mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-05-13 12:39:05 +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
# Plan Document Reviewer Prompt Template
|
|
|
|
Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
|
|
|
|
**Purpose:** Verify the plan is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
|
|
|
|
**Dispatch after:** The complete plan is written.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Subagent (general-purpose):
|
|
description: "Review plan document"
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan is complete and ready for implementation.
|
|
|
|
**Plan to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH]
|
|
**Spec for reference:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
|
|
|
|
## What to Check
|
|
|
|
| Category | What to Look For |
|
|
|----------|------------------|
|
|
| Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, incomplete tasks, missing steps |
|
|
| Spec Alignment | Plan covers spec requirements, no major scope creep |
|
|
| Task Decomposition | Tasks have clear boundaries, steps are actionable |
|
|
| Buildability | Could an engineer follow this plan without getting stuck? |
|
|
|
|
## Calibration
|
|
|
|
**Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation.**
|
|
An implementer building the wrong thing or getting stuck is an issue.
|
|
Minor wording, stylistic preferences, and "nice to have" suggestions are not.
|
|
|
|
Approve unless there are serious gaps — missing requirements from the spec,
|
|
contradictory steps, placeholder content, or tasks so vague they can't be acted on.
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
## Plan Review
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Approved | Issues Found
|
|
|
|
**Issues (if any):**
|
|
- [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for implementation]
|
|
|
|
**Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
|
|
- [suggestions for improvement]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations
|