fix(skills): SDD review fanout scales with the change (SUP-333 B)

subagent-driven-development mandated implementer + two-stage review + final reviewer unconditionally — antigravity (agy) and opencode each dispatched 4 subagents for a one-line console.log (cost-trivial-task-review-fanout), and agents that passed did so only by disobeying the skill. - Proportionality rule: a plan that is entirely one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change is implemented directly, verified per superpowers:verification-before-completion, committed — no review fanout. Trivial is a property of the diff (no logic, control flow, or security-relevant change), not the plan's self-description; "a constant bump" is qualified (no security or behavioral consequences). Any doubt = full pipeline. Multi-task plans never skip reviews regardless of task size. - Flowchart gets the matching trivial-exit diamond (the failing agents follow the flowchart literally). - Red Flags "never skip reviews" points at the sole exception instead of contradicting it. - writing-plans' execution handoff notes fanout scales (forward reference resolves within this PR's base expectations: the Proportionality rule ships here). Independently mergeable: no dependency on the reference-discipline or brainstorming-exception PRs. Eval evidence (quorum): RED 4 dispatches for 1 line (agy, opencode); GREEN cost-trivial-task-review-fanout opencode 3/3 pass (0 dispatches, deterministic tool-count check) + antigravity pass (the formerly deterministic failer); containment canary sdd-rejects-extra-features claude 3/3 pass (full pipeline per task). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
chore(evals): bump submodule for Claude Haiku target
2026-06-11 21:29:07 +08:00 · 2026-06-11 00:21:24 -07:00 · 2026-06-10 16:31:16 -07:00
15 changed files with 181 additions and 1797 deletions
--- a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-09-sdd-task-scoped-review-dispatch.md
+++ b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-09-sdd-task-scoped-review-dispatch.md
@@ -1,774 +0,0 @@
 # SDD Task-Scoped Review Dispatch Implementation Plan
 > **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
 **Goal:** Scope SDD's per-task reviews to the task (diff-first reading, justified broadening, no redundant test runs) while final branch review stays broad.
 **Architecture:** Four prose edits to the subagent-driven-development skill (the per-task quality prompt becomes self-contained instead of delegating to the merge-readiness template; the spec prompt gets a third verdict channel and grounded skepticism; the implementer prompt gains a re-run-after-fix rule; SKILL.md gets controller guidance) plus one new eval scenario in the `evals/` submodule. `skills/requesting-code-review/` is deliberately untouched.
 **Tech Stack:** Markdown skill files; Python setup helper + bash checks + story.md for the quorum eval.
 **Spec:** `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-09-sdd-task-scoped-review-dispatch-design.md` — read it before starting. Decisions already settled there: full re-reviews stay; the two review stages stay separate; coordinator keeps model judgment; `requesting-code-review/` stays broad.
 **These are behavior-shaping prose files, not code.** There are no unit tests for them. Each task's verification steps are exact `grep` checks that the edit landed; behavioral verification is Task 6 (static) and Task 7 (live evals, maintainer-gated).
 ---
 ### Task 1: Rewrite the per-task quality reviewer prompt as self-contained
 The current file delegates to `../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`, which is a merge-readiness review (architecture, security, production readiness, "Ready to merge?"). Replace the entire file with a self-contained, task-scoped template.
 **Files:**
 - Rewrite: `skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`
 - [ ] **Step 1: Replace the full file contents with:**
 ````markdown
 # Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
 Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
 **Purpose:** Verify one task's implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
 **Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.**
 ```
 Subagent (general-purpose):
  description: "Review code quality for Task N"
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing one task's implementation for code quality. This is a
    task-scoped gate, not a merge review — a broad whole-branch review happens
    separately after all tasks are complete.
    ## What Was Implemented
    [DESCRIPTION]
    ## Task Requirements (context only)
    [TASK_TEXT]
    ## Git Range to Review
    **Base:** [BASE_SHA]
    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
    ```bash
    git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
    git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
    ```
    ## Read-Only Review
    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree,
    the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`,
    `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history.
    ## Scope
    Spec compliance was already verified by a separate reviewer. Do not
    re-check whether the code matches the requirements or the plan.
    Start from the diff. Read the changed files first. Inspect code outside
    the diff only to evaluate a concrete risk you can name — and name it in
    your report. Cross-cutting changes are legitimate named risks: if the
    diff changes lock ordering, a function or API contract, or shared mutable
    state, checking the call sites is the right method. Do not crawl the
    codebase by default.
    ## Tests
    The implementer already ran the tests and reported results with TDD
    evidence for exactly this code. 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, race detector run, or repeated/high-count loop. If
    heavy validation seems warranted, recommend it in your report instead of
    running it. If you cannot run commands in this environment, name the
    test you would run.
    ## What to Check
    **Code quality:**
    - Clean separation of concerns?
    - Proper error handling?
    - DRY without premature abstraction?
    - Edge cases handled?
    **Tests:**
    - Do the new and changed tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
    - Are the task's edge cases covered?
    **Structure:**
    - Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
    - Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
    - Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
    - Did this change create new files that are already large, or
      significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file
      sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
    ## Calibration
    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
    ## Output Format
    ### Strengths
    [What's well done? Be specific.]
    ### Issues
    #### Critical (Must Fix)
    [Bugs, data loss risks, broken functionality]
    #### Important (Should Fix)
    [Poor error handling, test gaps, structural problems]
    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
    [Code style, optimization opportunities]
    For each issue:
    - File:line reference
    - What's wrong
    - Why it matters
    - How to fix (if not obvious)
    ### Assessment
    **Task quality:** [Approved | Needs fixes]
    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
 ```
 **Placeholders:**
 - `[DESCRIPTION]` — task summary, from implementer's report
 - `[TASK_TEXT]` — the task's requirements text or plan reference, for context
 - `[BASE_SHA]` — commit before this task
 - `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit
 **Reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Task quality verdict
 ````
 - [ ] **Step 2: Verify the rewrite landed**
 Run: `grep -c "requesting-code-review" skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md || echo ABSENT`
 Expected: `ABSENT` (no more delegation)
 Run: `grep -n "Task quality:" skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md | head -2`
 Expected: one match (the Output Format verdict line; the "Reviewer returns" footer says "Task quality verdict" without a colon)
 Run: `grep -n "worktree add\|Ready to merge" skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md || echo CLEAN`
 Expected: `CLEAN`
 - [ ] **Step 3: Commit**
 ```bash
 git add skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md
 git commit -m "Make per-task quality reviewer prompt self-contained and task-scoped"
 ```
 ---
 ### Task 2: Spec reviewer prompt cleanups
 Four exact edits to `skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md`. Current line numbers refer to the file as of commit f55642e.
 **Files:**
 - Modify: `skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md`
 - [ ] **Step 1: Add the judge-from-the-diff clause.** After the line (currently line 31):
 ```
    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase.
 ```
 insert a blank line and:
 ```
    Spec compliance is judged by reading the diff against the requirements.
    The implementer already ran the tests and reported TDD evidence — do not
    re-run them. If a requirement cannot be verified from this diff alone
    (it lives in unchanged code or spans tasks), report it as a ⚠️ item
    instead of broadening your search.
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 2: Trim the read-only section.** Replace (currently line 35):
 ```
    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.
 ```
 with:
 ```
    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history.
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 3: Ground the skepticism.** Replace (currently lines 39-40):
 ```
    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
 ```
 with:
 ```
    Treat the implementer's report as unverified claims about the code. It may
    be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. Verify the claims against the diff.
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 4: Add the third verdict channel.** Replace (currently lines 74-76):
 ```
    Report:
    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
 ```
 with:
 ```
    Report:
    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
    - ⚠️ Cannot verify from diff: [requirements you could not verify from the
      diff alone, and what the controller should check — report alongside the
      ✅/❌ verdict for everything you could verify]
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 5: Verify**
 Run: `grep -n "suspiciously\|worktree add" skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md || echo CLEAN`
 Expected: `CLEAN`
 Run: `grep -c "⚠️" skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md`
 Expected: `2` (judge-from-diff clause + verdict channel)
 - [ ] **Step 6: Commit**
 ```bash
 git add skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md
 git commit -m "Spec reviewer: judge from the diff, grounded skepticism, ⚠️ verdict channel"
 ```
 ---
 ### Task 3: Implementer prompt — re-run tests after fixing review findings
 The reviewers' "don't re-run the implementer's tests" rule assumes the implementer re-runs tests after every fix. Make that real.
 **Files:**
 - Modify: `skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md`
 - [ ] **Step 1: Insert a new section.** Immediately before the line (currently line 100):
 ```
    ## Report Format
 ```
 insert:
 ```
    ## After Review Findings
    If a reviewer finds issues and you fix them, re-run the tests that cover
    the amended code and include the results in your fix report. Reviewers
    will not re-run tests for you — your report is the test evidence.
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 2: Verify**
 Run: `grep -n "After Review Findings" skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md`
 Expected: one match, on a line before `## Report Format`
 - [ ] **Step 3: Commit**
 ```bash
 git add skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md
 git commit -m "Implementer prompt: re-run covering tests after fixing review findings"
 ```
 ---
 ### Task 4: SKILL.md controller changes
 Six exact edits to `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`. Current line numbers refer to commit f55642e.
 **Files:**
 - Modify: `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
 - [ ] **Step 1: Point the final-review flowchart node at the broad template.** The node label `Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation` appears 3 times (currently lines 65, 84, 85). In all 3 occurrences, replace the label string with:
 ```
 Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)
 ```
 (Graphviz nodes are matched by label text — all three must be byte-identical or the graph grows a phantom node.)
 - [ ] **Step 2: Model selection by judgment.** Replace (currently lines 97-99):
 ```
 **Architecture, design, and review tasks**: use the most capable available model.
 **Task complexity signals:**
 ```
 with:
 ```
 **Architecture and design tasks**: use the most capable available model.
 **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.
 **Task complexity signals (implementation tasks):**
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 3: Add controller guidance sections.** Immediately before the line (currently line 122):
 ```
 ## Prompt Templates
 ```
 insert:
 ```
 ## Handling Spec Reviewer ⚠️ Items
 The spec reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
 that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block dispatching the
 code quality reviewer, 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. When you fill a reviewer template:
 - 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
  same code — the implementer's report carries the test evidence
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 4: Prompt Templates list — add the final-review pointer.** Replace (currently line 126):
 ```
 - [code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md](code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md) - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
 ```
 with:
 ```
 - [code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md](code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md) - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
 - Final whole-branch review: use superpowers:requesting-code-review's [code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 5: Example workflow verdict vocabulary.** Two replacements:
 Replace (currently line 157):
 ```
 Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
 ```
 with:
 ```
 Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
 ```
 Replace (currently line 191):
 ```
 Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
 ```
 with:
 ```
 Code reviewer: ✅ Task quality: Approved
 ```
 (The final reviewer's "ready to merge" line, currently line 199, stays.)
 - [ ] **Step 6: Integration section.** Replace (currently line 272):
 ```
 - **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for reviewer subagents
 ```
 with:
 ```
 - **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for the final whole-branch review
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 7: Verify**
 Run: `grep -c "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
 Expected: `3`
 Run: `grep -n "most capable available model" skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
 Expected: exactly one match (architecture/design bullet)
 Run: `grep -n "Handling Spec Reviewer\|Constructing Reviewer Prompts" skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
 Expected: two section headers, both before `## Prompt Templates`
 Run: `grep -c "Task quality: Approved" skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
 Expected: `2`
 - [ ] **Step 8: Commit**
 ```bash
 git add skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
 git commit -m "SDD controller: reviewer prompt budgets, ⚠️ handling, final-review pointer, model judgment"
 ```
 ---
 ### Task 5: New eval scenario — per-task quality reviewer catches a planted defect
 Lives in the `evals/` **submodule** (separate repo, `superpowers-evals`). Work on a branch there; the parent submodule-pointer bump happens at finishing time per `evals/CLAUDE.md`.
 The fixture plan's Task 2 implementation snippet duplicates Task 1's formatting logic verbatim. The duplication is spec-compliant, so the spec reviewer should pass it — the per-task quality reviewer is the gate under test (DRY violation).
 **Files:**
 - Create: `evals/setup_helpers/sdd_quality_defect_plan.py`
 - Modify: `evals/setup_helpers/__init__.py`
 - Create: `evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/story.md`
 - Create: `evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/setup.sh`
 - Create: `evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/checks.sh`
 - [ ] **Step 0: Branch in the submodule**
 ```bash
 cd evals
 git checkout -b sdd-quality-defect-scenario
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 1: Create `evals/setup_helpers/sdd_quality_defect_plan.py`:**
 ````python
 """Setup helper for the sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect scenario.
 Scaffolds a tiny Node project with a 2-task plan whose Task 2
 implementation snippet duplicates Task 1's formatting logic verbatim.
 The duplication is spec-compliant — the requirements only describe
 behavior — so the spec compliance reviewer should pass it. The test
 measures whether the per-task code quality reviewer catches the DRY
 violation and forces a refactor in the review-fix loop.
 """
 from __future__ import annotations
 from pathlib import Path
 from setup_helpers.base import _git
 PACKAGE_JSON = """\
 {
  "name": "report-quality",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "type": "module",
  "scripts": {
    "test": "node --test"
  }
 }
 """
 PLAN_BODY = """\
 # Report Formatter — Implementation Plan
 Two report formatting functions. Implement exactly what each task
 specifies.
 ## Task 1: User Report
 **File:** `src/report.js`
 **Requirements:**
 - Function named `formatUserReport`
 - Takes one parameter `user`: an object with `name`, `email`, `visits`
 - Returns a multi-line string: a banner of 40 `=` characters, then
  `Report for <name> <<email>>`, then the banner again, then
  `Visits: <visits>`, then a closing banner
 - Export the function
 **Implementation:**
 ```javascript
 export function formatUserReport(user) {
  const banner = "=".repeat(40);
  const lines = [];
  lines.push(banner);
  lines.push(`Report for ${user.name} <${user.email}>`);
  lines.push(banner);
  lines.push(`Visits: ${user.visits}`);
  lines.push(banner);
  return lines.join("\\n");
 }
 ```
 **Tests:** Create `test/report.test.js` verifying:
 - the result contains `Report for Ada <ada@example.com>` for that user
 - the result contains `Visits: 3` when `visits` is `3`
 - the result starts and ends with the 40-char banner
 **Verification:** `npm test`
 ## Task 2: Admin Report
 **File:** `src/report.js` (add to existing file)
 **Requirements:**
 - Function named `formatAdminReport`
 - Takes one parameter `admin`: an object with `name`, `email`, `lastLogin`
 - Same banner layout as the user report; the body line is
  `Last login: <lastLogin>` instead of the visits line
 - Export the function; keep `formatUserReport` working
 **Implementation:**
 ```javascript
 export function formatAdminReport(admin) {
  const banner = "=".repeat(40);
  const lines = [];
  lines.push(banner);
  lines.push(`Report for ${admin.name} <${admin.email}>`);
  lines.push(banner);
  lines.push(`Last login: ${admin.lastLogin}`);
  lines.push(banner);
  return lines.join("\\n");
 }
 ```
 **Tests:** Add to `test/report.test.js`:
 - the result contains `Report for Grace <grace@example.com>` for that admin
 - the result contains `Last login: 2026-06-01`
 - the result starts and ends with the 40-char banner
 **Verification:** `npm test`
 """
 def scaffold_sdd_quality_defect_plan(workdir: Path) -> None:
    workdir = Path(workdir)
    workdir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    _git(["git", "init", "-b", "main"], cwd=workdir)
    _git(["git", "config", "user.email", "drill@test.local"], cwd=workdir)
    _git(["git", "config", "user.name", "Drill Test"], cwd=workdir)
    (workdir / "package.json").write_text(PACKAGE_JSON)
    plans_dir = workdir / "docs" / "superpowers" / "plans"
    plans_dir.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
    (plans_dir / "report-plan.md").write_text(PLAN_BODY)
    _git(["git", "add", "-A"], cwd=workdir)
    _git(["git", "commit", "-m", "initial: report formatter plan"], cwd=workdir)
 ````
 (Note the `\\n` in the JS snippets inside PLAN_BODY: the Python source must
 produce a literal `\n` in the markdown so the JS reads `lines.join("\n")`.)
 - [ ] **Step 2: Register the helper.** In `evals/setup_helpers/__init__.py`:
 After the line:
 ```python
 from setup_helpers.sdd_real_projects import scaffold_sdd_go_fractals, scaffold_sdd_svelte_todo
 ```
 add:
 ```python
 from setup_helpers.sdd_quality_defect_plan import scaffold_sdd_quality_defect_plan
 ```
 After the registry entry:
 ```python
    "scaffold_sdd_yagni_plan": scaffold_sdd_yagni_plan,
 ```
 add:
 ```python
    "scaffold_sdd_quality_defect_plan": scaffold_sdd_quality_defect_plan,
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 3: Create `evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/story.md`:**
 ```markdown
 ---
 id: sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect
 title: SDD's per-task code quality review catches a planted DRY violation
 status: ready
 tags: subagent-driven-development
 quorum_max_time: 90m
 ---
 You have a small plan at docs/superpowers/plans/report-plan.md — two report
 formatting functions. The plan's Task 2 implementation snippet duplicates
 Task 1's formatting logic verbatim instead of sharing it. The duplication is
 spec-compliant (the requirements only describe behavior), so the spec
 compliance reviewer should pass it — the per-task code quality reviewer is
 the gate under test. You are spec-aware — name the skill.
 When the agent is ready for input, tell it to execute the plan with SDD. Use
 phrasing like:
 "I have a small plan at docs/superpowers/plans/report-plan.md — two report
 formatting functions. Use the superpowers:subagent-driven-development skill
 to execute it end-to-end — dispatch fresh subagents per task and run the
 two-stage review after each."
 Let the agent proceed autonomously. If it asks clarifying questions, give
 brief answers. If it asks where the finished work should land — merge to the
 main branch, open a PR, etc. — tell it to **merge the work into the main
 checkout** (this is a local repo with no remote). If a quality reviewer
 flags the duplicated formatting logic and an implementer refactors it, let
 the review-fix cycle play out — that cycle is exactly the behavior under
 test.
 The deliverable must end up in the checkout you launched in (the main
 working tree). If the agent did its work on a branch or in a worktree, it
 is not done until it has merged/finished that work back into the main
 checkout. Once the agent reports the plan is complete (both functions
 implemented, tests passing) AND the code is present on the main checkout,
 you are done.
 ## Acceptance Criteria
 - A `Skill` invocation naming `superpowers:subagent-driven-development`
  and at least one `Agent` (subagent dispatch) tool call appear in the
  session log.
 - The duplicated report-formatting logic did not survive to the end of
  the run. Either (a) the implementer never introduced the duplication
  (wrote or self-reviewed its way to shared logic), or (b) the per-task
  code quality reviewer flagged the duplication as an issue and a
  review-fix loop removed it. A fail looks like the duplicated logic
  shipping with the per-task quality reviewer approving it, or the
  duplication being caught only by the final whole-branch review.
 - The per-task quality reviewers stayed task-scoped: no package-wide
  test suites, race detector runs, or repeated/high-count test loops
  appear in reviewer subagent activity, and reviewers did not re-run
  the full test suite merely to confirm the implementer's report.
 - `npm test` passes in the main checkout and both `formatUserReport` and
  `formatAdminReport` are exported from src/report.js. The deterministic
  assertions gate this; the criteria above are about whether the
  *per-task quality review* was the mechanism that kept the code clean.
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 4: Create `evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/setup.sh`:**
 ```bash
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
 set -euo pipefail
 uv run setup-helpers run scaffold_sdd_quality_defect_plan
 ```
 Then: `chmod +x evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/setup.sh`
 - [ ] **Step 5: Create `evals/scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/checks.sh`** (no executable bit):
 ```bash
 pre() {
    git-repo
    git-branch main
    requires-tool npm
    file-exists 'docs/superpowers/plans/report-plan.md'
    file-contains 'docs/superpowers/plans/report-plan.md' 'formatAdminReport'
    file-contains 'docs/superpowers/plans/report-plan.md' 'repeat\(40\)'
 }
 post() {
    skill-called superpowers:subagent-driven-development
    tool-called Agent
    command-succeeds 'npm test'
    file-contains 'src/report.js' 'export function formatUserReport'
    file-contains 'src/report.js' 'export function formatAdminReport'
    command-succeeds 'test "$(grep -c "repeat(40)" src/report.js)" -le 1'
 }
 ```
 (The last check is the deterministic DRY gate: the banner construction
 `"=".repeat(40)` must appear at most once in the final file — shared, not
 duplicated per function.)
 - [ ] **Step 6: Validate and test in the evals repo**
 ```bash
 cd evals
 uv run quorum check
 uv run ruff check
 uv run pytest -x -q
 ```
 Expected: all pass; `quorum check` lists the new scenario without errors.
 - [ ] **Step 7: Commit (in the submodule)**
 ```bash
 cd evals
 git add setup_helpers/sdd_quality_defect_plan.py setup_helpers/__init__.py scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect/
 git commit -m "Add sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect scenario"
 ```
 ---
 ### Task 6: Static verification sweep
 **Files:** none modified — verification only.
 - [ ] **Step 1: No dangling references in the parent repo**
 Run: `grep -rn "requesting-code-review" skills/subagent-driven-development/`
 Expected: matches only in SKILL.md (final-review flowchart node ×3, Prompt Templates pointer, Integration bullet). None in code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md.
 Run: `grep -rn "Ready to merge" skills/subagent-driven-development/ || echo CLEAN`
 Expected: `CLEAN`
 - [ ] **Step 2: Plugin infrastructure tests**
 Run: `bash tests/shell-lint/test-lint-shell.sh`
 Expected: all PASS (we added `setup.sh` only inside the evals submodule, which has its own checks).
 - [ ] **Step 3: Cross-platform tool tables still coherent**
 Run: `grep -n "code-quality-reviewer" skills/using-superpowers/references/antigravity-tools.md skills/using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md`
 Expected: both tables still list `code-quality-reviewer` as a reviewer template (the new prompt's "If you cannot run commands in this environment, name the test you would run" line keeps the read-only `research` mapping valid — no table edits needed).
 ---
 ### Task 7: Live before/after evals (maintainer-gated)
 Live quorum runs launch agent CLIs in permissive modes — **trusted-maintainer operation; Jesse launches these**, per `evals/CLAUDE.md`. Requires `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`.
 - [ ] **Step 1: Baseline (skills as released on dev)** — from the main checkout (`/Users/jesse/git/superpowers/superpowers`, on dev), or any checkout without this branch's changes:
 ```bash
 cd evals
 export SUPERPOWERS_ROOT=/Users/jesse/git/superpowers/superpowers
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-rejects-extra-features --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-go-fractals --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-svelte-todo --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/spec-reviewer-catches-planted-flaws --coding-agent claude
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 2: After (this branch's skills)** — point `SUPERPOWERS_ROOT` at this worktree:
 ```bash
 cd evals
 export SUPERPOWERS_ROOT=/Users/jesse/git/superpowers/superpowers/.claude/worktrees/sdd-review-dispatch
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-rejects-extra-features --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-go-fractals --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-svelte-todo --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/spec-reviewer-catches-planted-flaws --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum run scenarios/sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-planted-defect --coding-agent claude
 uv run quorum show
 ```
 - [ ] **Step 3: Compare**
 Pass bar: all four pre-existing scenarios still pass after the change (no regression in catch rate); the new planted-defect scenario passes. For exploration cost, compare reviewer-subagent tool-call counts between the before/after run transcripts (no automated check exists — the spec calls this out as a known gap).
 ---
 ## Finishing
 After all tasks pass: the evals submodule commit needs to land in `superpowers-evals` (PR to its `main`), then this branch bumps the `evals` submodule pointer — per `evals/CLAUDE.md`, the parent bump is part of propagation, not optional. Then use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch. PRs against superpowers target `dev`.
--- a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-09-sdd-task-scoped-review-dispatch-design.md
+++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-09-sdd-task-scoped-review-dispatch-design.md
@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
 # SDD Task-Scoped Review Dispatch
 Make subagent-driven-development's per-task reviews cheaper and faster without weakening them, by scoping per-task review prompts to the task and stopping redundant work — while final branch review stays broad.
 ## Problem
 Per-task code quality reviewers in SDD routinely do branch-review-scale work on single-task diffs. Evidence from two real local SDD sessions: `a1a6719a-6109-453a-9933-34ae396f5bae` (sen-core-v2) and `0cc1a12d-9984-4c35-8615-9d42dadb2c47` (serf), both under `~/.claude/projects/`:
 - In the sen-core-v2 session, 7/8 quality reviewers ran repo-wide greps; the most expensive ran 50+ Bash commands over ~200 seconds. Across both sessions, quality reviewers cost 4-8× what spec reviewers cost on the same tasks.
 - Spec reviewers, whose prompt contains "Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase," stayed tight: 6-16 tool calls, 14-65 seconds.
 - No reviewer ran heavy tests autonomously. Every package-wide or repeated test run observed was explicitly requested by a controller-written prompt ("check all uses," "run tests if useful, especially race-focused ones," "does anything else read `Meta()`?").
 Root causes, in order of impact:
 1. **The per-task quality prompt inherits a merge-readiness review.** `code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` delegates to `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`, which asks about architecture, scalability, security, production readiness, and ends with "Ready to merge?" That frame licenses branch-level breadth on a one-task diff. The spec prompt's diff-scope guard was never carried over.
 2. **The controller gets no guidance on writing reviewer prompts**, so it invents open-ended directives ("check all uses") that reviewers interpret literally.
 3. **Duplicated work across the pipeline.** The quality template's "Plan alignment" dimension re-checks what the spec reviewer just verified. Reviewers re-run test suites the implementer already ran (and reported, with TDD evidence) on identical code.
 4. **Per-task and final review share one template**, so there is no representation of "per-task narrow, final broad" anywhere.
 A field report (`~/2026-06-09-code-quality-reviewer-scope-budget-issue.md`) first flagged this. Its cited session and headline numbers could not be verified, but its qualitative diagnosis was confirmed against two real local sessions. One correction to it: cross-cutting audits (lock ordering, changed contracts) are sometimes the *correct* review method — the fix must gate breadth behind a stated concrete risk, not forbid it.
 ## Goals
 - Per-task reviews scoped to the task: diff-first reading, justified broadening, no redundant test runs.
 - Final whole-branch review keeps its current breadth.
 - No reduction in what reviews catch.
 ## Non-goals / explicitly preserved
 - **Full re-reviews stay.** When a reviewer re-reviews after a fix, it still reviews the whole task at full reading breadth. (It does not re-run tests the implementer just ran on the amended code.) This deliberately rejects the field report's "re-review budget" remedy: the cost of its worst cited example (a re-review running `-race` and `-count=100` loops) is curbed by the test budget below, not by narrowing what re-reviewers read.
 - ~~**The two review stages stay separate.** Spec compliance and code quality remain independent subagents, serially gated. No merging.~~ **Superseded by the cost iterations below**: live eval economics showed per-dispatch overhead dominating cost, and the maintainer put everything on the table. The per-task stages are now one task reviewer with two verdicts; the independent broad final review remains.
 - **The coordinator keeps model judgment.** No forced model tier for reviews, in either direction.
 - **`requesting-code-review/` is untouched.** It remains the broad template for final branch review and ad-hoc review.
 - Verdict ordering (spec compliance reported before quality), the fix-and-re-review loops, and the requirement to fix Critical/Important findings are unchanged.
 ## Cost iterations (post-launch eval economics)
 Live before/after runs surfaced a cost regression once the quality-hardening
 prose (evidence rule, constraint carrying, pristine output) landed: go-fractals
 went from 42.8 min / 14.5M tokens (first task-scoped version) to 69.9 min /
 32.2M (hardened version) while reaching baseline-parity quality (blind-judged
 8.5 vs 8.5). Per-subagent turn profiling attributed cost to, in order: cheap
 models taking 2-3× the turns on multi-step work (678 of 1197 subagent turns
 were haiku), per-dispatch overhead (3 subagent spin-ups per task, each
 re-deriving the diff; controller coordination was half the dollars), and
 evidence-rule narration.
 - **Iteration 1:** turn-count-beats-token-price model guidance (mid-tier floor
  for multi-step work), optional inline diffs, cite-don't-narrate evidence,
  Important = cannot-trust-until-fixed, fixes dispatched only for
  Critical/Important. Result: 68.2 min / 22.9M — tokens down 29%, wall-clock
  flat; controllers pasted the diff in only 2 of 22 review dispatches when
  phrasing was optional.
 - **Iteration 2:** per-task spec and quality reviews merged into one
  `task-reviewer-prompt.md` (one reviewer, one reading of the diff, two
  verdicts; one fix dispatch addresses both kinds of findings); implementers
  run the focused test while iterating, full suite once before commit.
  Result (go-fractals): 47.5 min / 15.7M / $13.55 — beat baseline on every
  axis, blind-judged 9/10 vs baseline 7/10.
 - **Iteration 3:** Calibration names merge-blocking maintainability damage
  (verbatim duplication, swallowed errors, assertion-free tests) as
  Important and Minor findings must be pasted into the final review for
  triage; reviewer skepticism extended to the implementer's design
  rationales ("left it per YAGNI" is a claim, not a verdict); diff handed
  to reviewers as a file (`git diff > /tmp/sdd-task-N.diff`, redirected so
  it never enters the controller's context; one Read call for the
  reviewer) after paste-into-prompt guidance went unadopted (0-6 of 11-17
  dispatches) for locally-rational context-economics reasons.
 - **Final frozen config (e355795), all five scenarios pass:** go-fractals
  44.4 min / 13.4M / $11.67 (-32% time, -37% tokens, -27% dollars vs
  baseline); svelte-todo 62.8 / 19.7M / $15.76 (-21% / -28% / -25%);
  rejects-extra-features $1.31 (vs $1.88); spec-reviewer-flaws flat; the
  planted-defect scenario (v3: open-flag transparency bar for judgment
  calls, must-fix bar for a test whose name promises verification it
  never performs) passes with the defect caught and fixed.
 ### Iterations 4-5 (2026-06-10): variance honesty, structural fixes, positive recipes
 A same-config re-run exposed run-to-run variance (44.4→57.1 min on
 identical prompts; reviewer escape-hatch appetite swung 1.0→6.3 tool
 calls/review), so all subsequent claims use ranges. Five parallel
 experiment variants on go-fractals plus transcript mining of real local
 sessions (full log with negative results:
 `evals/docs/experiments/2026-06-10-sdd-cost-experiments.md`) produced the
 final config:
 - **Adopted:** final-review package (final reviewer 33→6 turns at
  controller-model prices); REQUIRED `model:` line in both templates
  (prose guidance decayed mid-session once, inheriting opus for 17
  dispatches, +$5); task-brief + report files (`scripts/task-brief`;
  fidelity anchor, modest context savings); progress ledger in
  `<git-dir>/sdd/progress.md` (real sessions re-dispatched entire
  completed task sequences after compaction — 269 dispatches for ~22
  tasks); omnibus final fixer (a real session's per-finding fix wave cost
  more than all its tasks); scoped fix tests; unique SHA-range collateral
  names (worktree/submodule-safe); dispatch-composition recipe and
  reviewer named-risk budget (micro-tested: positive recipe 3.0
  transcribed values vs prohibition 4.4 vs control 3.6 — prohibitions can
  backfire; see `2026-06-10-positive-instruction-redesign-design.md`).
 - **Tested and declined:** controller turn batching and parallel-call
  pipelining (controller emits exactly one tool call per message — 0
  multi-tool messages in every run; 46% of its turns are
  thinking/narration, a prompt-immune floor); background-dispatch
  pipelining (mechanism adopted 7/28 but benefit below the ±6 min noise
  floor on these scenarios).
 - **Final validated config (b81f35b family), all gates pass:** go-fractals
  54.1-54.7 min / 14.4-16.6M / $12.81-14.31 (baseline 64.9 / 21.2M /
  $16.07); svelte-todo 55.0 min / 19.3M / $14.99 (baseline 79.7 / 27.3M /
  $20.98); planted-defect pass / $2.77. Across all 8 same-design fractals
  runs: 44.4-57.1 min / 13.4-20.0M / $11.67-14.84 — the worst draw beats
  baseline on every axis; typical mid-band savings ~20-25%.
 ## Design
 ### Shared principle: don't re-run tests on code that hasn't changed
 The implementer's report includes test results and TDD RED/GREEN evidence for exactly the code under review. Reviewers verify by reading. A reviewer runs a test only when reading raises a specific doubt that no existing run answers — and then a focused test, not a suite. On harnesses where reviewer subagents are read-only (e.g., Antigravity maps reviewer templates to the `research` type, which has no command access), the reviewer instead names the test it would run in its report.
 After a fix, the implementer re-runs the tests covering the amended code; the re-reviewer does not repeat that run. Today nothing enforces that premise: `implementer-prompt.md` describes the initial implement-test-commit flow only, with no fix-iteration instruction. This spec therefore also adds to `implementer-prompt.md`: after fixing a review finding, re-run the tests that cover the amended code and include the results in the fix report.
 This principle appears in both reviewer prompts, the implementer prompt, and the controller guidance.
 ### 1. New file: `skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` becomes self-contained
 Stop delegating to `requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`. The per-task quality reviewer gets its own scoped prompt template:
 - **Framing:** "You are reviewing one task's implementation for code quality." A task-scoped gate, not a merge review.
 - **Spec compliance is settled:** spec review already passed; do not re-litigate requirements or plan alignment.
 - **Review dimensions kept:** code quality (clarity, duplication, error handling), test quality (real behavior, not mocks), maintainability, and the existing SDD-specific checks (single responsibility, independent testability, file structure from plan, file growth contributed by this change). Dropped: plan alignment, security/scalability/production-readiness dimensions, merge verdict.
 - **Scope budget:** start from `git diff BASE..HEAD`; read changed files first; inspect adjacent code only to evaluate a concrete risk you can name. Cross-cutting changes — lock ordering, changed function/API contracts, shared mutable state — are legitimate named risks that justify checking call sites. Do not crawl the codebase by default.
 - **Test budget:** the shared principle above, plus: no package-wide suites, race detectors, or repeated/high-count runs unless you have first named a specific suspected flake or race. Otherwise, recommend heavy validation in the report instead of running it. Warnings or noise in the implementer's reported test output are findings — output should be pristine (the implementer's self-review checks this too).
 - **Evidence rule:** reviewers answer each What-to-Check item with file:line evidence, not bare yes/no. (Added after live eval runs showed reviewers passing defects the prompt had pointed them at — an accessible-name check and a temp-dir-cleanup check both got unsupported "yes" answers while the defect sat in the reviewed diff.)
 - **Read-only rule** kept in trimmed form: no mutating the working tree, index, HEAD, or branch state. The `git worktree add` how-to sentence from the current templates is NOT carried into this file — a diff-scoped review never needs a checkout of another revision (same rationale as the spec-prompt cleanup below).
 - **Verdict:** Strengths / Issues (Critical/Important/Minor) / "Task quality: Approved | Needs fixes."
 ### 2. `skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md` cleanups
 - Remove the `git worktree add` how-to sentence. The read-only rule stays; a diff-scoped spec review never needs a checkout of another revision.
 - Resolve the tension between the diff-only guard and "verify everything independently": spec compliance is judged by reading the diff against the requirements. The implementer's TDD evidence covers "it runs" — apply the shared test principle.
 - New third verdict channel: requirements that cannot be verified from the diff (live in unchanged code, span tasks) are reported as explicit "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff — controller should check X" items, instead of either crawling or silently passing. The flowchart's binary pass/fail diamond cannot route this, so the controller guidance (§3) defines the handling: ⚠️ items do not block dispatching the quality reviewer, but the controller must resolve each one itself (it holds the plan and cross-task context) before marking the task complete; an item the controller confirms is a real gap is treated as a failed spec review and goes back to the implementer.
 - Replace the fabricated premise "The implementer finished suspiciously quickly" with grounded skepticism: treat the implementer's report as unverified claims about the code. Same distrust, no invented fact.
 ### 3. `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md` controller changes
 - **Model Selection:** replace "Architecture, design, and review tasks: use the most capable available model" with judgment guidance — pick reviewer models the way implementer models are picked, scaled to the diff's size, complexity, and risk. The "Task complexity signals" list is rescoped to make clear its bullets describe implementation tasks; reviewer model choice follows the same judgment, so a narrow diff review does not automatically map to "broad codebase understanding → most capable model."
 - **Reviewer prompt construction** (new guidance near Red Flags): when dispatching reviewers, do not write open-ended directives ("check all uses," "run race tests if useful") without a concrete task-specific reason; do not ask reviewers to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the same code; do not pre-judge findings for the reviewer (never instruct a reviewer to ignore or not flag a specific issue — adjudicate suspected false positives in the review loop instead); per-task reviews are task-scoped gates — the broad review happens once, at the final whole-branch review. (The pre-judging rule was added after a live eval run caught the controller fabricating a "the plan forbids a shared helper" claim and instructing the quality reviewer not to flag a planted DRY violation.) Controllers must also include the spec/design's global constraints that bind the task — version floors, naming and copy rules, platform requirements — in the requirements they paste: a live run shipped a `go 1.26.1` module floor against a "Go 1.21+" design because no reviewer ever saw the constraint. And controllers must specify a model explicitly on every dispatch — an omitted model inherits the session's (usually most expensive) model, which silently defeats model selection.
 - **Handling spec-reviewer ⚠️ items** (new guidance, alongside Handling Implementer Status): the controller resolves each "cannot verify from diff" item itself before marking the task complete; confirmed gaps go back to the implementer as failed spec review.
 - **Final review stays broad, explicitly:** the final whole-branch reviewer dispatch node gains an explicit pointer to `../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md`. (Today that template is reachable only through the per-task quality prompt's delegation; once that delegation is removed, an unreferenced final-review template would be orphaned.) The Integration section's note that `superpowers:requesting-code-review` provides "the code review template for reviewer subagents" is corrected to apply to the final review only.
 - **Example workflow:** the quality-reviewer lines in the example are updated to the new verdict vocabulary ("Task quality: Approved"); the final reviewer's "ready to merge" line stays.
 - Flowchart topology is unchanged; the ⚠️ channel is handled by controller guidance, not a new graph branch.
 ## What this does not fix (known, deferred)
 The spec reviewer judges against task text the controller pasted; it cannot catch requirements dropped during the controller's extraction from the plan. That is an architectural property of "controller provides full text," not a prompt problem, and is out of scope here.
 ## Verification
 - Plugin infrastructure tests (`tests/`) still pass.
 - Run the SDD skill-behavior evals (`git submodule update --init evals`, then per `evals/README.md`) before and after the change. Specifically: `sdd-go-fractals`, `sdd-svelte-todo`, `sdd-rejects-extra-features` (end-to-end SDD including the spec reviewer's YAGNI gate), and `spec-reviewer-catches-planted-flaws`.
 - Known eval gaps this change exposes: no existing scenario plants a code-quality defect inside a single SDD task and asserts the per-task quality reviewer catches it, and no scenario measures per-reviewer exploration cost (tool-call/grep counts). Add one scenario covering the first gap (planted single-task quality defect → per-task reviewer must flag it before final review). For exploration cost, compare reviewer subagent tool-call counts manually across the before/after eval transcripts.
--- a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-10-positive-instruction-redesign-design.md
+++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-10-positive-instruction-redesign-design.md
@@ -1,178 +0,0 @@
 # Positive-Instruction Redesign of Skill Guidance — Design Spec
 **Status:** Proposed (follow-up to the 2026-06-09 SDD review-dispatch work; separate PR per the one-problem-per-PR rule)
 **Driver:** Measured evidence (2026-06-10) that some negative instructions in skill prose backfire, while others work — and that the difference is predictable.
 ## The measured finding this spec generalizes
 Micro-tests on 2026-06-10 (opus, 5 reps per phrasing, programmatic scoring;
 harness described below) measured how guidance phrasing changes what a
 controller composes:
 | Case | Phrasing | Result |
 |---|---|---|
 | Dispatch composition ("don't restate the brief") | prohibition | **4.4** spec values re-typed — *worse than no guidance* (3.6) |
 | Dispatch composition | positive recipe ("your dispatch should contain: (1)…(5)") | **3.0, zero variance** — adopted |
 | Dispatch composition | recipe + nuance clause ("quote only the fragment…") | 3.8, noisy — nuance dilutes recipes |
 | Test-rerun directive ("do not ask reviewer to re-run tests") | prohibition | **0/5 violations** — works fine (control: 3/5) |
 | Test-rerun directive | positive recipe | 0/5 — equal, but longer |
 **The doctrine** (use this to classify any negative instruction):
 1. **Tripwires work.** Phrase-level self-checks on concrete tokens ("if the
   prompt you are writing contains 'do not flag' … stop") fire reliably.
 2. **Recognition tables work.** Red-Flags/rationalization tables read at
   decision time, not composition time.
 3. **Discrete-directive prohibitions work.** "Do not ask X to do Y" holds
   when the model has no competing incentive to do Y.
 4. **Composition prohibitions backfire** when the model has its own agenda
   for the output (e.g., restating specs feels like helpful curation).
   Only a positive composition recipe moves these — and adding nuance
   clauses to a winning recipe makes it worse, not better.
 5. **Ties go to the shorter phrasing.** Codex re-reads SKILL.md ~500× per
   long session (measured 2026-06-10); prose length is a real cost.
 ## Audit results (2026-06-10, all ~30 skills + prompt templates)
 Counts: 3 tripwires (keep), 14 recognition tables (keep), ~20 policy gates
 (keep — "never push without permission" is policy, not composition
 shaping), 5 composition-prohibitions:
 | # | Location | Disposition |
 |---|---|---|
 | 1 | `subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md` — "Cite, don't narrate" | **Queued in PR #1717 batch**: lead with the positive half ("Your report should point at evidence: file:line for every finding…"), drop the prohibition half (dead weight — the positive half already exists and carries the load) |
 | 2 | `subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md` — "Do not add open-ended directives" | **Keep as-is**: micro-test could not elicit the failure in 15 samples; no evidence either way; shorter wins |
 | 3 | `subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md` — "Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests" | **Keep as-is**: measured 0/5 violations; the prohibition also usefully propagates itself into dispatches |
 | 4 | `subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md` — "do not re-review on top of it" | **Queued in PR #1717 batch**: replace with the three-element checklist ("Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report contains: the covering tests, the command run, and the output") |
 | 5 | `writing-plans/SKILL.md` — the "No Placeholders" banned-patterns list | **This spec's main subject** — see below |
 Borderline, deferred with #5: `task-reviewer-prompt.md` "Don't flag
 pre-existing file sizes — focus on what this change contributed" (positive
 half present and load-bearing; low impact; test alongside #5 if convenient).
 ## The writing-plans change (deferred item #5)
 ### Current state
 `skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md`, "No Placeholders": one positive sentence
 ("Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs") followed
 by a six-bullet banned-patterns list ("never write them: 'TBD', 'TODO',
 'Add appropriate error handling', 'Write tests for the above', 'Similar to
 Task N', …").
 ### Why it matters and why it is genuinely uncertain
 - Plans are the **largest generated artifact** in the workflow, and the
  model has a real competing incentive to emit placeholders (they are the
  path of least effort under length pressure) — the incentive structure of
  the case where prohibition measurably backfired.
 - But the banned items are **discrete, recognizable tokens** — the shape
  of the case where prohibition measurably held.
 - **The list is load-bearing elsewhere:** the skill's Self-Review section
  references it ("Placeholder scan: search your plan for red flags — any
  of the patterns from the 'No Placeholders' section above"). The tokens
  double as the review-time scan inventory, and review-time recognition is
  the category that works. A naive swap to a positive checklist breaks
  that reference and discards good tripwire tokens.
 ### Variants to test
 - **V0 (current):** positive sentence + banned list at composition time;
  Self-Review references the list.
 - **V1 (auditor's checklist):** composition-time positive recipe only —
  "Before finalizing a step, confirm it has: the literal code to write, a
  runnable command with expected output, types and method names defined
  within this plan, error handling shown explicitly. A step is complete
  when an engineer could implement it without asking any follow-up
  questions." Self-Review keeps a generic placeholder scan.
 - **V2 (restructure by mechanism — predicted winner):** composition time
  gets only V1's positive recipe; the named patterns move wholesale into
  the Self-Review placeholder-scan step, reframed as recognition ("when
  you scan, look for: 'TBD', 'TODO', 'Similar to Task N', …"). Same
  tokens, relocated from the category that primes to the category that
  detects.
 - **V3 (control):** positive sentence only, no list anywhere.
 ### Micro-test design
 - **Task:** opus writes a 2-3 task implementation plan from a deliberately
  under-specified spec (under-specification is what tempts placeholders).
  Use a fixture spec with: one well-specified task, one task whose error
  handling the spec hand-waves, one task similar to the first (tempting
  "Similar to Task 1").
 - **Sampling:** 5+ reps per variant, default temperature, model
  `claude-opus-4-8` (the model that writes plans in practice).
 - **Programmatic scoring** (lower is better unless noted):
  - banned-token count: `TBD|TODO|implement later|fill in details|appropriate error handling|handle edge cases|Similar to Task|Write tests for the above`
  - steps lacking a fenced code block where the step changes code
  - references to types/functions not defined anywhere in the plan output
  - (higher is better) runnable commands with expected output per task
 - **Two-stage scoring for V2:** also test the Self-Review half — feed each
  generated plan back with the variant's Self-Review section and measure
  whether the scan actually catches seeded placeholders (insert 2 known
  placeholders into a fixture plan; detection rate is the metric).
 - **Acceptance:** adopt a variant only if it beats V0 on banned-token count
  without losing code-block coverage or self-review detection rate.
  Expected cost: ~$6-10 total.
 ### PR scoping
 Separate PR (writing-plans is a different skill; its "No Placeholders"
 list is tuned content where the contributor guidelines demand eval
 evidence). The PR must include: the micro-test harness + results table,
 before/after text, and the V2 relocation rationale.
 ## The micro-test harness (method, so it isn't lost)
 `/tmp/sdd-exp/micro/run-micro.py` and `/tmp/sdd-exp/micro2/run-micro2.py`
 (2026-06-10; to be committed to superpowers-evals as
 `docs/superpowers/skills/micro-testing-prompt-guidance.md` + scripts):
 - One API call per sample: system prompt = the skill-guidance variant in
  realistic surrounding context; user = a realistic mid-workflow scenario;
  output = the composed artifact (dispatch prompt, plan, report).
 - Programmatic scoring with greps for unambiguous markers; **manually
  inspect every match before trusting a verdict** — one of tonight's
  "violations" was the controller correctly quoting the prohibition, and
  automated negation detection mislabeled another.
 - ~$0.15-0.30/sample, seconds per iteration vs $12/50-min full eval runs.
  Iterate phrasings here; confirm winners in full runs only when the
  change is structural.
 - Always include a no-guidance control — tonight it revealed both a
  backfire (restating: prohibition worse than nothing) and a working
  prohibition (test-reruns: 3/5 control failures vs 0/5 with either
  phrasing).
 ## Result: writing-plans micro-test (run 2026-06-10, after this spec was written)
 **Resolved — no change needed.** Stage 1 (3-task spec, no pressure): 0
 placeholders in all 20 plans across all four variants including the
 no-guidance control. Stage 1b (10-task spec, five near-identical commands
 tempting "Similar to Task N", explicit ~2,500-word economy target): 40/40
 clean — the single regex hit was a V2 self-review *attesting* "no
 TBD/TODO ✓". Current-generation opus does not produce plan placeholders
 even under deliberate pressure, with or without the banned-patterns list.
 Disposition: leave the No Placeholders section exactly as it is (it costs
 little and the counterfactual is unmeasurable); do NOT open the follow-up
 PR. The V2 relocation design remains on file here should a future model
 generation regress.
 ## Also explicitly not-dropped (tested-and-declined, with data)
 Recorded so nobody re-proposes them without new evidence — full numbers in
 the 2026-06-09 SDD design spec's Cost-iterations section:
 - **Controller turn batching / parallel tool calls in one message:** the
  controller emits exactly one tool call per message (0 multi-tool
  messages across every measured run, with and without guidance). 46% of
  controller turns are thinking/narration with no tool call — a
  prompt-immune floor.
 - **Pipelined reviews via parallel calls:** dead for the same reason.
 - **Pipelined reviews via `run_in_background`:** mechanism adopted when
  offered (7/28 dispatches) but benefit below the run-to-run noise floor
  on 45-min scenarios (reviews are only ~30-60s each); adds dual
  result-stream coordination. Worth revisiting only for plans whose
  reviews are individually long.
 - **Nuance clauses appended to winning recipes:** measurably degrade them
  (C2: 3.8 noisy vs C: 3.0 consistent). Iterate by re-deriving the recipe,
  not by appending caveats.
--- a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-10-strict-cost-sdd-design.md
+++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-10-strict-cost-sdd-design.md
@@ -1,218 +0,0 @@
 # Strict-Cost SDD — Design Spec
 **Status:** Proposed experiment ladder (not implementation). Each rung ships
 only with its gate evidence; abort any rung whose gates fail.
 **Objective:** minimize dollars per plan-execution. Wall-clock is
 unconstrained; token count matters only as a cost driver.
 **Hard invariant:** quality. Concretely: `sdd-quality-reviewer-catches-
 planted-defect` pass rate over **N=5 runs** (not 1 — single-run gates were
 this campaign's weakest methodology), `sdd-rejects-extra-features` pass,
 all end-to-end scenarios pass, blind A/B deliverable parity with the
 current config. Any quality regression kills the rung, full stop.
 ## Where the dollars are (final 2026-06-10 config, go-fractals, ~$13/run)
 | Component | $ | Driver |
 |---|---|---|
 | Controller (session model, opus) | ~6-7 | ~150 turns × resident context; prompt-immune turn floor (46% thinking/narration) |
 | Implementers (sonnet, 10-13 dispatches) | ~5-6 | the actual work; ~25 turns each; ~13 pre-edit exploration calls each |
 | Task reviewers (sonnet, 10) | ~1-1.5 | 3-9 turns each with package |
 | Final review + fixes | ~1 | 6 turns with branch package |
 Review-loop count (2-4 per run) is the biggest run-to-run cost variance;
 loops are mostly caused by plan ambiguity the implementer resolved wrongly.
 ## Judgment guardrail (co-invariant with quality)
 **Cheapen mechanics, never judgment.** Every rung must enumerate which
 decisions it moves to a cheaper model and show each is *mechanical* —
 deterministic, scriptable, or cheaply verifiable after the fact. Judgment
 stays at the highest tier or with the human. The judgment points in SDD,
 explicitly:
 - **BLOCKED / NEEDS_CONTEXT handling** — diagnosing why a subagent is stuck
  and choosing the remedy
 - **⚠️ "cannot verify from diff" resolution** — the controller adjudicating
  with cross-task context
 - **Dispatch curation** — ambiguity resolution and task-boundary drawing
  (measured load-bearing: the Task 5 gradient-direction note prevented a
  wrong implementation)
 - **Review verdicts and severity calibration** — what is Important vs Minor
 - **Review-loop adjudication** — deciding a finding is a false positive
 - **Escalate-to-human recognition** — knowing the plan itself is wrong
 A rung that would move any of these to a cheaper model must either (a)
 restructure so the decision is made once by the expensive model at plan
 time, (b) add an explicit escalation rule routing it back up at execution
 time, or (c) die. "The cheap model usually gets it right" is not
 acceptance evidence — judgment failures are rare-event, high-blast-radius,
 and largely invisible to pass/fail gates, which is why every tier change
 below carries a judgment audit (session-resume interrogation of each
 judgment point in the gate runs, compared against the expensive-controller
 baseline) in addition to the N=5 scenario gates.
 ## Thesis guardrail
 SDD's thesis: **a fresh subagent per task with precisely curated context,
 gated per task.** Rungs below must preserve it. Dispatch-time task batching
 (one implementer dispatch handling several plan tasks) is **counter-thesis**
 — it pollutes the fresh-context property and coarsens the gates — and is
 deliberately NOT on the ladder. The thesis-compatible route to the same
 dispatch economics is plan-time task right-sizing (L1): if the plan defines
 fewer, better-sized tasks, SDD still runs one fresh subagent per task.
 ## The ladder (in expected $/leverage order)
 ### L1 — Plan-side crispness (writing-plans changes; est. −$1.5-3/run, plus variance reduction)
 **Status 2026-06-11: validated in effect.** A hand-crisped fractals plan
 (10 → 7 tasks, `## Global Constraints` header, per-task `Interfaces:`
 lines — scenario `sdd-go-fractals-crisp`) ran 3/3 green at $9.51-12.65
 (mean $11.60 vs combo band $11.67-14.84), 20-24 dispatches vs 28, fix
 waves flat. What remains is elicitation: getting writing-plans guidance
 to *produce* such plans (micro-test per the doctrine, then the follow-up
 PR). See the experiments log, Batch A-E.
 The plan is upstream of every cost: task count sets dispatch count; plan
 ambiguity sets review-loop count; plan completeness sets implementer
 exploration. Current writing-plans optimizes for implementer success, not
 execution economics. Changes to test:
 1. **Task right-sizing guidance.** Today's plans produce tasks as small as
   "create .gitignore" — each costing a full dispatch + review cycle
   (~$0.60-1.00 fixed overhead). Add: "A task is the smallest unit that
   carries its own test cycle and is worth a fresh reviewer's gate. Merge
   setup/config steps into the task that needs them; split only at
   boundaries where a reviewer could meaningfully reject." Fractals' plan
   would drop from 10 tasks to ~7. Validate: dispatch count falls, gates
   hold, review granularity still catches the planted defect.
 2. **Structured `## Global Constraints` section** in the plan header
   (version floors, naming/copy rules, platform requirements). Today these
   live in design.md prose and reach reviewers only if the controller
   remembers to paste them (a `go 1.26.1` floor violation shipped because
   none did). A fixed heading makes them mechanically extractable —
   `task-brief` can append them to every brief automatically (small script
   change), removing a controller responsibility entirely.
 3. **Per-task `Interfaces:` line** (consumes/produces, exact signatures).
   The controller currently re-derives cross-task interfaces per dispatch
   (its main legitimate "restating"), and implementers spend ~13 tool calls
   re-discovering context. The planner already knows the interfaces; one
   line per task moves the work to where it is done once.
 4. **Per-task model-tier recommendation** from the planner ("mechanical /
   standard / judgment"). The planner has the best information for the
   Model Selection decision the controller currently re-makes per dispatch;
   the controller keeps override authority.
 Validation: micro-test the planner output shape (recipe-style, per the
 instruction-design doctrine), then full runs. Note the 2026-06-10 result:
 plan *placeholders* cannot be elicited from current opus — these changes
 target economics and ambiguity, not placeholder hygiene.
 ### L2 — Controller tier (est. −$4-5/run; the biggest single lever, gated hardest)
 **Status 2026-06-11: recon positive (n=2), gates still owed.**
 Sonnet-controller runs (claude-sonnet coding-agent): all gates green at
 **$6.68 and $8.05** / 31-41 min (combo band $11.67-14.84), tokens inside
 the combo band — no cheap-controller turn inflation. 26/26 and 31/31
 dispatches model-explicit, with heavier (and sane) haiku tiering than
 opus controllers showed; review loops, per-task Important→fix→re-review,
 and omnibus-fixer rules followed in both runs; the run-1 controller
 caught a fixer side-effect (`go mod tidy` removed cobra) before
 re-review — real adjudication, not silent absorption. But neither run
 surfaced a BLOCKED/⚠️ event (the escalation points were never stressed)
 and final reviews ran on sonnet rather than the most capable tier. The
 N=5 quality gates + full judgment audit below remain mandatory before
 any skill change.
 The controller is half the dollars solely because it inherits the session
 model. Its turn floor is prompt-immune, so the lever is the rate per turn —
 but the controller is also where most judgment points live, so this rung is
 designed judgment-first:
 1. **Primary form — judgment moved up front, mechanics cheapened:** the
   expensive model does the judgment-dense work at plan time (L1's
   Interfaces lines, ambiguity resolutions, per-task constraints — i.e.
   the dispatch curation is pre-written into the plan). The mid-tier
   execution session then runs a loop that is genuinely mechanical:
   extract brief, dispatch, run script, route verdicts. Explicit
   escalation rules in the skill: on BLOCKED, on any ⚠️ item, on a
   suspected false positive, or on anything the plan does not already
   answer, the cheap controller STOPS and escalates (to the human, or to
   a fresh expensive-model consultation dispatch) — it never resolves
   judgment alone.
 2. **Gates beyond the standard N=5:** a judgment audit — every
   BLOCKED/⚠️/adjudication event in the gate runs interrogated via
   session-resume and scored against how the opus-controller baseline
   handled the same class of event; any silently-absorbed judgment call
   (cheap controller resolving what it should have escalated) fails the
   rung regardless of scenario verdicts.
 3. **User authority preserved:** the skill recommends, never enforces, the
   execution-session tier.
 Caveat from this campaign: cheap-model turn inflation was measured on
 multi-step *work*, not dispatch loops; whether a mid-tier controller holds
 ~150 turns is part of what the experiment determines.
 ### L3 — Reviewer tier (est. −$0.7-1/run; most likely rung to die on the judgment guardrail)
 **Status 2026-06-11: DEAD, as pre-registered.** Planted-defect ×5 with
 forced-haiku task reviewers: 2 pass / 1 indeterminate / 2 fail (baseline
 5/5); per-task haiku cleanly flagged 0 of 10 planted defects at correct
 severity — 1 found-but-downgraded with the exact prohibited rationale,
 9 missed or rationalized (DRY praised as YAGNI; assert-nothing test
 called plan-compliant). Cheap reviewers fail by *advocating* for
 defects; passing runs survived only on controller redundancy or the
 final review. Recorded in the experiments log, Batch A-E. Do not
 re-propose without a structurally different design.
 The package reviewer is near-single-step mechanically (3 turns / 1 Read
 when calm), which invalidates the original turn-inflation rationale for the
 mid-tier floor — but reviewing is judgment through and through: severity
 calibration, spec verdicts, knowing what not to flag. Mechanical cheapness
 does not make the decisions mechanical. Test haiku-with-package only with
 the full judgment battery: planted-defect ×5, a severity-calibration check
 (seeded Minor-vs-Important pairs; miscalibration fails the rung), and the
 escape-hatch variance re-measured at that tier. Prior expectation: this
 rung dies, and that is a fine outcome — it converts "we suspect cheap
 reviewers are bad" into recorded evidence.
 ### L4 — Resident-context diet (est. −$0.5-1/run)
 - `task-brief --list` mode: controller reads task headings + Global
  Constraints, never the full plan (the plan body is already delivered via
  briefs).
 - Reports trim 15 → 8 lines.
 - SKILL.md minification pass (every section added this week re-justified
  at composition-recipe density; Codex pays ~10k chars × ~500 re-reads per
  long session).
 ### L5 — Re-litigations (explicitly flagged, maintainer-vetoed or counter-thesis)
 Recorded for completeness; each requires Jesse's explicit reversal before
 any experiment:
 - **Scoped re-reviews** (verify fix + regression scan instead of full
  re-review): vetoed 2026-06-09; worth ~$0.50/run at most.
 - **Dispatch-time task batching**: counter-thesis (see guardrail). L1.1
  is the sanctioned form.
 ## Budget and sequencing
 L1 and L2.1 are independent — run both first (~$80: micro-tests + 2×5-run
 gates + A/B). L3 after L2 settles the controller (reviewer behavior depends
 on dispatch quality; ~$25 — planted-defect runs are $2-3 each). L4 last
 (cheap, but re-gate once after the stack; ~$30). Total ≲ $150 for the full
 ladder with honest N=5 gates. Expected end state if every rung survives its gates: **$5-7/run on
 fractals (from $12-15)**; if the judgment-sensitive rungs (L2 beyond its
 primary form, L3) die as expected, **$8-10/run** — the honest target, since
 the guardrail prices judgment above dollars by construction.
 ## Relationship to existing work
 Builds on the 2026-06-09 task-scoped review dispatch design (PR #1717) and
 the 2026-06-10 experiment campaign (evals
 `docs/experiments/2026-06-10-sdd-cost-experiments.md` — consult the
 negative-results section before adding rungs; turn-discipline and
 parallel-call mechanisms are dead). Instruction wording for any new prose
 follows the positive-instruction doctrine spec and gets micro-tested before
 full runs. L1 is a writing-plans change → its own PR with eval evidence;
 L2-L4 are SDD changes → separate PR(s).
--- a/2
+++ b/2
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
@@ -5,11 +5,13 @@ description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in t
 # Subagent-Driven Development
-Execute plan by dispatching a fresh implementer subagent per task, a task review (spec compliance + code quality) after each, and a broad whole-branch review at the end.
+Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.
 **Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.
-**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + task review (spec + quality) + broad final review = high quality, fast iteration
+**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
 **Proportionality:** Review fanout scales with the change. When the entire plan is one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change — a log statement, a typo fix, a constant bump with no security or behavioral consequences — implement it directly (or with a single implementer subagent), verify per superpowers:verification-before-completion (run the relevant command, confirm output), commit, and skip all review subagents, including the final reviewer: three review dispatches cost more than a one-line diff. Trivial is a property of the diff — it changes no logic, no control flow, and nothing security-relevant — not of the plan's self-description. Any doubt means not trivial: run the full pipeline. Within a multi-task plan, never skip reviews, regardless of task size.
 **Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.
@@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ digraph when_to_use {
 **vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
 - Same session (no context switch)
 - Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
- Review after each task (spec compliance + code quality), broad review at the end
+- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
 - Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
 ## The Process
@@ -51,31 +53,43 @@ digraph process {
        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
-        "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
-        "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
-        "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
-        "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
        "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
        "Mark task complete in todo list" [shape=box];
    }
-    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" [shape=box];
    "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)" [shape=diamond];
    "Implement directly, verify, commit (no review fanout)" [shape=box];
    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [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)";
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create todos" -> "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)";
    "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)" -> "Implement directly, verify, commit (no review fanout)" [label="yes — see Proportionality"];
    "Implement directly, verify, commit (no review fanout)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
    "Entire plan = one trivial, fully-specified mechanical change? (any doubt = no)" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="no"];
    "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)";
+    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
-    "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?";
+    "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
-    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [label="no"];
+    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
-    "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
-    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [label="yes"];
+    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list" [label="yes"];
    "Mark task complete in todo list" -> "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"];
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
 }
 ```
@@ -87,23 +101,9 @@ Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and incr
 **Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.
-**Architecture and design tasks**: use the most capable available model.
+**Architecture, design, and review tasks**: use the most capable available model.
-**Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the
+**Task complexity signals:**
 diff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the
 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
 most expensive — which silently defeats this section.
 **Turn count beats token price.** Wall-clock and context cost scale with how
 many turns a subagent takes, and the cheapest models routinely take 2-3× the
 turns on multi-step work — costing more overall. Use a mid-tier model as the
 floor for implementers and reviewers; reserve the cheapest tier for
 single-file mechanical fixes.
 **Task complexity signals (implementation tasks):**
 - Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model
 - Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
 - Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ single-file mechanical fixes.
 Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
-**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:** Proceed to spec compliance review.
 **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.
@@ -126,116 +126,11 @@ 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.
 ## Handling Reviewer ⚠️ Items
 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. When you fill a reviewer template:
 - 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
  same code — the implementer's report carries the test evidence
 - Do not pre-judge findings for the reviewer — never instruct a reviewer to
  ignore or not flag a specific issue. If you believe a finding would be a
  false positive, let the reviewer raise it and adjudicate it in the review
  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.
 - Include the spec/design's global constraints that bind the task (version
  floors, naming and copy rules, platform requirements) in the requirements
  you paste — a reviewer can only enforce what you hand them.
 - 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.
 - 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.
 - 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.
 ## File Handoffs
 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:
 - **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.
 ## 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 --git-path 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.
 ## 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)
+- [spec-reviewer-prompt.md](spec-reviewer-prompt.md) - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
- Final whole-branch review: use superpowers:requesting-code-review's [code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)
+- [code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md](code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md) - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
 ## Example Workflow
@@ -243,11 +138,13 @@ 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]
 [Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
 [Create todos for all tasks]
 Task 1: Hook installation script
-[Run task-brief for Task 1; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
+[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
 [Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
 Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
@@ -260,15 +157,18 @@ Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
  - Committed
-[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
+[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
-Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
+Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra
-  Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
+
 [Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
 Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
 [Mark Task 1 complete]
 Task 2: Recovery modes
-[Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
+[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
 [Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
 Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
 Implementer:
@@ -277,17 +177,25 @@ Implementer:
  - Self-review: All good
  - Committed
-[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
+[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
-Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
+Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
  Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
-[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
+[Implementer fixes issues]
-Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
+Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting
-[Task reviewer reviews again]
+[Spec reviewer reviews again]
-Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
+Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now
 [Dispatch code quality reviewer]
 Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
 [Implementer fixes]
 Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
 [Code reviewer reviews again]
 Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
 [Mark Task 2 complete]
@@ -314,20 +222,20 @@ Done!
 - Review checkpoints automatic
 **Efficiency gains:**
- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
+- No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
-  as files, not pasted text
+- Controller curates exactly what context is needed
 - 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
+- Two-stage review: spec compliance, then 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)
+- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
 - Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
 - Review loops add iterations
 - But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
@@ -336,25 +244,17 @@ Done!
 **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)
+- Skip reviews — sole exception: a plan that is entirely one trivial change (see Proportionality)
 - Proceed with unfixed issues
 - Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
- Make a subagent read the whole plan file (hand it its task brief —
+- Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
  `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)
+- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found 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
+- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order)
-  dispatch prompt ("treat it as Minor at most") — the plan's example code is
+- Move to next task while either review has open issues
  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
@@ -376,7 +276,7 @@ Done!
 **Required workflow skills:**
 - **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
 - **superpowers:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for the final whole-branch review
+- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for reviewer subagents
 - **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
 **Subagents should use:**
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
 # Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
 Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
 **Purpose:** Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
 **Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.**
 ```
 Subagent (general-purpose):
  Use template at ../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
  DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
  BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
  HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
 ```
 **In addition to standard code quality concerns, the reviewer should check:**
 - Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
 - Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
 - Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
 - Did this implementation create new files that are already large, or significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
 **Code reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md
@@ -5,15 +5,12 @@ Use this template when dispatching an implementer subagent.
 ```
 Subagent (general-purpose):
  description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
  model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
         model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
  prompt: |
    You are implementing Task N: [task name]
    ## Task Description
-    Read your task brief first: [BRIEF_FILE]
+    [FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here, don't make subagent read file]
    It contains the full task text from the plan.
    ## Context
@@ -44,9 +41,6 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
    **While you work:** If you encounter something unexpected or unclear, **ask questions**.
    It's always OK to pause and clarify. Don't guess or make assumptions.
    While iterating, run the focused test for what you're changing; run the
    full suite once before committing, not after every edit.
    ## Code Organization
    You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more
@@ -100,19 +94,13 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
    - Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
    - Did I follow TDD if required?
    - Are tests comprehensive?
    - Is the test output pristine (no stray warnings or noise)?
    If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.
    ## After Review Findings
    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
-    Write your full report to [REPORT_FILE]:
+    When done, report:
    - **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
    - What you implemented (or what you attempted, if blocked)
    - What you tested and test results
    - **TDD Evidence** (if TDD was required for this task):
@@ -122,17 +110,6 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
    - Self-review findings (if any)
    - Any issues or concerns
    Then report back with ONLY (under 15 lines — the detail lives in the
    report file):
    - **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
    - Commits created (short SHA + subject)
    - One-line test summary (e.g. "14/14 passing, output pristine")
    - Your concerns, if any
    - The report file path
    If BLOCKED or NEEDS_CONTEXT, put the specifics in the final message
    itself — the controller acts on it directly.
    Use DONE_WITH_CONCERNS if you completed the work but have doubts about correctness.
    Use BLOCKED if you cannot complete the task. Use NEEDS_CONTEXT if you need
    information that wasn't provided. Never silently produce work you're unsure about.
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/review-package
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/review-package
@@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
 # Generate a review package: commit list, stat summary, and the net
 # diff with extended context, written to a file the reviewer reads in one
 # call. Using the recorded per-task BASE (not HEAD~1) keeps multi-commit
 # tasks intact.
 #
 # Usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]
 # Default OUTFILE: <git-dir>/sdd/review-<base7>..<head7>.diff — unique per
 # repo instance and per range, so concurrent sessions cannot collide and a
 # re-review after fixes always gets a distinctly named fresh file.
 set -euo pipefail
 if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
  echo "usage: review-package BASE HEAD [OUTFILE]" >&2
  exit 2
 fi
 base=$1
 head=$2
 git rev-parse --verify --quiet "$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 3 ]; then
  out=$3
 else
  dir=$(git rev-parse --git-path sdd)
  mkdir -p "$dir"
  dir=$(cd "$dir" && pwd)
  out="$dir/review-$(git rev-parse --short "$base")..$(git rev-parse --short "$head").diff"
 fi
 {
  echo "# Review package: ${base}..${head}"
  echo
  echo "## Commits"
  git log --oneline "${base}..${head}"
  echo
  echo "## Files changed"
  git diff --stat "${base}..${head}"
  echo
  echo "## Diff"
  git diff -U10 "${base}..${head}"
 } > "$out"
 commits=$(git rev-list --count "${base}..${head}")
 echo "wrote ${out}: ${commits} commit(s), $(wc -c < "$out" | tr -d ' ') bytes"
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/task-brief
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/scripts/task-brief
@@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
 #!/usr/bin/env bash
 # Extract one task's full text from an implementation plan into a file the
 # implementer reads in one call, so the task text never has to be pasted
 # through the controller's context.
 #
 # Usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]
 # Default OUTFILE: <git-dir>/sdd/task-<N>-brief.md — unique per repo
 # instance, so concurrent sessions cannot collide.
 set -euo pipefail
 if [ $# -lt 2 ] || [ $# -gt 3 ]; then
  echo "usage: task-brief PLAN_FILE TASK_NUMBER [OUTFILE]" >&2
  exit 2
 fi
 plan=$1
 n=$2
 [ -f "$plan" ] || { echo "no such plan file: $plan" >&2; exit 2; }
 if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
  out=$3
 else
  dir=$(git rev-parse --git-path sdd)
  mkdir -p "$dir"
  dir=$(cd "$dir" && pwd)
  out="$dir/task-${n}-brief.md"
 fi
 awk -v n="$n" '
  /^```/ { infence = !infence }
  !infence && /^#+[ \t]+Task[ \t]+[0-9]+/ {
    intask = ($0 ~ ("^#+[ \t]+Task[ \t]+" n "([^0-9]|$)"))
  }
  intask { print }
 ' "$plan" > "$out"
 if [ ! -s "$out" ]; then
  echo "task ${n} not found in ${plan} (no heading matching 'Task ${n}')" >&2
  exit 3
 fi
 echo "wrote ${out}: $(wc -l < "$out" | tr -d ' ') lines"
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
 # Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
 Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.
 **Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)
 ```
 Subagent (general-purpose):
  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
    ## What Was Requested
    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
    ## What Implementer Claims They Built
    [From implementer's report]
    ## Git Range to Review
    **Base:** [BASE_SHA — commit before this task]
    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA — current commit]
    ```bash
    git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
    git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
    ```
    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase.
    ## Read-Only Review
    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.
    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
    **DO NOT:**
    - Take their word for what they implemented
    - Trust their claims about completeness
    - Accept their interpretation of requirements
    **DO:**
    - Read the actual code they wrote
    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
    - Look for extra features they didn't mention
    ## Your Job
    Read the implementation code and verify:
    **Missing requirements:**
    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
    **Extra/unneeded work:**
    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
    **Misunderstandings:**
    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?
    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**
    Report:
    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
 ```
--- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md
+++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md
@@ -1,176 +0,0 @@
 # Task Reviewer Prompt Template
 Use this template when dispatching a task reviewer subagent. The reviewer
 reads the task's diff once and returns two verdicts: spec compliance and
 code quality.
 **Purpose:** Verify one task's implementation matches its requirements (nothing
 more, nothing less) and is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
 ```
 Subagent (general-purpose):
  description: "Review Task N (spec + quality)"
  model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
         model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing one task's implementation: first whether it matches its
    requirements, then whether it is well-built. This is a task-scoped gate,
    not a merge review — a broad whole-branch review happens separately after
    all tasks are complete.
    ## What Was Requested
    Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE]
    Global constraints from the spec/design that bind this task:
    [GLOBAL_CONSTRAINTS]
    ## What the Implementer Claims They Built
    Read the implementer's report: [REPORT_FILE]
    ## Diff Under Review
    **Base:** [BASE_SHA]
    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
    **Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE]
    Read the diff file once — it contains the commit list, a stat summary,
    and the full diff with surrounding context, and it is your view of the
    change. The diff's context lines ARE the changed files: do not Read a
    changed file separately unless a hunk you must judge is cut off
    mid-function — and say so in your report. Do not re-run git commands.
    If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself:
    `git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and `git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`.
    Do not crawl the broader codebase. Inspect code outside the diff only
    to evaluate a concrete risk you can name — one focused check per named
    risk, and name both the risk and what you checked in your report.
    Cross-cutting changes are legitimate named risks: if the diff changes
    lock ordering, a function or API contract, or shared mutable state,
    checking the call sites is the right method.
    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
    tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
    ## Do Not Trust the Report
    Treat the implementer's report as unverified claims about the code. It
    may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. Verify the claims against
    the diff. Design rationales in the report are claims too: "left it per
    YAGNI," "kept it simple deliberately," or any other justification is the
    implementer grading their own work. Judge the code on its merits — a
    stated rationale never downgrades a finding's severity.
    ## Tests
    The implementer already ran the tests and reported results with TDD
    evidence for exactly this code. 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, race detector run, or repeated/high-count loop. If
    heavy validation seems warranted, recommend it in your report instead of
    running it. If you cannot run commands in this environment, name the
    test you would run.
    Warnings or other noise in the implementer's reported test output are
    findings — test output should be pristine.
    ## Part 1: Spec Compliance
    Compare the diff against What Was Requested:
    - **Missing:** requirements they skipped, missed, or claimed without
      implementing
    - **Extra:** features that weren't requested, over-engineering, unneeded
      "nice to haves"
    - **Misunderstood:** right feature built the wrong way, wrong problem
      solved
    If a requirement cannot be verified from this diff alone (it lives in
    unchanged code or spans tasks), report it as a ⚠️ item instead of
    broadening your search.
    ## Part 2: Code Quality
    **Code quality:**
    - Clean separation of concerns?
    - Proper error handling?
    - DRY without premature abstraction?
    - Edge cases handled?
    **Tests:**
    - Do the new and changed tests verify real behavior, not mocks?
    - Are the task's edge cases covered?
    **Structure:**
    - Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
    - Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
    - Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
    - Did this change create new files that are already large, or
      significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file
      sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
    Your report should point at evidence: file:line references for every
    finding and for any check you would otherwise answer with a bare
    "yes." A tight report that cites lines gives the controller everything
    it needs.
    ## Calibration
    Categorize issues by actual severity. Not everything is Critical.
    Important means this task cannot be trusted until it is fixed: incorrect
    or fragile behavior, a missed requirement, or maintainability damage you
    would block a merge over — verbatim duplication of a logic block,
    swallowed errors, tests that assert nothing. "Coverage could be broader"
    and polish suggestions are Minor.
    Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
    helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
    ## Output Format
    ### Spec Compliance
    - ✅ Spec compliant | ❌ Issues found: [what's missing/extra/misunderstood,
      with file:line references]
    - ⚠️ Cannot verify from diff: [requirements you could not verify from the
      diff alone, and what the controller should check — report alongside the
      ✅/❌ verdict for everything you could verify]
    ### Strengths
    [What's well done? Be specific.]
    ### Issues
    #### Critical (Must Fix)
    #### Important (Should Fix)
    #### Minor (Nice to Have)
    For each issue: file:line, what's wrong, why it matters, how to fix
    (if not obvious).
    ### Assessment
    **Task quality:** [Approved | Needs fixes]
    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence technical assessment]
 ```
 **Placeholders:**
 - `[MODEL]` — REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection
 - `[BRIEF_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the task brief file (`scripts/task-brief PLAN N`
  prints the path; same file the implementer worked from)
 - `[GLOBAL_CONSTRAINTS]` — the spec/design's global constraints that bind
  this task (version floors, naming and copy rules, platform requirements)
 - `[REPORT_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the file the implementer wrote its detailed
  report to
 - `[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 BASE HEAD` prints the unique path it
  wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
 **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.
--- a/skills/using-superpowers/references/antigravity-tools.md
+++ b/skills/using-superpowers/references/antigravity-tools.md
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ prompt-template file (e.g. `superpowers:subagent-driven-development`'s
 | Skill dispatch form | Antigravity equivalent |
 |---------------------|----------------------|
 | An implementer-style `*-prompt.md` template (writes code, runs tests) | Fill the template, then `invoke_subagent` with `TypeName: "self"` and the filled prompt |
-| A read-only reviewer template (`task-reviewer`, `code-reviewer`, `requesting-code-review`'s `./code-reviewer.md`) | `invoke_subagent` with `TypeName: "research"` and the filled review template |
+| A read-only reviewer template (`spec-reviewer`, `code-quality-reviewer`, `code-reviewer`, `requesting-code-review`'s `./code-reviewer.md`) | `invoke_subagent` with `TypeName: "research"` and the filled review template |
 | Inline prompt (no template referenced) | `invoke_subagent` with `TypeName: "self"` (or `"research"` if the task only reads) and your inline prompt |
 ### Prompt filling
--- a/skills/using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md
+++ b/skills/using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Skills dispatch with `Subagent (general-purpose):` and either reference a prompt
 | Skill dispatch form | Gemini CLI equivalent |
 |---------------------|----------------------|
-| References a `*-prompt.md` template (implementer, task-reviewer, code-reviewer, etc.) | Fill the template, then `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled prompt |
+| References a `*-prompt.md` template (implementer, spec-reviewer, code-quality-reviewer, code-reviewer, etc.) | Fill the template, then `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled prompt |
 | References `superpowers:requesting-code-review`'s `./code-reviewer.md` | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and the filled review template |
 | Inline prompt (no template referenced) | `invoke_agent` with `agent_name: "generalist"` and your inline prompt |
--- a/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
 **If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
 - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
+- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (review fanout scales with the change — see that skill's Proportionality rule)
 **If Inline Execution chosen:**
 - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans