mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-05-16 05:59:03 +08:00
11ad1f4829
Replace Claude-Code-specific tool names in skill prose, prompt
templates, and OpenCode-facing docs with action-language descriptions
that resolve to each runtime's native tool via the per-platform refs.
Changes by category:
- Prose mentions ("Use TodoWrite to track...", "Use Task tool with
general-purpose type") → action language ("Track each item as a
todo", "Dispatch a general-purpose subagent")
- Prompt template headers (6 files): "Task tool (general-purpose):"
→ "Subagent (general-purpose):" — preserves the type information
without naming Claude Code's specific dispatch tool
- DOT flowchart node labels: "Invoke Skill tool" → "Invoke the
skill"; "Create TodoWrite todo per item" → "Create a todo per
item"
- OpenCode INSTALL.md and docs/README.opencode.md: replace the old
"TodoWrite → todowrite, Task → @mention" mapping (which both
taught a vocabulary skills no longer use AND was wrong about
@mention being a real OpenCode syntax) with an action-language
mapping verified against the installed OpenCode CLI's tool
inventory.
The platform-tools refs landed in Phase B already document each
runtime's resolution; skills now speak in the actions those refs
map. Tool names that genuinely belong only in the per-platform
dispatch section ("In Claude Code: Use the `Skill` tool") and the
Claude-Code-specific Bash run_in_background flag note in
visual-companion remain — those are intentional carve-outs.
50 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
50 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
# Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template
|
|
|
|
Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.
|
|
|
|
**Purpose:** Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.
|
|
|
|
**Dispatch after:** Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Subagent (general-purpose):
|
|
description: "Review spec document"
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.
|
|
|
|
**Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
|
|
|
|
## What to Check
|
|
|
|
| Category | What to Look For |
|
|
|----------|------------------|
|
|
| Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
|
|
| Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
|
|
| Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
|
|
| Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
|
|
| YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
|
|
|
|
## Calibration
|
|
|
|
**Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
|
|
A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
|
|
interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
|
|
stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.
|
|
|
|
Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
## Spec Review
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Approved | Issues Found
|
|
|
|
**Issues (if any):**
|
|
- [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]
|
|
|
|
**Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
|
|
- [suggestions for improvement]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations
|