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.

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-results.md

@@ -1,543 +0,0 @@
-# SDD plan-scoped workspace — eval results
-
-- **Date:** 2026-07-06
-- **Method:** writing-skills RED→GREEN pressure test, re-scoped 2026-07-06
-  with maintainer sign-off after the RED baseline did not reproduce blind
-  stale-ledger adoption. 5 fresh sonnet subagents per arm, compaction-resume
-  framing, every reply read and scored by hand.
-- **Spec:** 2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace.md
-
-## Scenarios
-
-**S1 — stale ledger from a different plan.** The fixture repo simulates a
-project where SDD ran plan A (`docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md`, 5
-tasks) to completion, and the controller under test is resuming follow-up
-plan B (`docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md`, also 5 tasks) after a
-context compaction. None of plan B is implemented. The GREEN arm uses the
-`scoped` layout — the post-upgrade worst case: a legacy flat ledger at
-`.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` carrying plan A's five "complete (review
-clean)" lines with no identity header, PLUS plan A's own completed
-plan-scoped workspace at `.superpowers/sdd/2026-07-01-widget-backend/progress.md`
-(identity first line naming plan A), and no workspace for plan B. A correct
-controller starts plan B at Task 1 without adopting either stale artifact.
-(The RED S1 arms ran in the earlier rounds summarized below, against the
-flat layout of fixtures v1/v2.)
-
-**S2 — same-plan resume.** Same project, but plan B's Tasks 1-2 are
-genuinely implemented, committed (`feat(export): export data model`,
-`feat(export): csv serializer` — real code satisfying each task's spec),
-and recorded complete in the ledger. A correct controller recognizes Tasks
-1-2 as done and dispatches Task 3. The RED control arm (released text) uses
-the `flat` layout — ledger at `.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` in the
-released format (no identity line). The GREEN arm uses the `scoped` layout
-— ledger at `.superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export/progress.md` whose
-first line is `# SDD ledger — plan: docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md`.
-
-## What RED showed (and did not show)
-
-Three RED rounds ran against the released (pre-change) SKILL.md text: v1
-and v2 with fresh-session framing, then a probe round with compaction-resume
-framing and the released skill's own "After compaction, trust the ledger and
-`git log` over your own recollection" instruction explicitly in play. 25
-reps total (5 × 5 cells: v1 S1, v1 S2, v2 S1, v2 S2, probe S1), one fresh
-sonnet subagent per rep, every reply read in full.
-
-**25/25 controller reps refused to treat a ledger as license to skip
-work.** All 15 S1 reps across the three rounds correctly identified the
-foreign, different-plan ledger and started their own plan at Task 1. The
-other 10 (v1 S2 and v2 S2) rejected ledgers nominally scoped to their own
-plan — 5 because fixture v1's placeholder hashes made the ledger
-unverifiable, and 5 because fixture v2's cited commits, though real and
-genuinely the controller's own plan's, contained non-functional stub code
-contradicting the "review clean" claim. Under no framing, in no cell, did a
-rep adopt a false completion claim and skip real work. The originally
-hypothesized failure — blind adoption of a stale foreign ledger — did not
-reproduce.
-
-The reproducible baseline harms are not an error rate:
-
-**(a) A forensic disambiguation tax on every resume in a stale-workspace
-repo.** In the probe round — the framing closest to a real
-crash/compaction recovery, with the "trust the ledger" instruction active —
-every rep still spent real tool calls proving a ledger wasn't its own
-before doing anything else: 7, 13, 9, 10, and 6 tool calls per rep (mean
-9.0).
-
-**(b) The structural record documented in the spec** ("Observed failures,"
-serf repo, 2026-06-22 → 2026-07-05): cross-plan collisions worked around ad
-hoc (the `cc-plugin-marketplaces` worktree accumulated 68 files across
-three plans; its P2 controller had to invent `progress-p2.md` and
-`p2-task-N-report.md` side-band names to dodge P1's ledger, leaving an
-abandoned `progress-p3.md` stub behind); briefs silently overwritten at the
-shared default path; and git contamination requiring two cleanup commits
-(`8305e340d`, `c966261a5`) with three artifacts still tracked on serf
-`main` today, including a report authored on a different machine that now
-materializes in every fresh worktree.
-
-The SKILL.md change proceeded on structural grounds, with maintainer
-(Jesse) sign-off on 2026-07-06 after reviewing the 25/25 numbers — not on a
-demonstrated error rate. What this GREEN round claims, and only claims:
-**regression safety** (the legitimate same-plan resume still resumes) and a
-**measured cost comparison** of the resume decision (reported honestly
-below — the mechanism changed; the raw tool-call count did not drop).
-
-### RED quote bank (verbatim, carried from the Task 1 evidence doc)
-
-**Round v1** (fresh-session framing, fixture v1 — fabricated hashes,
-17-vs-5 task counts):
-
-- **s1-rep2:**
-  > None of the `aaa000N`/`bbb000N` hashes the ledger cites exist as git objects (`git cat-file -t aaa0001` → "Not a valid object name"). The ledger's claims are unverifiable/fabricated relative to actual repo history.
-- **s2-rep1:**
-  > Conclusion: this ledger is stale/fabricated and must not be trusted — none of its claimed commits exist in this repo's history.
-- **s2-rep3** (names the specific hashes):
-  > the commit hashes `ccc0001/ddd0001/ccc0002/ddd0002` the ledger cites don't exist anywhere in history.
-
-**Round v2** (fresh-session framing, fixture v2 — real resolvable hashes,
-matched 5/5 task counts):
-
-- **s1-rep1:**
-  > Cross-checked the commit hashes it cites (0d2b573, 4b84f94, 2dad909, d7b6770, 4affd09) against `git log`: they match `docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md` (schema/validate/lock/registry/lint), a *different, already-finished* plan — not mine.
-- **s2-rep5:**
-  > All 9 commits in the repo's history are authored by `eval <eval@example.com>` at the identical timestamp, i.e. seeded fixture history, not a real prior session — there was no genuine implementer/reviewer pass behind these "review clean" annotations.
-
-**Round v3-probe** (compaction-resume framing, v2-style fixture,
-`tool_uses` recorded per rep):
-
-- **rep1 (tool_uses=7):**
-  > The workspace script (`scripts/sdd-workspace`) confirms the ledger path is a single fixed location (`$root/.superpowers/sdd`), not plan-scoped, so it will collide across any two plans run in the same repo.
-- **rep5 (tool_uses=6):**
-  > The ledger's "complete" claims do not apply to this plan — treating them as if they did would have caused skipping all 5 real tasks.
-
-v1 and v2 each independently triggered the eval's own stop gate (S1 passing
-5/5 requires human reassessment before any skill edit) and were escalated
-rather than acted on unilaterally. RED verbatim replies are preserved at
-the temp paths recorded in the eval-notes history (see git log for
-`2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-notes-red.md`):
-`tmp.HxHAMXx5og/red/` (v1), `tmp.gBeQlWDSrO/red/` (v2), `tmp.7WvvPaZcwZ/`
-(probe).
-
-## Fixture iterations
-
-Fixture v1 (discarded before any skill edit): plan A had 17 tasks vs plan
-B's 5 (a task-count tell), and its ledgers cited fabricated commit hashes.
-Agents dismissed the ledger via git forensics — S1 "passed" for the wrong
-reason and S2, the legitimate-resume control, failed 5/5. Fixture v2 used
-real cited commits and matched task counts; agents then inspected commit
-CONTENT, matched it to the other plan file (S1), and ruled v2's stub
-implementations false "review clean" records (S2 failed 5/5 again).
-Fixture v3 (this round) makes every ledger claim truthful under content
-inspection: real implementations satisfying each task's spec, rotating
-authors, spread timestamps.
-
-One implementation note on v3, for transparency: the fixture generator as
-written in the plan text had a command-substitution subshell bug — the
-`ci` commit counter was incremented inside `$(commit_file ...)`, so the
-increment never survived the subshell and every commit collapsed to a
-single author (Dana Okafor) at a single per-plan timestamp, exactly the
-"fixture-manufactured history" tell that invalidated v2's control. The
-plan's own Step 1 sanity gate (every cited hash resolves AND two authors
-across two dates) caught it before any scenario rep ran. It was fixed with
-a one-hunk change persisting the counter in a file (see Appendix A, which
-shows the generator as actually used); no scenario rep ever ran against
-the broken build.
-
-## Results
-
-| Arm | Text under test | Fixture | PASS | Notes |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| S1 RED | released (v6.1.1 line) | v1+v2+probe, 3 framings | 15/15 refused adoption | mean 9.0 tool_uses of cross-plan forensics (resume round) |
-| S1 GREEN | this branch | v3 scoped | 5/5 | all 5 resolved structurally (workspace + identity line), none via commit-content forensics; tool_uses 9/11/9/7/12 |
-| S2 RED (control) | released | v3 flat | 5/5 | validates the fixture: truthful same-plan ledger accepted, Task 3 dispatched; tool_uses 9/8/10/7/5 |
-| S2 GREEN | this branch | v3 scoped | 5/5 | regression: legitimate resume still resumes (Tasks 1-2 recognized, Task 3 dispatched); tool_uses 11/9/7/8/7 |
-
-Scoring criteria: S1 GREEN passes iff first dispatch is plan B Task 1 with
-no plan-B task claimed complete and neither stale artifact adopted; S2
-(both arms) passes iff Tasks 1-2 are recognized complete and Task 3 is the
-first dispatch. Every rep was a fresh sonnet subagent given the verbatim
-prompt in Appendix B; every reply was read in full and is preserved
-verbatim (paths under Limitations).
-
-## Disambiguation cost
-
-| Round | Framing | Text | tool_uses per rep | mean |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| RED probe | compaction-resume | released | 7 / 13 / 9 / 10 / 6 | 9.0 |
-| S1 GREEN | compaction-resume | this branch | 9 / 11 / 9 / 7 / 12 | 9.6 |
-
-Read this table honestly: the raw tool-call count did **not** drop (9.6 vs
-9.0). Two things differ between the rows. First, the S1 GREEN fixture
-carries strictly more stale material than the probe fixture did — three
-ledger locations (empty own workspace, flat legacy ledger, plan A's
-completed scoped workspace) versus one flat ledger — so each GREEN rep
-enumerates and classifies more artifacts. Second, and the substantive
-change: what the calls are spent on. Probe-round reps established
-provenance by cross-plan commit/plan-file forensics (fetching cited
-commits' diffs and matching their content to the other plan's file) because
-the text gave them no other way to decide whose ledger it was. GREEN reps
-decide by structure — resolve the plan's own workspace, check the identity
-first line — and spend their remaining calls corroborating that their own
-plan has no prior work (git log, file listing), which a fresh-start
-controller does regardless. Same-plan resume cost is unchanged within
-noise: S2 GREEN mean 8.4 vs S2 RED control mean 7.8. tool_uses is a coarse
-proxy (it counts calls, not tokens or risk); the structural claim — no
-GREEN rep needed content forensics to disambiguate, and misattribution is
-now impossible when every ledger names its plan — is the load-bearing
-result, not a call-count reduction this scenario does not demonstrate.
-
-## GREEN behavior notes
-
-Every GREEN rep (10/10) began by resolving the plan-scoped workspace —
-either running `scripts/sdd-workspace docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md`
-or checking `.superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export/` directly — and
-treated the identity first line as the authority on ledger ownership.
-
-**S1 GREEN resolution shape, per rep** (expected shape: plan-scoped
-workspace resolution without commit-content forensics):
-
-- **rep1 (9):** structural decision plus git-log correlation of the stray
-  ledger's cited hashes to commit subjects (never fetched diffs): "an
-  unidentified stray ledger at the old flat path belongs to another plan —
-  disregarded as evidence for this plan"; the plan-A scoped ledger's
-  identity line "proves ledger #2 is that plan's leftover duplicate, not
-  mine."
-- **rep2 (11):** purely structural: the flat ledger "has no `# SDD ledger —
-  plan: …` identity line. Per skill rule, a flat-path ledger is another
-  plan's stray progress — not mine, left untouched."
-- **rep3 (9):** purely structural; noted the flat ledger is "byte-identical
-  to the widget-backend ledger" and left both foreign artifacts untouched.
-- **rep4 (7):** structural with a light hash-to-`git log` cross-reference;
-  own workspace resolved via the script and found empty; both stale
-  artifacts "left in place untouched — not mine."
-- **rep5 (12):** purely structural; the workspace "did not exist until the
-  script created it just now," flat ledger rejected on the missing header
-  alone.
-
-None of the five fetched a cited commit's diff to match its content
-against the other plan's file — the v2/probe rounds' signature forensic
-move. All five dispatched plan B Task 1; none claimed any plan-B task
-complete; both stale artifacts were left in place (per the skill's "leave
-it in place and start your own, fresh").
-
-**S2 GREEN (regression):** 5/5 recognized Tasks 1-2 as complete from the
-identity-lined ledger, cross-checked the two cited commits against `git
-log` (commit-level, consistent with the ledger's own recovery-map role),
-and dispatched Task 3. No rep re-dispatched completed work; no rep
-rejected the legitimate ledger — the failure mode that sank the v1/v2 S2
-controls did not recur on the truthful fixture, in either the control or
-the GREEN arm.
-
-**Refinement iterations:** none. All three gates passed on the first run;
-no SKILL.md wording changes were made during this eval round.
-
-## Appendix A: fixture generator (v3)
-
-The generator **as actually used** for every fixture in this round. Delta
-from the plan text: the single fix described under Fixture iterations —
-`ci` is persisted in a per-invocation counter file (`SELF_DIR`/`CI_FILE`
-lines and the two-line read/write inside `commit_file`) instead of a plain
-shell variable that command substitution discards; everything else is
-verbatim from the plan.
-
-```bash
-#!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Build a throwaway git repo simulating a project where SDD ran plan A
-# (widget backend) to completion and a controller is resuming follow-up
-# plan B (widget export). v3: every ledger claim survives content
-# inspection — cited commits are real, resolvable, authored by rotating
-# identities at spread timestamps, and their diffs genuinely satisfy the
-# task specs they claim (v2's stubs were ruled "false records" by scenario
-# agents). Plans A and B both have 5 tasks so numbering is not a tell.
-#
-# Usage: make-fixture.sh SCENARIO LAYOUT DEST
-#   SCENARIO: s1 (stale ledger from a different plan) | s2 (same-plan resume)
-#   LAYOUT:   flat (released layout: .superpowers/sdd/progress.md)
-#             scoped (new layout: .superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/progress.md,
-#                     PLUS leftover flat + sibling litter for s1)
-#   DEST:     directory to create the repo in
-set -euo pipefail
-scenario=$1 layout=$2 dest=$3
-
-# Fix vs. the plan text (2026-07-06, controller-authorized): commit_file is
-# called via command substitution, which forks a subshell, so `ci=$((ci+1))`
-# on a plain shell variable never propagated back — every commit took the
-# odd/Dana branch at the same T11 timestamp, failing the plan's own sanity
-# gate (two authors across two dates). Persist ci in a fresh per-invocation
-# counter file under the script's own directory (= EVAL_ROOT), initialized
-# here so consecutive builds cannot bleed state into each other.
-SELF_DIR=$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)
-CI_FILE=$(mktemp "$SELF_DIR/.ci-counter.XXXXXX")
-echo 0 > "$CI_FILE"
-
-git init -q -b main "$dest"
-cd "$dest"
-git config user.email eval@example.com
-git config user.name eval
-git config commit.gpgsign false
-
-BASE_DAY=2026-07-01
-commit_file() { # commit_file FILE MESSAGE -> prints short hash; FILE already written
-  git add "$1"
-  ci=$(( $(cat "$CI_FILE") + 1 ))
-  echo "$ci" > "$CI_FILE"
-  if [ $((ci % 2)) -eq 0 ]; then
-    GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Sam Rivera' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='sam@example.com' \
-    GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:15:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:16:30" \
-      git commit -qm "$2"
-  else
-    GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Dana Okafor' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='dana@example.com' \
-    GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:05:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T1${ci}:07:10" \
-      git commit -qm "$2"
-  fi
-  git rev-parse --short HEAD
-}
-
-mkdir -p docs/plans src
-
-cat > docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md <<'EOF'
-# Widget Backend Implementation Plan
-
-> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development.
-
-**Goal:** Build the widget inventory backend core.
-
-## Task 1: Storage schema
-
-Define the on-disk widget schema in `src/schema.py`: fields `id` (int),
-`name` (str), `count` (int).
-
-## Task 2: Validation rules
-
-`validate(widget) -> bool` in `src/validate.py`: exactly the schema's keys.
-
-## Task 3: File locking
-
-`locked(path)` context manager in `src/lock.py` using `fcntl.flock`.
-
-## Task 4: Registry load/save
-
-`load(path) -> list` and `save(path, items)` in `src/registry.py`, JSON on disk.
-
-## Task 5: Lint gate
-
-Add `.lint.cfg` with a 100-column limit.
-EOF
-
-cat > src/inventory.py <<'EOF'
-"""Inventory service (fixture)."""
-def list_items():
-    return []
-EOF
-
-git add -A
-GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Dana Okafor' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='dana@example.com' \
-GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T10:00:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T10:01:00" \
-  git commit -qm "chore: widget project scaffold with backend plan"
-
-# Plan A's five tasks, implemented for real so the ledger's claims survive
-# content inspection against plan A's specs.
-cat > src/schema.py <<'EOF'
-SCHEMA = {"id": int, "name": str, "count": int}
-EOF
-a1=$(commit_file src/schema.py 'feat(backend): storage schema')
-
-cat > src/validate.py <<'EOF'
-from schema import SCHEMA
-
-def validate(widget):
-    return set(widget) == set(SCHEMA)
-EOF
-a2=$(commit_file src/validate.py 'feat(backend): validation rules')
-
-cat > src/lock.py <<'EOF'
-import fcntl
-from contextlib import contextmanager
-
-@contextmanager
-def locked(path):
-    with open(path, "a") as f:
-        fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_EX)
-        try:
-            yield f
-        finally:
-            fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
-EOF
-a3=$(commit_file src/lock.py 'feat(backend): file locking')
-
-cat > src/registry.py <<'EOF'
-import json
-
-def load(path):
-    try:
-        with open(path) as f:
-            return json.load(f)
-    except FileNotFoundError:
-        return []
-
-def save(path, items):
-    with open(path, "w") as f:
-        json.dump(items, f)
-EOF
-a4=$(commit_file src/registry.py 'feat(backend): registry load/save')
-
-cat > .lint.cfg <<'EOF'
-max-line-length = 100
-EOF
-a5=$(commit_file .lint.cfg 'chore(backend): lint gate')
-
-BASE_DAY=2026-07-06
-cat > docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md <<'EOF'
-# Widget Export Implementation Plan
-
-> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development.
-
-**Goal:** Add CSV and JSON export of widgets to the inventory backend.
-
-## Task 1: Export data model
-
-Define `ExportRow` in `src/export_model.py` with fields `id`, `name`, `count`.
-
-## Task 2: CSV serializer
-
-`to_csv(rows) -> str` in `src/export_csv.py`, header row + one line per widget.
-
-## Task 3: JSON serializer
-
-`to_json(rows) -> str` in `src/export_json.py`, list of objects, stable key order.
-
-## Task 4: CLI flag
-
-`inventory export --format csv|json` writing to stdout.
-
-## Task 5: End-to-end test
-
-Round-trip: list -> export -> parse -> compare.
-EOF
-git add docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md
-GIT_AUTHOR_NAME='Dana Okafor' GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL='dana@example.com' \
-GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T09:30:00" GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="${BASE_DAY}T09:31:00" \
-  git commit -qm "docs: follow-up plan — widget export"
-
-plan_a_ledger_lines() {
-  printf 'Task 1: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a1"
-  printf 'Task 2: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a2"
-  printf 'Task 3: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a3"
-  printf 'Task 4: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a4"
-  printf 'Task 5: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$a5"
-  printf '\n## Final whole-branch review — DONE\nNo Critical/Important findings.\n'
-}
-
-if [ "$scenario" = s2 ]; then
-  # Plan B tasks 1-2 genuinely implemented to their specs, so the resume
-  # ledger is legitimate under content inspection.
-  cat > src/export_model.py <<'EOF'
-class ExportRow:
-    def __init__(self, id, name, count):
-        self.id = id
-        self.name = name
-        self.count = count
-EOF
-  b1=$(commit_file src/export_model.py 'feat(export): export data model')
-
-  cat > src/export_csv.py <<'EOF'
-def to_csv(rows):
-    lines = ["id,name,count"]
-    for r in rows:
-        lines.append(f"{r.id},{r.name},{r.count}")
-    return "\n".join(lines)
-EOF
-  b2=$(commit_file src/export_csv.py 'feat(export): csv serializer')
-
-  plan_b_ledger_lines() {
-    printf 'Task 1: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$b1"
-    printf 'Task 2: complete (commits %s, review clean)\n' "$b2"
-  }
-fi
-
-case "$scenario/$layout" in
-  s1/flat)
-    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd
-    plan_a_ledger_lines > .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
-    ;;
-  s1/scoped)
-    # Post-upgrade worst case: legacy flat ledger litter AND plan A's own
-    # completed scoped workspace both present.
-    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-01-widget-backend
-    printf '*\n' > .superpowers/sdd/.gitignore
-    plan_a_ledger_lines > .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
-    {
-      printf '# SDD ledger — plan: docs/plans/2026-07-01-widget-backend.md\n\n'
-      plan_a_ledger_lines
-    } > .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-01-widget-backend/progress.md
-    ;;
-  s2/flat)
-    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd
-    plan_b_ledger_lines > .superpowers/sdd/progress.md
-    ;;
-  s2/scoped)
-    mkdir -p .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export
-    printf '*\n' > .superpowers/sdd/.gitignore
-    {
-      printf '# SDD ledger — plan: docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md\n\n'
-      plan_b_ledger_lines
-    } > .superpowers/sdd/2026-07-06-widget-export/progress.md
-    ;;
-  *)
-    echo "unknown scenario/layout: $scenario/$layout" >&2
-    exit 2
-    ;;
-esac
-```
-
-## Appendix B: scenario prompt
-
-One fresh subagent per rep (model `sonnet`, subagent_type
-`general-purpose`), given this prompt verbatim with only `<SKILL_DIR>` and
-`<FIXTURE_REPO>` filled. `<SKILL_DIR>` was this branch's
-`skills/subagent-driven-development` for the GREEN arms and the released
-tree extracted from git (`git archive 4118245`) for the S2 RED control.
-
-```
-<session-context>
-This session is being continued from a previous conversation that ran out of
-context and was compacted. Summary of the earlier portion:
-
-- You are the SDD controller for the repository at <FIXTURE_REPO>
-- You had begun executing the implementation plan
-  docs/plans/2026-07-06-widget-export.md (relative to that repo) using the
-  Subagent-Driven Development skill, whose complete text and scripts are at:
-  <SKILL_DIR>
-- The context filled mid-session; the durable record of progress is on disk
-  per the skill's Durable Progress section.
-</session-context>
-
-Continue executing the plan. Re-read the skill's SKILL.md to re-anchor on the
-process, recover your place, and continue.
-
-Scope limit for this run: you may read anything, run git commands, and run
-the skill's scripts. Do NOT dispatch any subagents and do NOT implement any
-tasks. Work only up to the point where you know your execution state, then
-STOP and reply with exactly this report:
-
-1. LEDGERS CHECKED: each progress/ledger file path you looked at, and what
-   you concluded from it.
-2. TASKS ALREADY COMPLETE: which of YOUR plan's tasks (if any) are already
-   done.
-3. FIRST DISPATCH: which task you will dispatch next.
-
-Be concrete and terse. That report is your entire deliverable.
-```
-
-## Limitations
-
-Five reps per cell is a smoke-strength signal, not a statistical one; the
-scenario measures the resume decision, not a full execution; tool_uses is a
-coarse cost proxy. A rerunnable harness case belongs in superpowers-evals
-as follow-up. RED artifacts (verbatim replies) are preserved at the temp
-paths recorded in the eval-notes history (see git log for
-2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-notes-red.md). This round's
-artifacts — the 15 fixture repos, all 15 verbatim replies
-(`<arm>-repN.reply.md`, first line = tool_uses), and the as-used generator
-— are preserved under the OS temp root at
-`/var/folders/g6/_sjng8h14gs3xt6c7t72w0180000gn/T/tmp.eSJKC2JemT` (path
-also recorded in `/tmp/sdd-eval-root-v3.path`).

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace.md

@@ -1,196 +0,0 @@
-# SDD plan-scoped workspace — design
-
-- **Date:** 2026-07-06
-- **Status:** approved direction (Jesse, 2026-07-06); this spec captures the investigation's recommended fix
-- **Problem owner:** subagent-driven-development skill (`skills/subagent-driven-development/`)
-
-## Problem
-
-SDD's durable-progress workspace (`.superpowers/sdd/`, introduced v6.0.0/v6.0.3) has
-no plan identity and no end-of-life. Every artifact is keyed by bare task number
-(`progress.md`, `task-N-brief.md`, `task-N-report.md`), and SKILL.md instructs a
-starting controller to treat whatever ledger it finds as its own progress:
-
-> 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.
-
-A fresh session executing a **follow-up plan** in the same worktree reads the
-previous plan's ledger as its own. A straight-line reading of the skill tells it
-to skip tasks. Nothing ever deletes the workspace, so the stale state persists
-indefinitely and accumulates.
-
-### Observed failures (serf repo, 2026-06-22 → 2026-07-05)
-
-- **Cross-plan collisions, worked around ad hoc:** `cc-plugin-marketplaces`
-  worktree accumulated 68 files across three plans. The P2 controller had to
-  invent `progress-p2.md` and `p2-task-N-report.md` to dodge P1's ledger; P2's
-  briefs silently overwrote P1's at the default paths; an abandoned
-  `progress-p3.md` stub remains.
-- **Git contamination, three times over:** SDD scratch was committed and needed
-  two cleanup commits (`8305e340d`, `c966261a5`); three artifacts are tracked on
-  serf main today, including a report authored on a different machine that now
-  materializes in every fresh worktree. A follow-up plan's task-1 report
-  overwrote an unrelated tracked one, leaving permanent `git status` noise.
-- The self-ignoring `.gitignore` is written only when a script runs. Controllers
-  that hand-append the ledger (observed) never create it, and gitignore is
-  powerless once a file is tracked.
-
-### Root cause
-
-Identity lives nowhere in the data; correctness relies on cleanup that has no
-trigger. Any fix that relies on end-of-plan cleanup alone fails exactly in the
-crash/compaction cases the ledger exists to survive. Identity must be
-structural.
-
-## Design
-
-### 1. Per-plan workspace directory (structural identity)
-
-The workspace becomes `.superpowers/sdd/<plan-slug>/`, where `<plan-slug>` is
-the plan file's basename without its `.md` extension (plan filenames are
-already dated kebab-case, e.g. `2026-07-04-plugin-marketplaces-p1-backend-core`).
-Artifacts from different plans can no longer collide; a stale sibling directory
-is inert because no instruction ever points at it.
-
-Script interface (all in `skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/`):
-
-- `sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` — resolves and creates
-  `<repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-slug>/`, maintains the self-ignoring
-  `.gitignore` at `.superpowers/sdd/.gitignore` (parent level, content `*`),
-  prints the plan directory's absolute path. Errors (exit 2) on missing
-  argument or nonexistent plan file. Slug must be non-empty after stripping.
-- `task-brief PLAN_FILE N [OUTFILE]` — signature unchanged; default OUTFILE
-  moves to `<workspace>/task-N-brief.md` via `sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE`.
-- `review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]` — gains PLAN_FILE as first
-  argument; default OUTFILE moves to `<workspace>/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff`.
-
-No compatibility path for the old flat layout: the scripts and SKILL.md ship
-together in one plugin release, and nothing else invokes the scripts.
-(Explicitly confirmed: no backward-compatibility handling.)
-
-### 2. Ledger names its plan (belt for hand-rolled ledgers)
-
-The ledger stays `<workspace>/progress.md`. When created, its first line MUST
-be:
-
-```
-# SDD ledger — plan: docs/superpowers/plans/<plan-file>.md
-```
-
-SKILL.md's start-of-skill check becomes plan-scoped and carries a conditional
-guard keyed to that observable line, phrased positively (recipe, not
-prohibition): resolve your plan's workspace with `sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE`,
-read `progress.md` there; a ledger whose plan line names a different plan file
-is another plan's progress — leave it in place and use your own plan's
-workspace. This covers controllers that hand-write ledgers without running the
-scripts (observed in the serf ask_user session) and pre-upgrade litter at the
-old flat path.
-
-The exact wording of the guard is subordinate to eval results (see Evaluation);
-counters are added only for failures actually observed in the RED baseline.
-
-### 3. Workspace end-of-life (hygiene, not correctness)
-
-When the final whole-branch review is clean and its fix wave (if any) is
-merged — immediately before handing off to
-`superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch` — the controller deletes its
-plan's workspace directory (`rm -rf "$WORKSPACE"`). The record of the work is
-the git history; the ledger's job (mid-plan compaction recovery) is over.
-Sibling directories are never touched: crashed or parallel plans own their own
-dirs, and deliberately parked cross-plan artifacts (observed pattern:
-`WAVE1-HANDOFF.md`) live directly under `.superpowers/sdd/` untouched by any
-plan's cleanup.
-
-### 4. SKILL.md touch points
-
-- **Durable Progress** section: workspace resolution via `sdd-workspace
-  PLAN_FILE`; ledger check scoped to the plan's own workspace; ledger-creation
-  format including the plan line; the mismatch guard; completion deletion; the
-  `git clean -fdx` hazard note updated to the new path.
-- **Handling Implementer Status / Constructing Reviewer Prompts / File
-  Handoffs / Red Flags / Example Workflow**: update script invocations to the
-  new signatures (`review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD`) and any path mentions.
-  `implementer-prompt.md` and `task-reviewer-prompt.md` contain no workspace
-  paths (verified) and need no changes.
-- Red Flags additions only if the RED baseline shows a failure the structural
-  fix plus guard text does not close.
-
-## Out of scope (deliberate)
-
-- No changes to `finishing-a-development-branch` or any other skill.
-- No git-level guards against committing `.superpowers/` beyond the existing
-  parent `.gitignore`.
-- No retroactive cleanup of the serf repo (separate follow-up).
-- No legacy-layout migration or fallback reads.
-
-## Testing
-
-### Deterministic shell tests (`tests/claude-code/test-sdd-workspace.sh`, extended)
-
-- `sdd-workspace PLAN` prints `<root>/.superpowers/sdd/<slug>` and creates it;
-  errors without a plan arg; errors on missing plan file.
-- Two different plan files resolve to two distinct directories; artifacts
-  written via `task-brief` land in their own plan's directory.
-- `review-package PLAN BASE HEAD` writes under the plan's directory.
-- Parent `.gitignore` self-ignores: workspace invisible to `git status` and
-  `git add -A` (existing assertions, re-anchored).
-- Linked-worktree distinctness (existing assertion, re-anchored).
-- Existing suites `test-subagent-driven-development.sh` /
-  `-integration.sh` audited for old-path expectations (none found in initial
-  grep; audit is a task gate anyway).
-
-### Evaluation (writing-skills RED → GREEN, re-scoped 2026-07-06)
-
-Pressure scenarios run as fresh sonnet subagent sessions against fixture repos
-in temp directories (never inside this worktree), compaction-resume framing,
-each rep hand-scored; the measured output is the controller's resume decision
-(no real implementer dispatches).
-
-**RED outcome that forced the re-scope (maintainer decision, Jesse,
-2026-07-06):** the originally hypothesized failure — a controller blindly
-adopting a stale foreign ledger as its own progress — did **not** reproduce:
-25/25 reps across three framings (fresh session, may-be-resumed, faithful
-post-compaction resume with the skill's "trust the ledger" line active)
-forensically cross-checked the ledger's cited commits against git history and
-the plan files, refused the foreign ledger, and started plan B at Task 1 —
-spending 6–13 tool calls of cross-plan forensics per resume to do so. Two
-fixture iterations were burned proving this honestly (v1: fabricated hashes
-were dismissed on sight; v2: stub implementations were ruled false "review
-clean" records — the S2 control failed both times). Full record in the
-committed eval docs.
-
-**Re-scoped claims and gates:**
-
-- The change ships on the structural record (collisions, improvised side-band
-  names, overwritten briefs, git contamination — serf repo) plus the measured
-  disambiguation tax, with explicit maintainer sign-off standing in for the
-  writing-skills failing-baseline requirement on the SKILL.md text.
-- **S1 GREEN (5/5 required):** stale plan-A workspace present in the new
-  scoped layout plus legacy flat litter; a resumed controller on plan B
-  resolves its own plan-scoped workspace directly and starts at Task 1;
-  per-rep `tool_uses` recorded against the RED baseline (7/13/9/10/6) as the
-  cost delta.
-- **S2 RED control (≥4/5 required) and S2 GREEN (5/5 required)** on a
-  truthful v3 fixture (cited commits genuinely implement their tasks' specs,
-  rotating authors, spread timestamps): legitimate same-plan resume — tasks
-  1–2 recognized, Task 3 dispatched. This protects the ledger's original
-  purpose; the fix must not break it, and the control validates the fixture.
-
-Results land in `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-06-sdd-plan-scoped-workspace-eval-results.md`
-and are summarized in the PR.
-
-## Risks
-
-- **Slug collisions between distinct plans with identical basenames** in
-  different directories: accepted; plan filenames are date-prefixed by
-  convention, and same-basename means same plan in practice (resume is then the
-  desired behavior).
-- **Controllers skipping the scripts entirely** (hand-rolled everything): the
-  ledger plan-line guard is the mitigation; the eval's S1 measures whether the
-  text actually binds.
-- **Re-running a completed plan from scratch after its workspace survived a
-  crash**: the ledger legitimately belongs to the same plan; resume-not-restart
-  is the designed behavior and `git log` cross-checking (existing skill text)
-  covers the divergence case.

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/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

@@ -63,7 +63,6 @@ digraph process {
     "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
     "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
     "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
-    "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" [shape=box];
     "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
 
     "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
@@ -79,8 +78,7 @@ digraph process {
     "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 subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace";
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
-    "Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
 }
 ```
 
@@ -135,7 +133,7 @@ that implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.
 
 Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
 
-**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.
+**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.
 
 **DONE_WITH_CONCERNS:** The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.
 
@@ -181,10 +179,10 @@ final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
   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 PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the
+  `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` and pass the reviewer the file path
-  file path it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`,
+  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,
-  `git diff --stat`, and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one
+  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
-  uniquely named file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
+  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.
@@ -203,8 +201,8 @@ final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
   Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not
   dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without asking.
 - The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
-  `scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the
+  `scripts/review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD` (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
-  commit the branch started from, e.g. `git merge-base main HEAD`) and include 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.
 - Every fix dispatch carries the implementer contract: the fix subagent
@@ -252,31 +250,18 @@ 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.
 
-- Each plan owns a workspace: at skill start, run this skill's
+- At skill start, check for a ledger:
-  `scripts/sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` — it prints the plan's git-ignored
+  `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.superpowers/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks listed there
-  directory (`<repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/`), home to
+  as complete are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task
-  every artifact for THIS plan: ledger, briefs, reports, review packages.
+  not marked complete.
-  Another plan's directory is never yours to read or write.
-- Check for this plan's ledger at `<workspace>/progress.md`. If its first
-  line names your plan file, tasks listed there as complete are DONE — do
-  not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task not marked complete. A
-  ledger whose first line names a different plan file — or a stray ledger
-  at the old flat path `.superpowers/sdd/progress.md` — is another plan's
-  progress: leave it in place and start your own, fresh.
-- Create the ledger with its identity as the first line:
-  `# SDD ledger — plan: <plan file path>`.
 - 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 workspace (it's git-ignored scratch); if
+- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
   that happens, recover from `git log`.
-- When the final whole-branch review is clean and its fixes are merged,
-  delete this plan's workspace (`rm -rf <workspace>`) — the git history
-  is the record now. Sibling directories belong to other plans; leave
-  them alone.
 
 ## Prompt Templates
 
@@ -290,7 +275,6 @@ a ledger file, not only in todos.
 You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
 
 [Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
-[Resolve workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md — no ledger inside, fresh start]
 [Create todos for all tasks]
 
 Task 1: Hook installation script
@@ -345,43 +329,9 @@ Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
 [Dispatch final code-reviewer]
 Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
 
-[Delete this plan's workspace — the record now lives in git]
-
 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:**
@@ -400,8 +350,8 @@ Done!
   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 PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD`) and name the printed
+  (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`) and name the printed path in the
-  path in the prompt
+  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

skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/review-package

@@ -4,28 +4,26 @@
 # call. Using the recorded per-task BASE (not HEAD~1) keeps multi-commit
 # tasks intact.
 #
-# Usage: review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
+# Usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
-# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff
+# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff
 # (named per range, so a re-review after fixes gets a distinct fresh file).
 set -euo pipefail
 
-if [ $# -lt 3 ] || [ $# -gt 4 ]; then
+if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
-  echo "usage: review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
+  echo "usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
   exit 2
 fi
 
-plan=$1
+base=$1
-base=$2
+head=$2
-head=$3
-[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
 
 git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$base" >/dev/null || { echo "bad BASE: $base" >&2; exit 2; }
 git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$head" >/dev/null || { echo "bad HEAD: $head" >&2; exit 2; }
 
-if [ $# -eq 4 ]; then
+if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
-  out=$4
+  out=$3
 else
-  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace" "$plan")
+  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace")
   out="$dir/review-$(git rev-parse --short "$base")..$(git rev-parse --short "$head").diff"
 fi
 

skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/sdd-workspace

@@ -1,40 +1,22 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Resolve and ensure the working-tree directory SDD uses for one plan's
+# Resolve and ensure the working-tree directory SDD uses for its short-lived
-# short-lived artifacts: task briefs, implementer reports, review packages,
+# artifacts: task briefs, implementer reports, review packages, and the
-# and the progress ledger. Print the plan directory's absolute path.
+# progress ledger. Print the directory's absolute path.
-#
-# One directory per plan (.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/) so a follow-up
-# plan in the same working tree can never read or overwrite another plan's
-# artifacts. A stale ledger misread as current progress makes controllers
-# skip whole task sequences — plan-scoping removes that failure structurally.
 #
 # The workspace lives in the working tree (not under .git/) because Claude Code
 # treats .git/ as a protected path and denies agent writes there — which blocks
 # an implementer subagent from writing its report file. A self-ignoring
-# .gitignore at .superpowers/sdd/ keeps every plan's workspace out of
+# .gitignore keeps the workspace out of `git status` and out of accidental
-# `git status` and out of accidental commits without modifying any tracked file.
+# commits without modifying any tracked file.
 #
 # Single source of truth for the workspace location, so task-brief and
 # review-package cannot drift to different directories.
 #
-# Usage: sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE
+# Usage: sdd-workspace
 set -euo pipefail
 
-if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then
-  echo "usage: sdd-workspace PLAN_FILE" >&2
-  exit 2
-fi
-
-plan=$1
-[ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
-
-slug=$(basename "$plan" .md)
-[ -n "$slug" ] && [ "$slug" != "." ] && [ "$slug" != ".." ] \
-  || { echo "cannot derive a workspace name from: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
-
 root=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
-base="$root/.superpowers/sdd"
+dir="$root/.superpowers/sdd"
-dir="$base/$slug"
 mkdir -p "$dir"
-printf '*\n' > "$base/.gitignore"
+printf '*\n' > "$dir/.gitignore"
 cd "$dir" && pwd

skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/task-brief

@@ -4,9 +4,8 @@
 # through the controller's context.
 #
 # Usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]
-# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>/task-<N>-brief.md
+# Default OUTFILE: <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/task-<N>-brief.md
-# (per plan and per worktree; concurrent runs of the SAME plan in the same
+# (per worktree; concurrent runs in the same working tree share it).
-# working tree share it).
 set -euo pipefail
 
 if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
@@ -21,7 +20,7 @@ n=$2
 if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
   out=$3
 else
-  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace" "$plan")
+  dir=$("$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/sdd-workspace")
   out="$dir/task-${n}-brief.md"
 fi
 

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

@@ -178,8 +178,8 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 - `[BASE_SHA]` — commit before this task
 - `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
 - `[DIFF_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the path the controller wrote the review
-  package to (`scripts/review-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` prints the unique
+  package to (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` prints the unique path it
-  path it wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
+  wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
 
 **Reviewer returns:** Spec Compliance verdict (✅/❌/⚠️), Strengths, Issues
 (Critical/Important/Minor), Task quality verdict

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
+| Excuse | Reality |
-
+|--------|---------|
-- **Problem:** Using `git worktree add` when the platform already provides isolation
+| "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. |
-- **Fix:** Step 0 detects existing isolation. Step 1a defers to native tools.
+| "`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. |
-### Skipping detection
+| "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. |
-- **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

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.

tests/claude-code/test-sdd-workspace.sh

@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
-# Tests for the SDD workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace resolves a self-ignoring,
+# Tests for the SDD workspace: scripts/sdd-workspace resolves a self-ignoring
-# PER-PLAN working-tree directory for SDD artifacts, and the SDD scripts write
+# working-tree directory for SDD artifacts, and the SDD scripts write into it.
-# into their plan's directory.
 set -euo pipefail
 
 SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
@@ -36,72 +35,26 @@ main() {
     local repo
     repo="$(cd "$TEST_ROOT/repo" && git rev-parse --show-toplevel)"
 
-    cat > "$repo/plan-a.md" <<'PLAN'
+    local dir
-# Plan A
+    dir="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace")"
 
-## Task 1: First thing
+    if [[ "$dir" == "$repo/.superpowers/sdd" ]]; then
-
+        pass "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd"
-Do the first thing.
-PLAN
-    cat > "$repo/plan-b.md" <<'PLAN'
-# Plan B
-
-## Task 1: Other thing
-
-Do the other thing.
-PLAN
-
-    # --- argument validation ---
-    local rc=0
-    (cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" >/dev/null 2>&1) || rc=$?
-    if [[ "$rc" -eq 2 ]]; then
-        pass "sdd-workspace without a plan errors with exit 2"
     else
-        fail "sdd-workspace without a plan errors with exit 2"
+        fail "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd"
-        echo "    exit: $rc"
+        echo "    got: $dir"
-    fi
-
-    rc=0
-    (cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" no-such-plan.md >/dev/null 2>&1) || rc=$?
-    if [[ "$rc" -eq 2 ]]; then
-        pass "sdd-workspace with a missing plan file errors with exit 2"
-    else
-        fail "sdd-workspace with a missing plan file errors with exit 2"
-        echo "    exit: $rc"
-    fi
-
-    # --- per-plan resolution ---
-    local dir_a dir_b
-    dir_a="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" plan-a.md)"
-    dir_b="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" plan-b.md)"
-
-    if [[ "$dir_a" == "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a" ]]; then
-        pass "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>"
-    else
-        fail "prints <repo-root>/.superpowers/sdd/<plan-basename>"
-        echo "    got: $dir_a"
-    fi
-
-    if [[ "$dir_a" != "$dir_b" && -d "$dir_a" && -d "$dir_b" ]]; then
-        pass "two plans resolve to two distinct directories"
-    else
-        fail "two plans resolve to two distinct directories"
-        echo "    a: $dir_a"
-        echo "    b: $dir_b"
     fi
 
     if [[ -f "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/.gitignore" && "$(cat "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/.gitignore")" == "*" ]]; then
-        pass "self-ignoring .gitignore created at .superpowers/sdd/ with '*'"
+        pass "self-ignoring .gitignore created with '*'"
     else
-        fail "self-ignoring .gitignore created at .superpowers/sdd/ with '*'"
+        fail "self-ignoring .gitignore created with '*'"
     fi
 
-    printf 'x\n' > "$dir_a/artifact.md"
+    printf 'x\n' > "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/artifact.md"
     local status
     status="$(cd "$repo" && git status --porcelain)"
-    # plan-a.md/plan-b.md are intentionally untracked fixture files; only the
+    if [[ -z "$status" ]]; then
-    # workspace must be invisible.
-    if [[ "$status" != *".superpowers"* ]]; then
         pass "workspace invisible to git status"
     else
         fail "workspace invisible to git status"
@@ -111,78 +64,67 @@ PLAN
     ( cd "$repo" && git add -A )
     local staged
     staged="$(cd "$repo" && git diff --cached --name-only)"
-    if [[ "$staged" != *".superpowers"* ]]; then
+    if [[ -z "$staged" ]]; then
         pass "git add -A does not stage the workspace"
     else
         fail "git add -A does not stage the workspace"
         echo "    staged: $staged"
     fi
 
-    # --- task-brief lands in its plan's directory ---
+    cat > "$repo/plan.md" <<'PLAN'
-    local brief_out brief_path
+# Plan
-    brief_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/task-brief" plan-a.md 1)"
+
-    brief_path="$(printf '%s\n' "$brief_out" | sed -n 's/^wrote \(.*\): [0-9][0-9]* lines$/\1/p')"
+## Task 1: First thing
-    if [[ "$brief_path" == "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a/task-1-brief.md" ]]; then
+
-        pass "task-brief writes its brief under the plan's workspace"
+Do the first thing.
-    else
+PLAN
-        fail "task-brief writes its brief under the plan's workspace"
+
-        echo "    got: $brief_path"
+    local brief_out brief_path
-    fi
+    brief_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/task-brief" plan.md 1)"
+    brief_path="$(printf '%s\n' "$brief_out" | sed -n 's/^wrote \(.*\): [0-9][0-9]* lines$/\1/p')"
+    case "$brief_path" in
+        "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/"*) pass "task-brief writes its brief under the workspace" ;;
+        *)
+            fail "task-brief writes its brief under the workspace"
+            echo "    got: $brief_path"
+            ;;
+    esac
 
-    # --- review-package takes the plan first and lands in its directory ---
     local git_id=(-c user.email=t@example.com -c user.name=t -c commit.gpgsign=false)
     ( cd "$repo" \
+        && git add plan.md \
         && git "${git_id[@]}" commit -qm c1 \
         && printf 'y\n' > f && git add f \
         && git "${git_id[@]}" commit -qm c2 )
     local rp_out rp_path
-    rp_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" plan-a.md HEAD~1 HEAD)"
+    rp_out="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" HEAD~1 HEAD)"
     rp_path="$(printf '%s\n' "$rp_out" | sed -n 's/^wrote \(.*\): [0-9].*$/\1/p')"
     case "$rp_path" in
-        "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a/review-"*.diff)
+        "$repo/.superpowers/sdd/"*) pass "review-package writes its diff under the workspace" ;;
-            pass "review-package writes its diff under the plan's workspace" ;;
         *)
-            fail "review-package writes its diff under the plan's workspace"
+            fail "review-package writes its diff under the workspace"
             echo "    got: $rp_path"
             ;;
     esac
 
-    rc=0
-    (cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" HEAD~1 HEAD >/dev/null 2>&1) || rc=$?
-    if [[ "$rc" -eq 2 ]]; then
-        pass "review-package without a plan errors with exit 2"
-    else
-        fail "review-package without a plan errors with exit 2"
-        echo "    exit: $rc"
-    fi
-
-    local rp_explicit
-    rp_explicit="$(cd "$repo" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/review-package" plan-a.md HEAD~1 HEAD "$TEST_ROOT/explicit.diff")"
-    if [[ -s "$TEST_ROOT/explicit.diff" && "$rp_explicit" == *"$TEST_ROOT/explicit.diff"* ]]; then
-        pass "review-package honors an explicit OUTFILE"
-    else
-        fail "review-package honors an explicit OUTFILE"
-        echo "    got: $rp_explicit"
-    fi
-
     # --- Worktree isolation: a linked worktree resolves its own workspace ---
     local wt="$TEST_ROOT/wt"
     ( cd "$repo" && git worktree add -q "$wt" -b wt-feature )
     local wt_root wt_dir
     wt_root="$(cd "$wt" && git rev-parse --show-toplevel)"
-    wt_dir="$(cd "$wt" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace" plan-a.md)"
+    wt_dir="$(cd "$wt" && "$SDD_SCRIPTS/sdd-workspace")"
-    if [[ "$wt_dir" == "$wt_root/.superpowers/sdd/plan-a" && "$wt_dir" != "$dir_a" ]]; then
+    if [[ "$wt_dir" == "$wt_root/.superpowers/sdd" && "$wt_dir" != "$dir" ]]; then
         pass "linked worktree resolves its own distinct workspace"
     else
         fail "linked worktree resolves its own distinct workspace"
-        echo "    main: $dir_a"
+        echo "    main: $dir"
         echo "    wt:   $wt_dir"
     fi
 
-    printf 'y\n' > "$wt_dir/artifact.md"
+    printf 'y\n' > "$wt/.superpowers/sdd/artifact.md"
     local wt_status
     wt_status="$(cd "$wt" && git status --porcelain)"
-    if [[ "$wt_status" != *".superpowers"* ]]; then
+    if [[ -z "$wt_status" ]]; then
         pass "worktree workspace invisible to git status"
     else
         fail "worktree workspace invisible to git status"