mirror of https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git synced 2026-05-09 18:49:04 +08:00

Files

Jesse Vincent 11ad1f4829 Phase E: action-language tool vocabulary

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.

2026-05-05 18:26:21 -07:00

1.1 KiB

Raw Blame History

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

1.1 KiB Raw Blame History

Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template

1.1 KiB

Raw Blame History