refactor(skills): fold systematic-debugging Related-skills block into Phase 4

Same treatment as subagent-driven-development and executing-plans: the
test-driven-development entry duplicated the reference already at Phase 4
Step 1, and the verification-before-completion entry was a sole carrier —
it moves to its point of use in Phase 4 Step 3 (Verify Fix). Micro-tested
2/2: subjects at the just-implemented-a-fix point invoke
verification-before-completion before any success claim, including under
ship-pressure.

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

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

skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

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

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -11,15 +11,16 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
 
-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
+**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in `../using-superpowers/references/`). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
 
 ## The Process
 
 ### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
-1. Read plan file
-2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
-3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
-4. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed
+1. Ensure an isolated workspace: use superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one
+2. Read plan file
+3. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
+4. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
+5. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed
 
 ### Step 2: Execute Tasks
 
@@ -61,10 +62,3 @@ After all tasks complete and verified:
 - Reference skills when plan says to
 - Stop when blocked, don't guess
 - Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
-
-## Integration
-
-**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:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks

skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

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

skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

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

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ digraph process {
 
 ## Pre-Flight Plan Review
 
+Ensure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use
+superpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.
+
 Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:
 
 - tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints
@@ -332,6 +335,38 @@ Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
 Done!
 ```
 
+## Advantages
+
+**vs. Manual execution:**
+- Subagents follow TDD naturally
+- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
+- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
+- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
+
+**vs. Executing Plans:**
+- Same session (no handoff)
+- Continuous progress (no waiting)
+- Review checkpoints automatic
+
+**Efficiency gains:**
+- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
+  as files, not pasted text
+- Subagent gets complete information upfront
+- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
+
+**Quality gates:**
+- Self-review catches issues before handoff
+- Task review carries two verdicts: spec compliance and code quality
+- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
+- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
+- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
+
+**Cost:**
+- More subagent invocations (implementer + reviewer per task)
+- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
+- Review loops add iterations
+- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
+
 ## Red Flags
 
 **Never:**
@@ -370,17 +405,3 @@ Done!
 **If subagent fails task:**
 - Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
 - Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)
-
-## Integration
-
-**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:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
-
-**Subagents should use:**
-- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - Subagents follow TDD for each task
-
-**Alternative workflow:**
-- **superpowers:executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution

skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior
 
 ## Overview
 
+Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
+
 **Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
 
 **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
@@ -186,6 +188,7 @@ You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
    - Test passes now?
    - No other tests broken?
    - Issue actually resolved?
+   - Use the `superpowers:verification-before-completion` skill before claiming success
 
 4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
    - STOP
@@ -281,6 +284,10 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 - **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
 - **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
 
-**Related skills:**
-- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
-- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

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

skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md

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

skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

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

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

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

skills/writing-skills/SKILL.md

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