mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-06-13 14:19:05 +08:00
e5f337b89e
Consolidates the reference-discipline change with every consumer of it, so this PR is independently mergeable (previously split across two stacked PRs whose intermediate state left the SDD spec reviewer blind). writing-plans: plans reference the spec — never restate, paraphrase, or summarize it; spec owns WHAT/WHY, plan owns HOW; cite by path in the header (**Spec:** template line) and by section where a task needs context; No Placeholders repetition stays intra-plan; no-spec branch scoped to conversational-requirements-only (eval-caught: an agent used an unscoped no-spec branch to skip writing the spec entirely). brainstorming: spec path loophole closed (claude shortened docs/superpowers/specs/ to docs/specs/, documented run); an existing differently-named docs dir is not a "user preference". subagent-driven-development: Spec Context section — the controller reads the plan-cited spec and pastes cited sections into implementer and spec-reviewer prompts; the spec reviewer's diff-only rule gets a spec-document exception. Without this, reference discipline starves the pipeline of requirements. executing-plans: Step 1 reads the spec the plan cites (the non-subagent path; plans are no longer self-contained). Eval evidence (quorum, full-stack text): cost-spec-plan-duplication claude 3/3 pass (RED: 5/5 agents failed), codex pass, pi pass (the 683-line duplication RED agent); sdd-spec-context-consumed functional pass with deterministic dispatch-prompt check; writing-plans-no-spec-conversational 2/2 pass; triggering-writing-plans canary 3/3. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
78 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
78 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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, including the text of any spec sections the task cites]
|
|
|
|
## What Implementer Claims They Built
|
|
|
|
[From implementer's report]
|
|
|
|
## Git Range to Review
|
|
|
|
**Base:** [BASE_SHA — commit before this task]
|
|
**Head:** [HEAD_SHA — current commit]
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
|
|
git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase. (One exception: if the requirements cite a spec document, you may read that spec at its cited path.)
|
|
|
|
## Read-Only Review
|
|
|
|
Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.
|
|
|
|
## 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]
|
|
```
|