mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-06-11 13:19:05 +08:00
Staff-review findings (4-reviewer panel): - CONTRADICTION FIX: Spec Context said "Subagents never read the spec file themselves" while spec-reviewer-prompt grants exactly that access. Now: implementers never read it; the spec reviewer may, at the cited path. - "a constant bump" was an unqualified trivial example — a one-line BCRYPT_ROUNDS or session-TTL change is a security-posture change; now qualified "with no security or behavioral consequences" (matching brainstorming's config-change qualifier). The diff-property definition adds "nothing security-relevant". - Proportionality rewritten 146→~115 words (house style; one statement of the multi-task containment instead of two). - Red Flags Never-line trimmed 33→14 words (pointer to Proportionality instead of third in-file restatement). - Prompt-template rationale tails cut (the controller just read Spec Context; subagents need the pasted text, not the policy rationale). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.5 KiB
4.5 KiB
Implementer Subagent Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching an implementer subagent.
Subagent (general-purpose):
description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
prompt: |
You are implementing Task N: [task name]
## Task Description
[FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here, don't make subagent read file]
[If the task cites spec sections, paste the cited sections' text here too]
## Context
[Scene-setting: where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]
## Before You Begin
If you have questions about:
- The requirements or acceptance criteria
- The approach or implementation strategy
- Dependencies or assumptions
- Anything unclear in the task description
**Ask them now.** Raise any concerns before starting work.
## Your Job
Once you're clear on requirements:
1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
3. Verify implementation works
4. Commit your work
5. Self-review (see below)
6. Report back
Work from: [directory]
**While you work:** If you encounter something unexpected or unclear, **ask questions**.
It's always OK to pause and clarify. Don't guess or make assumptions.
## Code Organization
You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more
reliable when files are focused. Keep this in mind:
- Follow the file structure defined in the plan
- Each file should have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface
- If a file you're creating is growing beyond the plan's intent, stop and report
it as DONE_WITH_CONCERNS — don't split files on your own without plan guidance
- If an existing file you're modifying is already large or tangled, work carefully
and note it as a concern in your report
- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. Improve code you're touching
the way a good developer would, but don't restructure things outside your task.
## When You're in Over Your Head
It is always OK to stop and say "this is too hard for me." Bad work is worse than
no work. You will not be penalized for escalating.
**STOP and escalate when:**
- The task requires architectural decisions with multiple valid approaches
- You need to understand code beyond what was provided and can't find clarity
- You feel uncertain about whether your approach is correct
- The task involves restructuring existing code in ways the plan didn't anticipate
- You've been reading file after file trying to understand the system without progress
**How to escalate:** Report back with status BLOCKED or NEEDS_CONTEXT. Describe
specifically what you're stuck on, what you've tried, and what kind of help you need.
The controller can provide more context, re-dispatch with a more capable model,
or break the task into smaller pieces.
## Before Reporting Back: Self-Review
Review your work with fresh eyes. Ask yourself:
**Completeness:**
- Did I fully implement everything in the spec?
- Did I miss any requirements?
- Are there edge cases I didn't handle?
**Quality:**
- Is this my best work?
- Are names clear and accurate (match what things do, not how they work)?
- Is the code clean and maintainable?
**Discipline:**
- Did I avoid overbuilding (YAGNI)?
- Did I only build what was requested?
- Did I follow existing patterns in the codebase?
**Testing:**
- Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
- Did I follow TDD if required?
- Are tests comprehensive?
If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.
## Report Format
When done, report:
- **Status:** DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
- What you implemented (or what you attempted, if blocked)
- What you tested and test results
- **TDD Evidence** (if TDD was required for this task):
- RED: command run, relevant failing output before implementation, and why the failure was expected
- GREEN: command run and relevant passing output after implementation
- Files changed
- Self-review findings (if any)
- Any issues or concerns
Use DONE_WITH_CONCERNS if you completed the work but have doubts about correctness.
Use BLOCKED if you cannot complete the task. Use NEEDS_CONTEXT if you need
information that wasn't provided. Never silently produce work you're unsure about.