fix(sdd): reviewers never dispatch subagents either

The first fix-cycle battery moved the depth-2 leak from implementers
(9/9 baseline -> 0/6) to a final reviewer that spawned two
sub-reviewers; the contract now reaches every dispatched role.

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-30-codex-efficiency-fixes-design.md

@@ -1,252 +0,0 @@
-# Codex Efficiency Fixes — Design
-
-Date: 2026-07-30
-Status: approved by Jesse (in-session)
-Branch: `codex-efficiency-fixes` off `dev`
-
-## Sources
-
-- Eval campaign closeout: `superpowers-autoresearch/reports/2026-07-codex-efficiency-campaign.md`
-  (treatment table §4; every treatment below has a scorer and a measured
-  `dev` baseline).
-- Codex source recon: `superpowers-autoresearch/docs/2026-07-29-codex-multiagent-v2-capabilities.md`
-  (file:line citations against the Codex CLI source; grounds T2, T3, T5).
-- Published experiment write-ups: `superpowers-evals/docs/experiments/`.
-- Drew's spinout stack (PRs #2036, #2035) is **evidence, not adopted text**:
-  Jesse wants to dig into those fixes in more detail before adopting any
-  of them; they inform the problem statements only.
-
-## Goal
-
-Ship the five evidence-strong treatments from the codex-efficiency eval
-campaign as superpowers skill/doc changes, each graded against its
-pre-registered criterion by the campaign's scorers before its PR is cut.
-Phase 2 (everything else in the closeout treatment table) follows, each
-item gated on new baseline work first.
-
-## Scope decisions (settled with Jesse)
-
-- **Phase 1 = the evidence-strong five** (T1–T5 below). Phase 2 items
-  each need a failing baseline before any fix ships (discrimination
-  rule: inconclusive-by-zero is a stop).
-- **One branch, PR per treatment.** Development and batteries happen on
-  `codex-efficiency-fixes`; when a treatment beats its criterion, it is
-  cut into its own PR against `dev` with its eval evidence. No merge
-  without Jesse's per-PR approval.
-- **T4 ships cross-harness with a global regression battery** (Claude
-  Code, Codex, Gemini), variant C shape: ceremony scales, approval never
-  does.
-
-## The five treatments
-
-### T1. SDD worker-review prohibition
-
-**Evidence:** 9/9 depth-2 spawns across 4 corpora were implementer-issued
-reviewers; all 9 were same-task duplicates of the review the controller
-dispatches anyway. The dispatch contract never says review is not the
-worker's job; "self-review" in the implementer prompt gets reified into a
-reviewer subagent on harnesses where children can spawn (Codex).
-
-**Changes:**
-- `skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md`: an explicit
-  "You do not dispatch subagents" clause — self-review means reading your
-  own diff; the controller owns all review dispatch; a reviewer you spawn
-  duplicates a review the process already provides.
-- `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`: one dispatch-contract
-  line in the task loop, plus a Red Flags row: "An independent review
-  would strengthen my report" → review is the controller's next step;
-  your reviewer is a duplicate seat.
-- Harness-agnostic wording (no-op where children cannot spawn).
-
-**Graded by:** `score_e6.py` (depth-2 spawns by spawner role, duplicate
-review families); `score_e5.py` for the same-scope variant.
-**Baseline:** 9/9 worker-issued, 0 counter-examples.
-**Criterion:** 0 worker-issued depth-2 spawns AND review coverage
-preserved (every task still gets exactly one controller-dispatched task
-review).
-
-### T2. Event-driven waiting
-
-**Evidence:** 60–78% of `wait_agent` calls time out in every corpus
-(dev 67.1%, spinout 60.2%). Source recon: V2 waits are event
-subscriptions, not polls — one long wait has the same wake latency as a
-10s poll at ~1/90th the calls; a completed child's FINAL_ANSWER is pushed
-into the parent's mailbox and drained into the next model request with no
-wait at all.
-
-**Changes** (`skills/using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md`):
-- Never short-timeout poll.
-- While local work remains, do not wait — child results arrive with your
-  next turn via the mailbox.
-- When genuinely idle, issue ONE `wait_agent` with a long `timeout_ms`
-  (900000+; harness max 3600000).
-- V2 caveat stated: completion mail carries `trigger_turn=false` and will
-  not wake an idle controller — that is the one job `wait_agent` has.
-
-**Graded by:** `score_e7.py` (timeout rate, inter-poll cadence,
-cache-rebill estimate — the rebill figure stays labeled as an estimate).
-**Baseline:** dev 67.1% timeout rate.
-**Criterion:** timeout rate < 25% with no loss of task completion.
-
-### T3. codex-tools.md corrections
-
-**Evidence:** five claims in the current guidance are contradicted by the
-Codex source (all file:line-cited in the capabilities doc):
-1. `close_agent` does not exist in multi-agent V2 (V1-only). V2 LRU-evicts
-   finished children automatically; not closing costs nothing;
-   `followup_task` transparently reloads an evicted child.
-2. Fix rounds can always resume the implementer via `followup_task` —
-   dev's "if your harness cannot send another message to a spawned agent,
-   dispatch each fix round as a fresh implementer" branch is dead on V2.
-3. Role files (`~/.codex/agents/**.toml`) DO attach to spawns via
-   `agent_type` on isolated forks (0.145+).
-4. Full-history forks accept `model`/`reasoning_effort` overrides; only
-   `agent_type` is refused. (Isolated forks remain the SDD guidance for
-   context-hygiene reasons, stated accurately.)
-5. Dispatch guidance must never name non-V2 model presets — the V2 spawn
-   allowlist is v2 presets only; others hard-error.
-
-**Changes:** rewrite the multi-agent paragraph of
-`skills/using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md` to be
-version-honest (V1 vs V2 behavior labeled where they differ).
-
-**Graded by:** source citation (already verified); no scorer regressions
-on the shared battery. `score_e8.py` is retained as a V1/V2 schema
-detector, not a hygiene grader — no `close_agent` checklist ships.
-
-### T4. Brainstorming three-path router (variant C: approval always)
-
-**Evidence:** micro — the current HARD-GATE text pushes a bounded task to
-FULL ceremony 5/5, while Z-null (no guidance) and a three-path router
-both differentiate 5/5: the absolute wording suppresses discrimination
-the model draws natively. FULL battery — ceremony volume scales
-moderately (16.7 vs 24.0 tool calls, bounded vs arch), but the
-two-document ritual (spec file → plan file) ran unconditionally in every
-rep. The measured waste is the unconditional artifact ritual, not the
-approval gate.
-
-**Design (variant C):** three paths scale the ARTIFACT; every path keeps
-human approval before implementation:
-- **Spike** (feasibility question, explicitly throwaway): present the
-  question and the intended probe in 2–3 sentences, get a nod, go. No
-  docs. Findings return as a recommendation; anything built stays labeled
-  throwaway.
-- **Bounded** (well-scoped change to an existing, understood flow):
-  present a short design in chat, get approval, implement. No spec file,
-  no writing-plans invocation.
-- **Architectural** (restructures components, new subsystem, public
-  interface change): the full current flow — spec doc, review,
-  writing-plans.
-
-**Guards (all ship with the router):**
-- Classification is said out loud ("this looks bounded, so I'll present a
-  short design here rather than write a spec") so the human can override.
-- When in doubt between two paths, take the heavier one.
-- One-way ratchet: hidden complexity discovered mid-path upgrades the
-  path; never downgrade mid-task.
-- New Red Flags rows targeting classification-as-escape-hatch ("I'll call
-  it bounded to skip the doc").
-
-**Changes** (`skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md`): HARD-GATE keeps "no
-implementation before approval" and drops "regardless of perceived
-simplicity" as the ceremony driver; anti-pattern section reframed (the
-sin is skipping approval, not skipping documents); checklist steps 6–9
-become the architectural path; process-flow graph gains the router; Red
-Flags rows added. This is carefully-tuned content — the edit follows
-writing-skills methodology and ships only with the full eval evidence
-below.
-
-**Graded by (three layers):**
-1. **Micro** (`ceremony-path-micro.py`, adapted): variant C literal text,
-   plus adversarially ambiguous briefs the campaign never tested (a task
-   that pattern-matches bounded but hides a public interface change).
-   Criteria: spike/bounded/arch differentiate (≥4/5 per cell); ambiguous
-   briefs escalate to FULL (≥4/5); arch never downgrades (5/5).
-2. **Codex ceremony battery:** `cx-ceremony-{spike,bounded,arch}` on the
-   fix arm, 3 reps each, `score_e4.py` census. Criteria: bounded reps
-   show an approval turn but zero committed spec files and zero
-   writing-plans ritual; arch reps keep the full two-doc flow; spike reps
-   stay minimal.
-3. **Global regression battery:** the same three ceremony scenarios on
-   Claude Code and Gemini (rig work: those scenarios are currently
-   codex-gated), 3 reps each; plus the triggering acceptance check
-   ("Let's make a react todo list" auto-triggers brainstorming into the
-   full/architectural path) on all three harnesses.
-
-### T5. Explicit model on child-issued spawns
-
-**Evidence:** root spawns are 100% explicit-model at CLI 0.146 (dev
-14/14); the live gap is depth-2 — 2/2 child-issued spawns omitted
-`model`. Source recon: `model` without `reasoning_effort` resets effort
-to the MODEL's default, not the parent's.
-
-**Changes** (`skills/using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md`):
-- Every spawn you issue — including as a child — sets `model` AND
-  `reasoning_effort`; the effort-reset trap is named.
-- Advise `[agents].default_subagent_model` and
-  `[agents].default_subagent_reasoning_effort` in `~/.codex/config.toml`
-  as the machine-level backstop for anything that slips through.
-
-**Graded by:** `score_e1.py` (per-spawn explicit-model rate, by depth) on
-the shared battery.
-**Baseline:** depth-2: 0/2 explicit.
-**Criterion:** every spawn at every depth carries explicit model +
-effort. Pre-registered caveat: if T1 eliminates depth-2 spawns entirely,
-T5 grades as root-spawn regression (hold 100%) plus doc correctness and
-is recorded inconclusive-by-zero at depth-2 — the config backstop is then
-the operative mechanism.
-
-## Grading plan
-
-- **Shared SDD battery** carries T1, T2, T5: `cx-sdd-small`, fix-branch
-  arm (`/tmp/sp-arm-fix`), 8 reps across both container lanes. Dev
-  baselines are already measured; no baseline re-runs.
-- **T4 batteries** as listed above (micro + codex ceremony + global
-  regression).
-- **Pre-registration:** every battery gets a hypothesis-log entry
-  (prediction, scorer, criterion) in
-  `superpowers-autoresearch/logs/2026-07-30-codex-efficiency-fixes.md`
-  BEFORE it runs. Standing rules carry over: append-only log, manual
-  inspection of scorer matches on fix-arm runs (non-circular
-  verification), no raw rollouts committed, correctness rides beside
-  cost in every verdict.
-- **Attribution:** orthogonal scorers on one combined branch; unexpected
-  regressions bisect by treatment commit.
-- **Budget:** shared battery ~$40, codex ceremony ~$40, global
-  regression ~$40–80, micros ~$5 → phase 1 ≈ $150–200 of the ~$850
-  remaining from the campaign's $1000.
-
-## Process
-
-- Work happens in the `codex-efficiency-fixes` worktree (branched off
-  `dev`); execution via subagent-driven-development from a written plan.
-- Skill-text changes follow writing-skills methodology.
-- Scenario/rig changes (un-gating ceremony scenarios for Claude
-  Code/Gemini, adversarial micro briefs) land in `superpowers-evals`
-  main, as authorized.
-- PR-per-treatment against `dev`, each with its eval evidence and the
-  standard identification block; merges only on Jesse's per-PR approval.
-
-## Phase 2 queue (baseline-first; not in this plan's tasks)
-
-Each item requires a failing baseline before any fix ships:
-1. **Dispatch routing / long-session drift** — needs a long-session
-   elicitation rig (fresh sessions don't reproduce the pathology at CLI
-   0.146). Drew's stack informs the treatment shape.
-2. **Verification leases / evidence receipts** — needs the
-   substring-aware duplicate counter added to `score_e3.py` first
-   (current baseline 1/23 exact-string pairs is too weak).
-3. **Remediation cap** — small-n baseline (2/3 reps) needs more reps.
-4. **Cross-task-race probe redesign** — `score_e5.py`'s probe is
-   inconclusive-by-zero by design tradeoff; needs a stronger probe.
-5. **E5 D4 shell-command parser** — fix-review-scope classifier cannot
-   parse compound commands; scorer work, not skill work.
-
-## Out of scope
-
-- Adopting Drew's spinout stack (#2036/#2035) or its text.
-- RoboRev, Codex token telemetry (separate codebases).
-- A `close_agent` hygiene checklist (V2 has no such tool — closed as
-  do-not-ship in the campaign).
-- Claude Code/Gemini-specific efficiency treatments beyond the T4
-  regression battery.

skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -34,6 +34,15 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.
 
+    ## You Do Not Dispatch Subagents
+
+    Do all of this review yourself. Never spawn a subagent to review part
+    of the diff, and never spawn another reviewer for a second opinion.
+    This process already provides every review seat the work gets; a
+    reviewer you spawn duplicates one of them at full cost, and its
+    verdict counts for nothing. If the diff feels too large for one
+    pass, review it in passes yourself and say so in your report.
+
     ## What to Check
 
     **Plan alignment:**

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -223,6 +223,12 @@ and fix-round diffs need it.
   later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
   was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
   touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
+- The dispatch carries the no-subagents contract (it is in the
+  implementer template): the implementer never dispatches subagents —
+  not helpers, and never a reviewer. Review arrives from you, after the
+  report. In real sessions, every reviewer a worker spawned duplicated
+  the task review the controller dispatched anyway — a full extra
+  review seat per task.
 - If an earlier task parked a finding in the area this task touches, carry
   a pointer to that ledger entry in the dispatch.
 - Record the implementer's agent identity from the dispatch result —
@@ -434,6 +440,7 @@ Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
 | "The fix was small, skip the re-review" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. Every round ends with a scoped re-review. |
 | "Reviews slow the loop down" | The loop without reviews is just unverified churn. Reviews are the loop's brakes and steering. |
 | "Ledger bookkeeping is overhead" | The ledger is what survives compaction. Controllers without one have re-dispatched entire completed task sequences. |
+| "The implementer spawned its own reviewer — free extra assurance" | It's a duplicate seat reviewing the same diff; the task review is the gate. A worker-spawned reviewer is a defect to flag, not rigor. |
 
 ## Example Workflow
 

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

@@ -47,6 +47,18 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     While iterating, run the focused test for what you're changing; run the
     full suite once before committing, not after every edit.
 
+    ## You Do Not Dispatch Subagents
+
+    Do all of this task's work yourself. Never spawn a subagent to
+    implement part of the task, and above all never spawn a reviewer to
+    check your work. Self-review (below) means reading your own diff.
+    Review is the controller's job: after you report, it dispatches a
+    fresh reviewer against your diff. A reviewer you spawn duplicates
+    that review at full cost, and its approval counts for nothing in
+    the process. If you catch yourself thinking "an independent review
+    would strengthen my report" — that review is already scheduled.
+    Report instead.
+
     ## Code Organization
 
     You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more

skills/subagent-driven-development/re-review-prompt.md

@@ -43,6 +43,15 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
     tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
 
+    ## You Do Not Dispatch Subagents
+
+    Do all of this review yourself. Never spawn a subagent to review part
+    of the diff, and never spawn another reviewer for a second opinion.
+    This process already provides every review seat the work gets; a
+    reviewer you spawn duplicates one of them at full cost, and its
+    verdict counts for nothing. If the diff feels too large for one
+    pass, review it in passes yourself and say so in your report.
+
     ## Scope
 
     Your scope is the findings list and the fix diff. Verdict every finding.

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

@@ -52,6 +52,15 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
     tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
 
+    ## You Do Not Dispatch Subagents
+
+    Do all of this review yourself. Never spawn a subagent to review part
+    of the diff, and never spawn another reviewer for a second opinion.
+    This process already provides every review seat the work gets; a
+    reviewer you spawn duplicates one of them at full cost, and its
+    verdict counts for nothing. If the diff feels too large for one
+    pass, review it in passes yourself and say so in your report.
+
     ## Do Not Trust the Report
 
     Treat the implementer's report as unverified claims about the code. It