experiment: ground-up two-principle rewrite of writing-good-tests

Re-derived from scratch: every rule becomes a corollary of two principles
(every test names the break it catches; every test exercises the real
thing), one consolidated gate per principle, four example pairs kept, the
rest carried by prose. Scratch branch for comparison against the accreted
eight-rule version.

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

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
 
-**Note:** Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents (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
 

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

@@ -332,6 +332,38 @@ 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:**

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.**
@@ -284,3 +286,11 @@ These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this director
 **Related skills:**
 - **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
 - **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## Real-World Impact
+
+From debugging sessions:
+- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
+- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
+- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
+- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -203,6 +203,62 @@ Next failing test for next feature.
 | **Clear** | Name describes behavior | `test('test1')` |
 | **Shows intent** | Demonstrates desired API | Obscures what code should do |
 
+When writing or changing any test, read [writing-good-tests.md](writing-good-tests.md) for the rules that keep tests honest:
+- Name the production change that would make the test fail — before writing it
+- Assert on real behavior, never on mock behavior
+- Keep test-only code in test utilities, out of production classes
+- Understand a dependency's side effects before mocking it
+
+## 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 |
@@ -304,13 +360,6 @@ Bug found? Write failing test reproducing it. Follow TDD cycle. Test proves fix
 
 Never fix bugs without a test.
 
-## Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-When adding mocks or test utilities, read [testing-anti-patterns.md](testing-anti-patterns.md) to avoid common pitfalls:
-- Testing mock behavior instead of real behavior
-- Adding test-only methods to production classes
-- Mocking without understanding dependencies
-
 ## Final Rule
 
 ```

skills/test-driven-development/testing-anti-patterns.md

@@ -1,299 +0,0 @@
-# Testing Anti-Patterns
-
-**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or tempted to add test-only methods to production code.
-
-## Overview
-
-Tests must verify real behavior, not mock behavior. Mocks are a means to isolate, not the thing being tested.
-
-**Core principle:** Test what the code does, not what the mocks do.
-
-**Following strict TDD prevents these anti-patterns.**
-
-## The Iron Laws
-
-```
-1. NEVER test mock behavior
-2. NEVER add test-only methods to production classes
-3. NEVER mock without understanding dependencies
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 1: Testing Mock Behavior
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Testing that the mock exists
-test('renders sidebar', () => {
-  render(<Page />);
-  expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- You're verifying the mock works, not that the component works
-- Test passes when mock is present, fails when it's not
-- Tells you nothing about real behavior
-
-**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a mock?"
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Test real component or don't mock it
-test('renders sidebar', () => {
-  render(<Page />);  // Don't mock sidebar
-  expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
-});
-
-// OR if sidebar must be mocked for isolation:
-// Don't assert on the mock - test Page's behavior with sidebar present
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE asserting on any mock element:
-  Ask: "Am I testing real component behavior or just mock existence?"
-
-  IF testing mock existence:
-    STOP - Delete the assertion or unmock the component
-
-  Test real behavior instead
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 2: Test-Only Methods in Production
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: destroy() only used in tests
-class Session {
-  async destroy() {  // Looks like production API!
-    await this._workspaceManager?.destroyWorkspace(this.id);
-    // ... cleanup
-  }
-}
-
-// In tests
-afterEach(() => session.destroy());
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- Production class polluted with test-only code
-- Dangerous if accidentally called in production
-- Violates YAGNI and separation of concerns
-- Confuses object lifecycle with entity lifecycle
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Test utilities handle test cleanup
-// Session has no destroy() - it's stateless in production
-
-// In test-utils/
-export async function cleanupSession(session: Session) {
-  const workspace = session.getWorkspaceInfo();
-  if (workspace) {
-    await workspaceManager.destroyWorkspace(workspace.id);
-  }
-}
-
-// In tests
-afterEach(() => cleanupSession(session));
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE adding any method to production class:
-  Ask: "Is this only used by tests?"
-
-  IF yes:
-    STOP - Don't add it
-    Put it in test utilities instead
-
-  Ask: "Does this class own this resource's lifecycle?"
-
-  IF no:
-    STOP - Wrong class for this method
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 3: Mocking Without Understanding
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Mock breaks test logic
-test('detects duplicate server', () => {
-  // Mock prevents config write that test depends on!
-  vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
-    discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
-  }));
-
-  await addServer(config);
-  await addServer(config);  // Should throw - but won't!
-});
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- Mocked method had side effect test depended on (writing config)
-- Over-mocking to "be safe" breaks actual behavior
-- Test passes for wrong reason or fails mysteriously
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Mock at correct level
-test('detects duplicate server', () => {
-  // Mock the slow part, preserve behavior test needs
-  vi.mock('MCPServerManager'); // Just mock slow server startup
-
-  await addServer(config);  // Config written
-  await addServer(config);  // Duplicate detected ✓
-});
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE mocking any method:
-  STOP - Don't mock yet
-
-  1. Ask: "What side effects does the real method have?"
-  2. Ask: "Does this test depend on any of those side effects?"
-  3. Ask: "Do I fully understand what this test needs?"
-
-  IF depends on side effects:
-    Mock at lower level (the actual slow/external operation)
-    OR use test doubles that preserve necessary behavior
-    NOT the high-level method the test depends on
-
-  IF unsure what test depends on:
-    Run test with real implementation FIRST
-    Observe what actually needs to happen
-    THEN add minimal mocking at the right level
-
-  Red flags:
-    - "I'll mock this to be safe"
-    - "This might be slow, better mock it"
-    - Mocking without understanding the dependency chain
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 4: Incomplete Mocks
-
-**The violation:**
-```typescript
-// ❌ BAD: Partial mock - only fields you think you need
-const mockResponse = {
-  status: 'success',
-  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' }
-  // Missing: metadata that downstream code uses
-};
-
-// Later: breaks when code accesses response.metadata.requestId
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- **Partial mocks hide structural assumptions** - You only mocked fields you know about
-- **Downstream code may depend on fields you didn't include** - Silent failures
-- **Tests pass but integration fails** - Mock incomplete, real API complete
-- **False confidence** - Test proves nothing about real behavior
-
-**The Iron Rule:** Mock the COMPLETE data structure as it exists in reality, not just fields your immediate test uses.
-
-**The fix:**
-```typescript
-// ✅ GOOD: Mirror real API completeness
-const mockResponse = {
-  status: 'success',
-  data: { userId: '123', name: 'Alice' },
-  metadata: { requestId: 'req-789', timestamp: 1234567890 }
-  // All fields real API returns
-};
-```
-
-### Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE creating mock responses:
-  Check: "What fields does the real API response contain?"
-
-  Actions:
-    1. Examine actual API response from docs/examples
-    2. Include ALL fields system might consume downstream
-    3. Verify mock matches real response schema completely
-
-  Critical:
-    If you're creating a mock, you must understand the ENTIRE structure
-    Partial mocks fail silently when code depends on omitted fields
-
-  If uncertain: Include all documented fields
-```
-
-## Anti-Pattern 5: Integration Tests as Afterthought
-
-**The violation:**
-```
-✅ Implementation complete
-❌ No tests written
-"Ready for testing"
-```
-
-**Why this is wrong:**
-- Testing is part of implementation, not optional follow-up
-- TDD would have caught this
-- Can't claim complete without tests
-
-**The fix:**
-```
-TDD cycle:
-1. Write failing test
-2. Implement to pass
-3. Refactor
-4. THEN claim complete
-```
-
-## When Mocks Become Too Complex
-
-**Warning signs:**
-- Mock setup longer than test logic
-- Mocking everything to make test pass
-- Mocks missing methods real components have
-- Test breaks when mock changes
-
-**your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a mock here?"
-
-**Consider:** Integration tests with real components often simpler than complex mocks
-
-## TDD Prevents These Anti-Patterns
-
-**Why TDD helps:**
-1. **Write test first** → Forces you to think about what you're actually testing
-2. **Watch it fail** → Confirms test tests real behavior, not mocks
-3. **Minimal implementation** → No test-only methods creep in
-4. **Real dependencies** → You see what the test actually needs before mocking
-
-**If you're testing mock behavior, you violated TDD** - you added mocks without watching test fail against real code first.
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Anti-Pattern | Fix |
-|--------------|-----|
-| Assert on mock elements | Test real component or unmock it |
-| Test-only methods in production | Move to test utilities |
-| Mock without understanding | Understand dependencies first, mock minimally |
-| Incomplete mocks | Mirror real API completely |
-| Tests as afterthought | TDD - tests first |
-| Over-complex mocks | Consider integration tests |
-
-## Red Flags
-
-- Assertion checks for `*-mock` test IDs
-- Methods only called in test files
-- Mock setup is >50% of test
-- Test fails when you remove mock
-- Can't explain why mock is needed
-- Mocking "just to be safe"
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**Mocks are tools to isolate, not things to test.**
-
-If TDD reveals you're testing mock behavior, you've gone wrong.
-
-Fix: Test real behavior or question why you're mocking at all.

skills/test-driven-development/writing-good-tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Writing Good Tests
+
+**Load this reference when:** writing or changing tests, adding mocks, or
+adding cleanup/helper methods for tests.
+
+## Overview
+
+A test exists to catch a specific break. Two principles govern everything
+here:
+
+```
+1. Every test names the break it catches
+2. Every test exercises the real thing
+```
+
+Strict TDD produces both naturally: a test written first and watched
+failing against real code has already proven it can fail, and only earns
+a mock when the real dependency proves slow or external.
+
+## Principle 1: Name the Break
+
+Before writing the test body, answer: **what production change should
+make this test fail — and is that change a bug or a decision?** A test
+earns its place by catching a wrong branch, missing side effect, wrong
+argument, boundary case, or broken contract.
+
+**Derive expectations independently.** Use literals and hand-checked
+fixtures; table-driven tests with literal `want` values are the preferred
+shape. An expectation computed by the code under test — or its helpers —
+passes no matter what that code does:
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ Mirror assertion: the same builder computes both sides — always true
+const expected = buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' });
+expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe(expected);
+
+// ✅ Hand-derived literal
+expect(buildSearchQuery({ tag: 'urgent' })).toBe('tag:"urgent"');
+```
+
+**No change detectors.** If only intentional decisions can fail a test —
+a constant's value, exact message wording, private structure — it fires
+on redesign and sleeps through bugs. Test the behavior that depends on
+the decision: not `expect(MAX_RETRIES).toBe(5)` but "a failing call is
+retried 5 times and the 6th attempt never happens."
+
+**Behavior, not text.** Asserting that a script, skill, or config
+contains an exact line proves only that the source is the source. Run
+scripts against controlled inputs and assert outputs, side effects, or
+exit codes. Documents that instruct agents are tested by the consuming
+agent's behavior (superpowers:writing-skills); prose for humans earns no
+test at all.
+
+**Your code, not the framework.** Test the contract your code makes at
+its boundaries — the route you register, the query you emit, the payload
+you produce. Upstream mechanics are their maintainers' tests to write
+(the classic: asserting your router invokes a registered handler — that
+is the framework's test, not yours). When upstream behavior genuinely
+surprised you, write one narrow characterization test naming the
+assumption. The same boundary applies inside your code: constructors,
+getters, constants, and trivial forwarding earn tests only when they
+validate, normalize, default, derive, enforce, or cause side effects —
+otherwise assert the first consumer-visible result that depends on them.
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE writing the test body:
+  Name the production change that would make this test fail.
+
+  Cannot name one            → redesign around an observable behavior
+  "The source text changed"  → run the artifact and assert its effects
+  Only intentional decisions → change detector; test the behavior
+                               that depends on the decision
+
+  Confirm the expected value is derived without the code under test.
+  IF it reuses the code's logic or helpers:
+    Replace it with a literal or hand-checked fixture
+```
+
+## Principle 2: Exercise the Real Thing
+
+**The mock earns no assertions.** A mock assertion passes when the mock
+is present and fails when it is absent — it says nothing about the
+component. Assert the real component's behavior; if the mock is what you
+are checking, unmock it or delete the assertion.
+
+```typescript
+// ✅ Real behavior
+expect(screen.getByRole('navigation')).toBeInTheDocument();
+
+// ❌ Mock existence
+expect(screen.getByTestId('sidebar-mock')).toBeInTheDocument();
+```
+
+**your human partner's correction:** "Are we testing the behavior of a
+mock?"
+
+**Mock at the right level.** Learn every side effect of the real method
+before replacing it; mock the slow or external operation and keep what
+the test depends on real. When unsure, run the test against the real
+implementation first and observe what actually needs to happen.
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ The mock swallows the config write that duplicate detection reads
+vi.mock('ToolCatalog', () => ({
+  discoverAndCacheTools: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+}));
+
+// ✅ Mock only the slow server startup; the config write stays real
+vi.mock('MCPServerManager');
+```
+
+**Make doubles specific.** When arguments, call counts, or ordering are
+part of the contract, assert them — a fake that accepts anything verifies
+nothing. Give each branch (success, error, malformed) its own fixture or
+spy, so the wrong branch cannot satisfy the expectation.
+
+**Mirror real data completely.** Mock the complete structure as it exists
+in reality — all documented fields — not just the ones your test reads.
+Partial mocks fail silently when downstream code reads an omitted field:
+the test passes while integration breaks.
+
+**Production classes carry production methods only.** Cleanup that only
+tests need lives in test utilities, never as a `destroy()` on the
+production class. Ask: is this method called only from tests? Does this
+class own this resource's lifecycle? Wrong answers → test utility.
+
+**Prefer real components over complex mocks.** When mock setup outgrows
+the test logic, mocks miss methods the real components have, or tests
+break when the mock changes, switch to an integration test with real
+components. **your human partner's question:** "Do we need to be using a
+mock here?"
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE adding a mock or test helper:
+  List the real method's side effects; keep the ones the test
+  depends on real — mock the slow/external level below them.
+
+  Mock responses mirror the complete real structure.
+
+  A method only tests call lives in test utilities, not production.
+
+  About to assert on the mock itself?
+    Unmock it or delete the assertion.
+```
+
+## Tests Ship With the Implementation
+
+The TDD cycle — failing test, minimal implementation, refactor — is what
+"complete" means. Ship the tests the behavior needs and only those:
+trivial code and human prose earn none, and a test written to satisfy
+process costs maintenance forever.
+
+## The Mutation Check
+
+Before finishing, mentally mutate the production code; at least one test
+should fail for each realistic mutation:
+
+- Wrong constant or argument
+- Wrong branch handler
+- Missing state change or side effect
+- Empty or default return
+- Missing validation for zero, empty, nil, unauthorized, or malformed input
+
+A mutation nothing catches marks the behavior as unprotected — or the
+test as tautological.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| When you... | Do |
+|-------------|-----|
+| Write any test | Name the break it catches — a bug, not a decision |
+| Build an expected value | Derive it by hand; never with the code under test |
+| Test a script or document | Run it / pressure-test its consumer; never grep its text |
+| Reach for a dependency test | Test your boundary contract, not their documented mechanics |
+| Want to assert on a mocked element | Test the real component, or unmock it |
+| Are about to mock a method | Learn its side effects; mock the slow/external level |
+| Build a mock response | Mirror the real structure completely |
+| Need cleanup only tests use | Put it in test utilities |
+| Watch mock setup balloon | Switch to an integration test with real components |
+| Finish a test file | Run the mutation check |
+
+## Warning Signs
+
+- Setup and assertion share the same object, guaranteeing equality
+- The test can fail only through a panic, crash, or missing selector
+- The test fails on every intentional change, never on accidental breakage
+- Expected values are hidden behind loops, builders, or helpers
+- The test greps source text, or asserts a removed symbol stays removed
+- The test would still matter if only the framework remained
+- The test exists for coverage, checking no side effect or outcome
+- An assertion checks a `*-mock` test ID, or fails if you remove the mock
+- A method is called only from test files
+- Mock setup is more than half the test, or you can't explain why the mock is needed
+- Mocking "just to be safe"

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.