```
 
 This determines which menu to show and how cleanup works:
 
 | State | Menu | Cleanup |
 |-------|------|---------|
-| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 3 options | No worktree to clean up |
-| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 3 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
-| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 2 options (no merge) | Externally managed — leave in place |
+| `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON` (normal repo) | Standard 4 options | No worktree to clean up |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, named branch | Standard 4 options | Provenance-based (see Step 6) |
+| `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON`, detached HEAD | Reduced 3 options (no merge) | No cleanup (externally managed) |
 
-## Step 3: Determine Base Branch
+### Step 3: Determine Base Branch
 
-The base branch is whatever this work forked from — usually named in the
-plan, the conversation, or the branch's upstream. If it is not already
-known, ask: "This branch split from <your best guess> - is that correct?"
-Confirm before merging: merging into the wrong base is expensive to undo.
+```bash
+# Try common base branches
+git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
+```
 
-## Step 4: Present Options
+Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
 
-**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 3 options:**
+### Step 4: Present Options
+
+**Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 4 options:**
 
 ```
 Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
@@ -60,30 +73,28 @@ Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
 1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
 2. Push and create a Pull Request
 3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
+4. Discard this work
 
 Which option?
 ```
 
-**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 2 options:**
+**Detached HEAD — present exactly these 3 options:**
 
 ```
 Implementation complete. You're on a detached HEAD (externally managed workspace).
 
 1. Push as new branch and create a Pull Request
 2. Keep as-is (I'll handle it later)
+3. Discard this work
 
 Which option?
 ```
 
-Present the menu exactly as written — concise, with every option coming
-from the list above. Discarding the work happens only in response to your
-human partner explicitly asking for it (see "If your human partner asks to
-discard the work" below). Wait for their answer; the integration decision
-is theirs.
+**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
 
-## Step 5: Execute Choice
+### Step 5: Execute Choice
 
-### Option 1: Merge Locally
+#### Option 1: Merge Locally
 
 ```bash
 # Get main repo root for CWD safety
@@ -97,43 +108,34 @@ git merge <feature-branch>
 
 # Verify tests on merged result
 <test command>
+
+# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch
 ```
 
-If tests fail on the merged result: stop, leave the worktree and branch in
-place, and investigate — nothing has been pushed, so the merge is local
-and recoverable.
-
-Once the merged result is green: clean up the worktree (Step 6), then
-delete the branch:
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch:
 
 ```bash
 git branch -d <feature-branch>
 ```
 
-### Option 2: Push and Create PR
+#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
 
 ```bash
+# Push branch
 git push -u origin <feature-branch>
-# From a detached HEAD, name the new branch on the remote:
-# git push origin HEAD:refs/heads/<new-branch>
 ```
 
-Then create the pull/merge request against <base-branch> with the forge's
-tooling — its CLI if one is available, or the creation URL most forges
-print when you push — following the repo's PR template and conventions if
-present, and report the URL to your human partner.
+**Do NOT clean up worktree** — user needs it alive to iterate on PR feedback.
 
-Keep the worktree — your human partner iterates on PR feedback there.
-
-### Option 3: Keep As-Is
+#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
 
 Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
 
-### If your human partner asks to discard the work
+**Don't cleanup worktree.**
 
-This path exists only as a response to an explicit request to throw the
-work away. Confirm first:
+#### Option 4: Discard
 
+**Confirm first:**
 ```
 This will permanently delete:
 - Branch <name>
@@ -143,39 +145,41 @@ This will permanently delete:
 Type 'discard' to confirm.
 ```
 
-Wait for that exact confirmation. When it arrives:
+Wait for exact confirmation.
 
+If confirmed:
 ```bash
 MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
 cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 ```
 
-Then clean up the worktree (Step 6) and force-delete the branch:
-
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then force-delete branch:
 ```bash
 git branch -D <feature-branch>
 ```
 
-## Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
+### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
 
-**Runs for Option 1 and confirmed discards.** Options 2 and 3 always
-preserve the worktree. Both callers have already changed directory to the
-main repo root — worktree removal must run from outside the worktree —
-and use the `GIT_DIR`/`GIT_COMMON`/`WORKTREE_PATH` values captured in
-Step 2, from before that directory change.
+**Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree.
+
+```bash
+GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
+WORKTREE_PATH=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+```
 
 **If `GIT_DIR == GIT_COMMON`:** Normal repo, no worktree to clean up. Done.
 
-**If `WORKTREE_PATH` is under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`:** Superpowers
-created this worktree — we own cleanup:
+**If worktree path is under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`:** Superpowers created this worktree — we own cleanup.
 
 ```bash
+MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-toplevel)
+cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 git worktree remove "$WORKTREE_PATH"
 git worktree prune  # Self-healing: clean up any stale registrations
 ```
 
-**Otherwise:** The host environment owns this workspace — leave it in
-place. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it.
+**Otherwise:** The host environment (harness) owns this workspace. Do NOT remove it. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it. Otherwise, leave the workspace in place.
 
 ## Quick Reference
 
@@ -184,18 +188,54 @@ place. If your platform provides a workspace-exit tool, use it.
 | 1. Merge locally | yes | - | - | yes |
 | 2. Create PR | - | yes | yes | - |
 | 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - |
-| Discard (explicit request only) | - | - | - | yes (force) |
+| 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) |
 
-## Common Rationalizations
+## Common Mistakes
 
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Tests passed earlier this session" | Run the suite on the tree you are about to integrate. A green run only proves the tree it ran on. |
-| "They obviously want it merged" | Integration is your human partner's decision. Present the menu and wait. |
-| "They seem done with this feature — I'll offer to discard it" | The menu is complete as written. Discard happens only when your human partner asks for it in so many words. |
-| "'Yeah, get rid of it' counts as confirmation" | Only the typed word `discard` authorizes deletion. |
-| "The PR is up, so the worktree is clutter now" | PR feedback gets fixed in that worktree. It stays until the work lands. |
-| "This other worktree looks stale — I'll clean it too" | Clean up only worktrees under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`. Everything else belongs to the host. |
-| "The merged-result failure is probably flaky" | A failing merged result stops everything. Branch and worktree stay put while you investigate. |
-| "The base branch is obviously main" | Confirm the fork point or ask. Merging into the wrong base is expensive to undo. |
-| "The push was rejected — force-push will fix it" | A rejected push means the remote moved. Investigate; force-push only on your human partner's explicit request. |
+**Skipping test verification**
+- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
+- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
+
+**Open-ended questions**
+- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" is ambiguous
+- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+
+**Cleaning up worktree for Option 2**
+- **Problem:** Remove worktree user needs for PR iteration
+- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
+
+**Deleting branch before removing worktree**
+- **Problem:** `git branch -d` fails because worktree still references the branch
+- **Fix:** Merge first, remove worktree, then delete branch
+
+**Running git worktree remove from inside the worktree**
+- **Problem:** Command fails silently when CWD is inside the worktree being removed
+- **Fix:** Always `cd` to main repo root before `git worktree remove`
+
+**Cleaning up harness-owned worktrees**
+- **Problem:** Removing a worktree the harness created causes phantom state
+- **Fix:** Only clean up worktrees under `.worktrees/` or `worktrees/`
+
+**No confirmation for discard**
+- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
+- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Merge without verifying tests on result
+- Delete work without confirmation
+- Force-push without explicit request
+- Remove a worktree before confirming merge success
+- Clean up worktrees you didn't create (provenance check)
+- Run `git worktree remove` from inside the worktree
+
+**Always:**
+- Verify tests before offering options
+- Detect environment before presenting menu
+- Present exactly 4 options (or 3 for detached HEAD)
+- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
+- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
+- `cd` to main repo root before worktree removal
+- Run `git worktree prune` after removal

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -203,11 +203,3 @@ You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
 ## GitHub Thread Replies
 
 When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
-
-Verify. Question. Then implement.
-
-No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before m
 
 # Requesting Code Review
 
-Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
+Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.
 
 **Core principle:** Review early, review often.
 
@@ -72,21 +72,6 @@ You: [Fix progress indicators]
 [Continue to Task 3]
 ```
 
-## Integration with Workflows
-
-**Subagent-Driven Development:**
-- Review after EACH task
-- Catch issues before they compound
-- Fix before moving to next task
-
-**Executing Plans:**
-- Review after each task or at natural checkpoints
-- Get feedback, apply, continue
-
-**Ad-Hoc Development:**
-- Review before merge
-- Review when stuck
-
 ## Red Flags
 
 **Never:**

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -332,38 +332,6 @@ Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
 Done!
 ```
 
-## Advantages
-
-**vs. Manual execution:**
-- Subagents follow TDD naturally
-- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
-- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
-- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
-
-**vs. Executing Plans:**
-- Same session (no handoff)
-- Continuous progress (no waiting)
-- Review checkpoints automatic
-
-**Efficiency gains:**
-- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
-  as files, not pasted text
-- Subagent gets complete information upfront
-- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
-
-**Quality gates:**
-- Self-review catches issues before handoff
-- Task review carries two verdicts: spec compliance and code quality
-- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
-- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
-- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
-
-**Cost:**
-- More subagent invocations (implementer + reviewer per task)
-- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
-- Review loops add iterations
-- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
-
 ## Red Flags
 
 **Never:**

skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior
 
 ## Overview
 
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
 **Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
 
 **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
@@ -286,11 +284,3 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 **Related skills:**
 - **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
 - **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging sessions:
-- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
-- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
-- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
-- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -203,56 +203,6 @@ Next failing test for next feature.
 | **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
 | **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
 
-## Why Order Matters
-
-**"I'll write tests after to verify it works"**
-
-Tests written after code pass immediately. Passing immediately proves nothing:
-- Might test wrong thing
-- Might test implementation, not behavior
-- Might miss edge cases you forgot
-- You never saw it catch the bug
-
-Test-first forces you to see the test fail, proving it actually tests something.
-
-**"I already manually tested all the edge cases"**
-
-Manual testing is ad-hoc. You think you tested everything but:
-- No record of what you tested
-- Can't re-run when code changes
-- Easy to forget cases under pressure
-- "It worked when I tried it" ≠ comprehensive
-
-Automated tests are systematic. They run the same way every time.
-
-**"Deleting X hours of work is wasteful"**
-
-Sunk cost fallacy. The time is already gone. Your choice now:
-- Delete and rewrite with TDD (X more hours, high confidence)
-- Keep it and add tests after (30 min, low confidence, likely bugs)
-
-The "waste" is keeping code you can't trust. Working code without real tests is technical debt.
-
-**"TDD is dogmatic, being pragmatic means adapting"**
-
-TDD IS pragmatic:
-- Finds bugs before commit (faster than debugging after)
-- Prevents regressions (tests catch breaks immediately)
-- Documents behavior (tests show how to use code)
-- Enables refactoring (change freely, tests catch breaks)
-
-"Pragmatic" shortcuts = debugging in production = slower.
-
-**"Tests after achieve the same goals - it's spirit not ritual"**
-
-No. Tests-after answer "What does this do?" Tests-first answer "What should this do?"
-
-Tests-after are biased by your implementation. You test what you built, not what's required. You verify remembered edge cases, not discovered ones.
-
-Tests-first force edge case discovery before implementing. Tests-after verify you remembered everything (you didn't).
-
-30 minutes of tests after ≠ TDD. You get coverage, lose proof tests work.
-
 ## Common Rationalizations
 
 | Excuse | Reality |

skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md

@@ -156,47 +156,12 @@ Ready to implement <feature-name>
 | Tests fail during baseline | Report failures + ask |
 | No package.json/Cargo.toml | Skip dependency install |
 
-## Common Mistakes
+## Common Rationalizations
 
-### Fighting the harness
-
-- **Problem:** Using `git worktree add` when the platform already provides isolation
-- **Fix:** Step 0 detects existing isolation. Step 1a defers to native tools.
-
-### Skipping detection
-
-- **Problem:** Creating a nested worktree inside an existing one
-- **Fix:** Always run Step 0 before creating anything
-
-### Skipping ignore verification
-
-- **Problem:** Worktree contents get tracked, pollute git status
-- **Fix:** Always use `git check-ignore` before creating project-local worktree
-
-### Assuming directory location
-
-- **Problem:** Creates inconsistency, violates project conventions
-- **Fix:** Follow priority: explicit instructions > existing project-local directory > default
-
-### Proceeding with failing tests
-
-- **Problem:** Can't distinguish new bugs from pre-existing issues
-- **Fix:** Report failures, get explicit permission to proceed
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-- Create a worktree when Step 0 detects existing isolation
-- Use `git worktree add` when you have a native worktree tool (e.g., `EnterWorktree`). This is the #1 mistake — if you have it, use it.
-- Skip Step 1a by jumping straight to Step 1b's git commands
-- Create worktree without verifying it's ignored (project-local)
-- Skip baseline test verification
-- Proceed with failing tests without asking
-
-**Always:**
-- Run Step 0 detection first
-- Prefer native tools over git fallback
-- Follow directory priority: explicit instructions > existing project-local directory > default
-- Verify directory is ignored for project-local
-- Auto-detect and run project setup
-- Verify clean test baseline
+| Excuse | Reality |
+|--------|---------|
+| "I'm obviously not in a worktree — no need to check" | Run Step 0. Harness-created isolation and submodules both fool eyeballing; the detection commands settle it. |
+| "`git worktree add` is quicker than hunting for a native tool" | A native tool (e.g. `EnterWorktree`) owns placement, branching, and cleanup. Bypassing it is the #1 mistake — it creates phantom state your harness can't see or manage. |
+| "The worktree directory is surely ignored already" | Run `git check-ignore`. An unignored worktree directory commits the whole tree into the repo. |
+| "Any directory name works" | Explicit instructions beat an existing project-local directory, which beats the `.worktrees/` default. |
+| "The workspace is fresh — baseline tests can wait" | A dirty baseline makes every later failure ambiguous. Run the tests now; proceeding past failures is your human partner's call. |

skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -7,8 +7,6 @@ description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before
 
 ## Overview
 
-Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
-
 **Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
 
 **Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
@@ -105,15 +103,6 @@ Skip any step = lying, not verifying
 ❌ Trust agent report
 ```
 
-## Why This Matters
-
-From 24 failure memories:
-- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
-- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
-- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
-- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
-- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
-
 ## When To Apply
 
 **ALWAYS before:**
@@ -129,11 +118,3 @@ From 24 failure memories:
 - Paraphrases and synonyms
 - Implications of success
 - ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**No shortcuts for verification.**
-
-Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
-
-This is non-negotiable.

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -135,12 +135,6 @@ Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan f
 - Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
 - References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
 
-## Remember
-- Exact file paths always
-- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
-- Exact commands with expected output
-- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
-
 ## Self-Review
 
 After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

@@ -677,13 +677,3 @@ How future agents find your skill:
 6. **Loads example** (only when implementing)
 
 **Optimize for this flow** - put searchable terms early and often.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**Creating skills IS TDD for process documentation.**
-
-Same Iron Law: No skill without failing test first.
-Same cycle: RED (baseline) → GREEN (write skill) → REFACTOR (close loopholes).
-Same benefits: Better quality, fewer surprises, bulletproof results.
-
-If you follow TDD for code, follow it for skills. It's the same discipline applied to documentation.