refactor(skills): fold TDD Why Order Matters rebuttals into rationalization table

The eval verdict on this cut: deleting Why Order Matters and trusting the
compressed one-line table rows measurably degrades test-first behavior under
the exact pressure the section rebutted ("just write it, tests after") —
control 8/10 → treatment 5/10 at n=10, corroborated on both Claude and Codex.
Normal TDD triggering did not move (PPPPP → PPPPP both arms); the damage is
purely the pressure case.

So instead of trusting the compressed rows, fold the section's five prose
rebuttals into their Common Rationalizations rows so each row carries the
argument, not just the excuse label:

- "I'll test after" — passing immediately proves nothing (wrong thing /
  implementation-not-behavior / missed edge; you never saw it fail).
- "Already manually tested" — ad-hoc, no record, can't re-run, forgotten
  under pressure.
- "Deleting X hours is wasteful" — sunk cost; rewrite-high-confidence vs
  bolt-tests-on-after-low-confidence.
- "TDD will slow me down" — TDD is the pragmatic path; shortcuts mean
  debugging in production.
- "Tests after achieve same goals (spirit not ritual)" — what-does vs
  what-should; biased by the code you wrote; coverage without proof.

Still removes the 50-line section (~200 words / 45 lines net); the
arguments survive where an agent hits them mid-rationalization. Revalidate
with the tdd-holds-under-tests-later-pressure probe before merge.

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-15-sdd-fix-loop-redesign-design.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
-# SDD Fix-Loop Redesign — Design Spec
-
-**Status:** Approved design (brainstormed with Jesse 2026-07-15); implementation
-plan to follow.
-**Objective:** make the subagent-driven-development skill's review-fix loop
-convergent and autonomous, and make the document readable, without rewriting
-its eval-tuned language.
-**Hard invariant:** existing eval-tuned sentences move; they do not get
-reworded. New machinery ships with drill evidence.
-
-## Problems
-
-Four, all observed in real sessions:
-
-1. **Pathological review loops.** The loop is literally "Repeat until
-   approved" — no round cap. Each re-review is a fresh full review of the
-   whole diff, so a nondeterministic frontier reviewer surfaces new findings
-   every round instead of verifying fixes. Result: implement, review, fix,
-   review, review, fix, review, fix — with no circuit breaker. The
-   strict-cost spec (2026-06-10) independently measured review-loop count as
-   the biggest run-to-run cost variance.
-2. **Contradictory fix policy.** The process diagram and "Constructing
-   Reviewer Prompts" dispatch dedicated fix subagents; Red Flags says
-   "Implementer (same subagent) fixes them"; implementer-prompt.md's "After
-   Review Findings" section assumes the implementer will be re-engaged. Three
-   answers to "who fixes?" in one skill.
-3. **Accreted structure.** Thirteen top-level sections; guidance for one
-   activity is scattered across four of them. "Constructing Reviewer Prompts"
-   is a grab-bag holding reviewer guidance, fix policy, final-review policy,
-   and plan-conflict adjudication.
-4. **Red Flags format.** Seven sibling skills use the `| Excuse | Reality |`
-   rationalization table; SDD carries a 17-bullet "Never" list plus three
-   "If X" mini-blocks.
-
-## Design Decisions
-
-| # | Decision | Rationale |
-|---|----------|-----------|
-| 1 | The original implementer fixes its own review findings — resume it in place. | It already holds the task context; ownership beats a drive-by patcher. Fresh "fix subagents" rebuild context per finding and lack the task frame. |
-| 2 | Re-reviews are scoped to the findings. | Fresh full reviews each round are the churn engine. Scoped re-reviews make the loop structurally convergent; the final whole-branch review remains the broad safety net. |
-| 3 | Circuit breaker at five fix rounds: three resumes, then two fresh dispatches on a more capable model. | Jesse's call. A loop that survives three resumes usually means the implementer cannot see its own problem — the fresh capable dispatch de-anchors and capability-bumps in one move. |
-| 4 | At trip, the controller adjudicates and routes. No new human checkpoint — structural failures reach the existing BLOCKED stop. | SDD's point is autonomous execution. The controller holds the plan and cross-task context the reviewer lacks; the existing text already sanctions it ("adjudicate it in the review loop") without ever specifying the mechanism. |
-| 5 | Reorganize SKILL.md by lifecycle, preserving tuned sentences. | Fixes "hard to follow" at the root. Content moves to its point of use, matching the house direction (recent commits fold recap sections into points of use). |
-| 6 | Convert Red Flags to a `| Excuse | Reality |` rationalization table; relocate hard rules to their points of use. | Matches the other seven skills. Excuses get rebuttals; rules get enforced where the reader acts. |
-
-## The Fix Loop
-
-Trigger: a task review returns spec ❌ or any Critical/Important finding.
-
-**Rounds 1–3 — resume the original implementer.** Send the findings verbatim
-(Critical/Important plus spec gaps). The implementer fixes, re-runs the
-covering tests, appends the fix report to its existing report file, and
-returns the short contract. On a harness without agent resume, a "resume" is
-a fresh dispatch carrying the brief, the report file, and the findings — the
-report file is the persistent memory either way.
-
-**Rounds 4–5 — fresh implementer, more capable model.** Full task context:
-brief, report file, open findings, and the framing "a prior implementer
-attempted this N times; you own the task now."
-
-**Every round's re-review is scoped.** The re-reviewer receives the brief,
-the updated report, the original findings list, and a fix-scoped diff package
-(`review-package FIX_BASE HEAD`, where FIX_BASE is the head the reviewer
-last reviewed; the script already takes arbitrary ranges).
-It verdicts each finding addressed / not addressed and flags new breakage in
-the fix diff only. Novel findings on code the fix did not touch are reported
-as non-blocking; the controller ledgers them for the final review.
-
-**Fix-report completeness gate (existing rule, kept):** before dispatching a
-re-review, confirm the fix report names the covering tests, the command run,
-and the output.
-
-**No early exit.** The controller never adjudicates before the cap — an early
-exit reopens the "pre-judge findings to spare yourself a review loop" hole
-the current content deliberately closed. One exception, unchanged from
-today: a finding that conflicts with what the plan's text mandates goes to
-the human immediately (plan authority, not loop churn).
-
-**Minor findings** never enter the loop: ledger them as they arrive (existing
-rule, kept).
-
-### Adjudication at Trip
-
-After round five fails, the controller stops dispatching and judges each open
-finding against the brief, the plan, and cross-task context:
-
-- **Contested or wrong** → ledger with a one-line adjudication ("controller:
-  reviewer wrong because X"), continue. The final review sees both sides.
-- **Real, not load-bearing** → ledger as known-open, continue. Later
-  dispatches touching that area carry a pointer to the entry.
-- **Real and load-bearing** (later tasks build on it, or it reveals a plan
-  defect) → the existing BLOCKED stop. Park-and-continue defers a structural
-  failure to the most expensive point and lets dependents build on it, so
-  structural failures stop the run — through the stop condition that already
-  exists, not a new checkpoint.
-
-Every adjudication is a ledger entry. Silent discards stay forbidden.
-
-## Document Restructure
-
-New skeleton, in execution order:
-
-1. Intro — why subagents, core principle, narration, continuous execution
-2. When to Use — unchanged, including the decision graph
-3. The Process — diagram updated for the new loop
-4. Setup — worktree, ledger check/resume, pre-flight plan review, todos
-5. Model Selection — stays one cross-cutting section; every dispatch
-   consults it, so folding it into points of use would repeat it five times
-6. The Task Loop — five numbered steps:
-   1. Dispatch the implementer (task-brief script, five-part dispatch
-      composition, model line required)
-   2. Handle the report (DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / NEEDS_CONTEXT / BLOCKED)
-   3. Review the task (review-package script, reviewer dispatch composition,
-      constraints lens, no pre-judging, ⚠️ handling)
-   4. Fix loop (the machinery above)
-   5. Complete the task (ledger append, todo update)
-7. Final Review — package, model pin, one fix wave, one scoped re-review,
-   adjudication
-8. Finish — finishing-a-development-branch
-9. Common Rationalizations — the table
-10. Example Workflow — updated to show a resume-based fix round and the
-    breaker not tripping
-
-"Constructing Reviewer Prompts," "File Handoffs," and "Durable Progress"
-dissolve into the steps where each rule applies. Every eval-tuned sentence
-lands in exactly one new location; a move map in the implementation plan
-tracks source → destination so review can verify nothing was dropped or
-reworded.
-
-## Rationalization Table
-
-Excuse-shaped Never items convert to rows; new rows cover the loop
-pathology. Draft rows (final wording at implementation):
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Close enough on spec compliance" | Reviewer found gaps = not done. |
-| "I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |
-| "One more round will converge" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge. Adjudicate. |
-| "The reviewer will just find something new anyway" | Scoped re-reviews check fixes, not taste. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |
-| "This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every adjudication is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |
-| "The fix was small, skip the re-review" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. |
-
-Hard rules that are not excuses (never parallel implementers, never dispatch
-a reviewer without a diff file, model line required, never re-dispatch
-ledger-complete tasks) move to their points of use.
-
-## Prompt Templates
-
-- **implementer-prompt.md** — "After Review Findings" rewritten for resume
-  semantics: you will be resumed with findings; fix, re-run covering tests,
-  append to your report file, return the short contract.
-- **task-reviewer-prompt.md** — initial review only; the trailing re-review
-  sentence moves out.
-- **re-review-prompt.md (new)** — the scoped re-review contract: inputs are
-  brief, updated report, original findings, fix-scoped diff package; output
-  is a per-finding verdict (addressed / not addressed), new breakage in the
-  fix diff, and non-blocking observations outside it. A separate template
-  because it is a different contract — overloading the full-review template
-  produced the current ambiguity.
-- **Takeover dispatch (rounds 4–5)** — composed from implementer-prompt.md
-  plus SKILL.md guidance (brief, report path, open findings, takeover
-  framing); no new template file.
-
-## Final Review Loop
-
-Unchanged: merge-base package, most capable model, ONE fixer with the
-complete findings list. New: exactly one scoped re-review of the fix wave,
-then controller adjudication. Residual load-bearing findings surface at
-finishing-a-development-branch, where the human already is. The end of the
-branch gets a bounded loop too.
-
-## Evals
-
-Three new drill scenarios in `evals/`:
-
-1. **Resume, don't re-dispatch:** a task review returns findings; the
-   controller must resume the same implementer rather than dispatch a fix
-   subagent.
-2. **Breaker trips:** a seeded never-satisfied reviewer; the controller must
-   stop dispatching after the fifth round fails, adjudicate, ledger, and
-   continue — not loop.
-3. **Structural finding stops:** a load-bearing finding (later tasks depend
-   on it); the controller must stop via BLOCKED rather than park.
-
-Plus before/after runs of the existing SDD scenarios to catch regressions
-from the reorganization.
-
-## Non-Goals
-
-- Ledger session-scoping — PR #1943 owns it. This work touches the same
-  sections, so the implementation plan notes the collision risk.
-- Script changes — task-brief and review-package already do what the new
-  loop needs.
-- Changes to executing-plans or requesting-code-review beyond the final-
-  review pointer continuing to resolve.

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -51,85 +51,41 @@ digraph process {
     subgraph cluster_per_task {
         label="Per Task";
         "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Implementer asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
         "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
-        "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
-        "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Ask human partner which governs" [shape=box];
-        "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [shape=box];
-        "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "All findings addressed?" [shape=diamond];
-        "R = 5?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Adjudicate each open finding" [shape=box];
-        "Any load-bearing finding?" [shape=diamond];
-        "STOP: report BLOCKED to human partner" [shape=box];
-        "Park findings in ledger with rulings" [shape=box];
-        "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
+        "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [shape=box];
+        "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [shape=box];
     }
 
-    "Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" [shape=box];
+    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
     "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
-    "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" [shape=box];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
     "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
 
-    "Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
-    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer asks questions?";
-    "Implementer asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
-    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews";
-    "Implementer asks questions?" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
-    "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
-    "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec ✅ and quality approved?";
-    "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
-    "Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [label="no"];
-    "Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Ask human partner which governs" [label="yes"];
-    "Ask human partner which governs" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model";
-    "Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [label="no"];
-    "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" -> "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)";
-    "Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" -> "All findings addressed?";
-    "All findings addressed?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
-    "All findings addressed?" -> "R = 5?" [label="no"];
-    "R = 5?" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [label="no - next round"];
-    "R = 5?" -> "Adjudicate each open finding" [label="yes - breaker trips"];
-    "Adjudicate each open finding" -> "Any load-bearing finding?";
-    "Any load-bearing finding?" -> "STOP: report BLOCKED to human partner" [label="yes"];
-    "Any load-bearing finding?" -> "Park findings in ledger with rulings" [label="no"];
-    "Park findings in ledger with rulings" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete";
-    "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, 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)";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
+    "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?";
+    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [label="no"];
+    "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [label="yes"];
+    "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" -> "More tasks remain?";
     "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals";
-    "Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
 }
 ```
 
-## Setup
+## Pre-Flight Plan Review
 
 Ensure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use
 superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.
-Never start implementation on a main/master branch without your human
-partner's explicit consent.
-
-Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
-controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
-sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
-a ledger file, not only in todos.
-
-- At skill start, check for a ledger:
-  `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks with
-  a `Task <N>: complete` line are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at
-  the first task without one. A task whose last line is a fix round is
-  mid-loop: resume the loop at the next round.
-- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
-  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
-  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
-- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
-  that happens, recover from `git log`.
-
-Read the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a
-todo per task.
 
 Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
 
@@ -157,11 +113,7 @@ capable available model, not the session default.
 
 **Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the
 diff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the
-most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does. Scoped re-reviews of
-small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier.
-
-**Fix-loop escalation (rounds 4-5)**: use a model at least one tier above
-the implementer that got stuck.
+most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does.
 
 **Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An
 omitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and
@@ -180,47 +132,7 @@ that implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.
 - Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
 - Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
 
-## The Task Loop
-
-Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
-prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
-and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files.
-
-### 1. Dispatch the implementer
-
-Record BASE (`git rev-parse HEAD`) before dispatching — the review package
-and fix-round diffs need it.
-
-- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
-  `scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
-  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
-  brief stays the single source of
-  requirements. Your dispatch should contain: (1) one line on where this
-  task fits in the project; (2) the brief path, introduced as "read this
-  first — it is your requirements, with the exact values to use verbatim";
-  (3) interfaces and decisions from earlier tasks that the brief cannot
-  know; (4) your resolution of any ambiguity you noticed in the brief;
-  (5) the report-file path and report contract. Exact values (numbers,
-  magic strings, signatures, test cases) appear only in the brief. Never
-  make a subagent read the whole plan file.
-- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
-  (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
-  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
-  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
-- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
-  paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
-  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.
-- 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 —
-  fix-loop rounds 1-3 resume this agent.
-- Never dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts).
-
-Template: [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md)
-
-### 2. Handle the report
+## Handling Implementer Status
 
 Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 
@@ -238,37 +150,20 @@ Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 
 **Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.
 
-If the implementer asks questions — before starting or mid-task — answer
-clearly and completely, provide additional context if needed, and don't
-rush it into implementation.
+## Handling Reviewer ⚠️ Items
 
-### 3. Review the task
+The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
+that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
+review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
+complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
+lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
+review — send it back to the implementer and re-review.
+
+## Constructing Reviewer Prompts
 
 Per-task reviews are task-scoped gates. The broad review happens once, at the
-final whole-branch review. Never skip the task review, and never accept a
-report missing either verdict — spec compliance AND task quality are both
-required. Implementer self-review never replaces the task review; both are
-needed.
+final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
 
-- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
-  `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
-  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
-  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
-  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
-  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
-  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
-  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks. Never
-  dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file.
-- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
-  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
-  constraints that bind the task.
-- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
-  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
-  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
-  stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
-  Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
-  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
-  project's spec demands.
 - Do not add open-ended directives like "check all uses" or "run race tests
   if useful" without a concrete, task-specific reason
 - Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the
@@ -279,153 +174,111 @@ needed.
   loop. If the prompt you are writing contains "do not flag," "don't treat X
   as a defect," "at most Minor," or "the plan chose" — stop: you are
   pre-judging, usually to spare yourself a review loop.
-
-The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
-that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
-review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
-complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
-lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
-review — it enters the fix loop with the other findings.
-
-Template: [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md)
-
-### 4. The fix loop
-
-The loop triggers when the review reports spec ❌, any Critical or Important
-finding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.
-
-Before the loop starts, two routes leave it immediately:
-
-- Record Minor findings in the progress ledger as you go
-  (`Task <N>: minor (deferred): <one-liner>`), and point the final
+- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
+  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
+  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
+  stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
+  Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
+  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
+  project's spec demands.
+- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
+  `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
+  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
+  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
+  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
+  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
+  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
+  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks.
+- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
+  paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
+  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.
+- Dispatch fix subagents for Critical and Important findings. Record Minor
+  findings in the progress ledger as you go, and point the final
   whole-branch review at that list so it can triage which must be fixed
-  before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard. Minor findings
-  never enter the loop.
+  before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard.
 - A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with
   what the plan's text requires — is the human's decision, like any plan
   contradiction: present the finding and the plan text, ask which governs.
   Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not
   dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without asking.
-
-Everything else enters the loop. A fix round is one fix dispatch plus one
-scoped re-review. Five rounds maximum per task:
-
-**Rounds 1-3 — resume the original implementer.** Send it the open findings
-verbatim. Its context is intact: it knows the task, the code, and its own
-choices. If your harness cannot send another message to a live subagent,
-dispatch a fresh implementer carrying the brief path, the report-file path,
-and the findings — the report file is the persistent memory either way.
-
-**Rounds 4-5 — dispatch a fresh implementer on a more capable model** (per
-Model Selection), with the brief path, the report-file path, the open
-findings, and this framing: "A prior implementer attempted this task
-[N] times; you own it now. Read the report file for what was tried." A loop
-that survives three resumes usually means the implementer cannot see its
-own problem — fresh eyes and a capability bump in one move.
-
-**Every round, either way:** the implementer fixes, re-runs the tests
-covering the amended code, appends its fix report to the same report file,
-and returns the short contract. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm
-the fix report contains the covering tests, the command run, and the
-output; dispatch the re-review once all three are present. Name the
-covering test files in the fix message — a one-line fix does not need the
-whole suite.
-
-**The re-review is scoped.** Run `scripts/review-package FIX_BASE HEAD`
-where FIX_BASE is the head the previous review saw, and dispatch
-[re-review-prompt.md](re-review-prompt.md) with the findings list, the
-brief, the report file, and the printed diff path. The re-reviewer verdicts
-each finding ADDRESSED or NOT ADDRESSED and flags new breakage in the fix
-diff only. New Critical/Important breakage in the fix diff joins the open
-findings list. Out-of-scope observations go to the ledger as deferred
-minors — they never extend the loop.
-
-**After each round,** append to the ledger:
-`Task <N>: fix round <R>/5 (<X> addressed, <Y> open — <finding one-liners>; commits <a7>..<b7>)`
-
-Never fix findings yourself in the controller session — your context stays
-clean for coordination, and controller fixes skip review.
-
-**The breaker.** When round 5's re-review still leaves findings open, stop
-dispatching. Adjudicate each open finding yourself — you hold the plan and
-the cross-task context the reviewer lacks:
-
-- **The reviewer is wrong, or the point is contestable:** park it —
-  `Task <N>: parked — <finding> — ruling: <why the code stands>`. The final
-  review sees both sides.
-- **Real, but nothing downstream builds on it:** park it the same way, with
-  a ruling that says it's real and deferred.
-- **Real and load-bearing** — a later task builds on it, or it reveals a
-  plan defect: STOP. Append `Task <N>: BLOCKED — <reason>` and report to
-  your human partner with the finding, the plan text it collides with, and
-  the fix history. Parking a structural failure lets every dependent task
-  build on it and hands the final review a problem it cannot fix either.
-
-Adjudicate only at the cap. Adjudicating earlier to end a loop is
-pre-judging with a different name. Every adjudication is a ledger entry —
-a silent discard is forbidden.
-
-### 5. Complete the task
-
-When the review comes back clean — or every open finding is parked with a
-ruling at the cap — append the completion line to the ledger in the same
-message as your other bookkeeping:
-
-- `Task <N>: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`
-- `Task <N>: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, <K> parked)` after a
-  tripped breaker
-
-Then mark the todo complete and move on. Never move to the next task while
-the review has open Critical/Important issues that are neither fixed nor
-parked-with-ruling at the cap.
-
-## Final Review
-
-The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
+- The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
   `scripts/review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
   branch started from, e.g. `git merge-base main HEAD`) and include the
   printed path in the final review dispatch, so the final reviewer reads
-one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands. Dispatch
-on the most capable available model (see Model Selection), using
-superpowers:requesting-code-review's
-[code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md). Point it at
-the ledger's deferred-minor and parked lines so it can triage which must be
-fixed before merge.
-
-If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix subagent
-with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
+  one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands.
+- Every fix dispatch carries the implementer contract: the fix subagent
+  re-runs the tests covering its change and reports the results. Name the
+  covering test files in the dispatch — a one-line fix does not need the
+  whole suite. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report
+  contains the covering tests, the command run, and the output; dispatch
+  the re-review once all three are present.
+- If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix
+  subagent with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
   Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
   session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.
-Then run exactly one scoped re-review of the fix wave
-(`scripts/review-package` over the fix range, [re-review-prompt.md](re-review-prompt.md)).
-Adjudicate any residual findings as in the task loop's breaker: park with
-rulings, or stop on load-bearing ones. There is no second fix wave —
-residual load-bearing findings surface to your human partner when
-finishing-a-development-branch presents the options.
 
-## Finish
+## File Handoffs
 
-Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
+Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
+prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
+and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files:
 
-## Common Rationalizations
+- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
+  `scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
+  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
+  brief stays the single source of requirements. Your dispatch should
+  contain: (1) one line on where this task fits in the project; (2) the
+  brief path, introduced as "read this first — it is your requirements,
+  with the exact values to use verbatim"; (3) interfaces and decisions
+  from earlier tasks that the brief cannot know; (4) your resolution of
+  any ambiguity you noticed in the brief; (5) the report-file path and
+  report contract. Exact values (numbers, magic strings, signatures, test
+  cases) appear only in the brief.
+- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
+  (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
+  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
+  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
+- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
+  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
+  constraints that bind the task.
+- Fix dispatches append their fix report (with test results) to the same
+  report file and return a short summary; re-reviews read the updated file.
 
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Close enough on spec compliance" | Reviewer found spec gaps = not done. Fix or hit the cap and adjudicate — those are the only exits. |
-| "I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |
-| "One more round will converge" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge — the failure is structural. Adjudicate and route. |
-| "The reviewer will just find something new anyway" | Scoped re-reviews verify fixes; they cannot wander. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |
-| "This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every ruling is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |
-| "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. |
+## Durable Progress
+
+Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
+controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
+sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
+a ledger file, not only in todos.
+
+- At skill start, check for a ledger:
+  `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks listed there
+  as complete are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task
+  not marked complete.
+- When a task's review comes back clean, append one line to the ledger in
+  the same message as your other bookkeeping:
+  `Task N: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`.
+- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
+  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
+  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
+- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
+  that happens, recover from `git log`.
+
+## Prompt Templates
+
+- [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md) - Dispatch implementer subagent
+- [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md) - Dispatch task reviewer subagent (spec compliance + code quality)
+- Final whole-branch review: use superpowers:requesting-code-review's [code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)
 
 ## Example Workflow
 
 ```
 You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
 
-[Setup: worktree verified, no ledger found, read plan, created todos]
+[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
+[Create todos for all tasks]
 
 Task 1: Hook installation script
 
@@ -435,7 +288,8 @@ Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system le
 
 You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
 
-Implementer: [Later]
+Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
+[Later] Implementer:
   - Implemented install-hook command
   - Added tests, 5/5 passing
   - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
@@ -445,39 +299,77 @@ Implementer: [Later]
 Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
   Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
 
-[Ledger: Task 1: complete (commits a1b2c3d..d4e5f6a, review clean)]
+[Mark Task 1 complete]
 
 Task 2: Recovery modes
 
 [Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
 
-Implementer: [No questions]
+Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
+Implementer:
   - Added verify/repair modes
   - 8/8 tests passing
+  - Self-review: All good
   - Committed
 
 [Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
 Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
   - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
+  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
   Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
 
-[Fix round 1: resume the implementer with both findings]
-Implementer: Added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant.
-  Re-ran test/recovery.test.js — 10/10 passing. Fix report appended.
+[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
+Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
 
-[Run review-package FIX_BASE HEAD; dispatch scoped re-review]
-Re-reviewer: Missing progress reporting — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:41).
-  Magic number — ADDRESSED (src/recovery.js:7). New breakage: none.
-  Verdict: all findings addressed.
+[Task reviewer reviews again]
+Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
 
-[Ledger: Task 2: fix round 1/5 (2 addressed, 0 open; commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e)]
-[Ledger: Task 2: complete (commits d4e5f6a..b7c8d9e, review clean)]
+[Mark Task 2 complete]
 
 ...
 
 [After all tasks]
-[Run review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD; dispatch final code-reviewer, most capable model]
-Final reviewer: All requirements met. Deferred minors triaged: none block merge.
+[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
+Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
 
-Done! Using superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
+Done!
 ```
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
+- Skip task review, or accept a report missing either verdict (spec compliance AND task quality are both required)
+- Proceed with unfixed issues
+- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
+- Make a subagent read the whole plan file (hand it its task brief —
+  `scripts/task-brief` — instead)
+- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
+- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
+- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (reviewer found spec issues = not done)
+- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
+- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
+- Tell a reviewer what not to flag, or pre-rate a finding's severity in the
+  dispatch prompt ("treat it as Minor at most") — the plan's example code is
+  a starting point, not evidence that its weaknesses were chosen
+- Dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file — generate it first
+  (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`) and name the printed path in the
+  prompt
+- Move to next task while the review has open Critical/Important issues
+- Re-dispatch a task the progress ledger already marks complete — check
+  the ledger (and `git log`) after any compaction or resume
+
+**If subagent asks questions:**
+- Answer clearly and completely
+- Provide additional context if needed
+- Don't rush them into implementation
+
+**If reviewer finds issues:**
+- Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
+- Reviewer reviews again
+- Repeat until approved
+- Don't skip the re-review
+
+**If subagent fails task:**
+- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
+- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

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

@@ -106,12 +106,9 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     ## After Review Findings
 
-    If the task review finds issues, you will be resumed with the findings.
-    Fix them, re-run the tests that cover the amended code, and append a fix
-    report to your report file: what you changed, the covering tests you
-    ran, the command, and the output. Reviewers will not re-run tests for
-    you — your report is the test evidence. Then reply with the same short
-    status contract as your first report.
+    If a reviewer finds issues and you fix them, re-run the tests that cover
+    the amended code and append the results to your report file. Reviewers
+    will not re-run tests for you — your report is the test evidence.
 
     ## Report Format
 

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

@@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
-# Scoped Re-Review Prompt Template
-
-Use this template when dispatching a re-review after a fix round. The
-re-reviewer verifies the findings were addressed and checks the fix diff for
-new breakage. It is not a fresh review — the full review already happened.
-
-**Purpose:** Verify each finding from the previous review was addressed, and
-that the fix itself broke nothing.
-
-```
-Subagent (general-purpose):
-  description: "Re-review Task N fix round R"
-  model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
-         model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
-  prompt: |
-    You are re-reviewing one task's fix round. A previous review produced
-    findings; an implementer has attempted to fix them. Your job is to
-    verdict each finding and inspect the fix diff — nothing else.
-
-    ## The Task
-
-    Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE]
-
-    ## The Findings Under Verification
-
-    [FINDINGS]
-
-    ## The Fix
-
-    Read the implementer's report (fix reports are appended at the end):
-    [REPORT_FILE]
-
-    **Fix base:** [FIX_BASE_SHA] (the head the previous review saw)
-    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
-    **Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE]
-
-    Read the diff file once — it contains the fix commits, a stat summary,
-    and the fix diff with surrounding context. Do not re-run git commands.
-    If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself:
-    `git diff --stat [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and
-    `git diff [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`.
-
-    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
-    tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
-
-    ## Scope
-
-    Your scope is the findings list and the fix diff. Verdict every finding.
-    Inspect the fix diff for new problems the fix itself introduced. Do NOT
-    re-review code the fix did not touch: if you notice an issue entirely
-    outside the fix diff, report it under Out-of-Scope Observations — it
-    does not block this task and does not extend the loop. A broad
-    whole-branch review happens after all tasks are complete.
-
-    ## Tests
-
-    The implementer re-ran the tests covering the amended code and appended
-    the results to the report file. Treat the report as unverified claims:
-    confirm the fix report names the covering tests and shows their output,
-    and verify the claims against the diff. Do not re-run the suite to
-    confirm their report. Run a test only when reading the code raises a
-    specific doubt that no existing run answers — and then a focused test,
-    never a package-wide suite.
-
-    ## Output Format
-
-    Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the first
-    finding's verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with file:line,
-    or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration.
-
-    ### Finding Verdicts
-
-    For each finding in The Findings Under Verification, in order:
-    - **[finding one-liner]** — ADDRESSED | NOT ADDRESSED, with file:line
-      evidence. "Attempted" is not addressed: the specific defect must no
-      longer exist.
-
-    ### New Breakage in the Fix Diff
-
-    Anything the fix itself broke or introduced, with severity
-    (Critical/Important/Minor) and file:line. "None" if clean.
-
-    ### Out-of-Scope Observations
-
-    Issues you noticed entirely outside the fix diff. Non-blocking; the
-    controller ledgers these for the final review. "None" if none.
-
-    ### Verdict
-
-    **Fix round:** [All findings addressed, no new Critical/Important
-    breakage | Findings remain open] — list the open ones.
-```
-
-**Placeholders:**
-- `[MODEL]` — REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection; scoped
-  re-reviews of small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier
-- `[BRIEF_FILE]` — the task brief file (same file the implementer worked from)
-- `[FINDINGS]` — the Critical/Important findings and spec gaps from the
-  previous review, copied verbatim, one per bullet
-- `[REPORT_FILE]` — the implementer's report file (fix reports appended)
-- `[FIX_BASE_SHA]` — the head the previous review saw
-- `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
-- `[DIFF_FILE]` — the path `scripts/review-package FIX_BASE HEAD` printed
-
-**Re-reviewer returns:** per-finding verdicts (ADDRESSED / NOT ADDRESSED),
-new breakage in the fix diff, out-of-scope observations, and a round verdict.

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

@@ -183,3 +183,6 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
 **Reviewer returns:** Spec Compliance verdict (✅/❌/⚠️), Strengths, Issues
 (Critical/Important/Minor), Task quality verdict
+
+A fix dispatch can address spec gaps and quality findings together;
+re-review after fixes covers both verdicts.

skills/using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Add to your Codex config (`~/.codex/config.toml`):
 multi_agent = true
 ```
 
-This enables `spawn_agent`, `wait_agent`, and `close_agent` for skills like `dispatching-parallel-agents` and `subagent-driven-development`. When using subagent-driven-development, close reviewer subagents when their review returns. Keep each implementer subagent open until its task's review passes — the fix loop resumes the implementer — then close it. If your harness cannot send another message to a spawned agent, dispatch each fix round as a fresh implementer carrying the brief, the report file, and the findings.
+This enables `spawn_agent`, `wait_agent`, and `close_agent` for skills like `dispatching-parallel-agents` and `subagent-driven-development`. When using subagent-driven-development, you should always close implementer and reviewer subagents when they have finished all their work.
 
 ## Environment Detection