mirror of https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git synced 2026-05-09 10:39:06 +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

2.0 KiB

Raw Blame History

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]

    ## 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]

2.0 KiB Raw Blame History

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

2.0 KiB

Raw Blame History