docs(spec): EARS-lite behavioural criteria and a context snapshot

Both skills gain EARS-lite as an option alongside prose criteria: WHEN/WHILE/IF
plus the unconditional form, for behaviour that a measurable threshold cannot
express. feature-spec also gains a Context snapshot section — the executor of a
spec routinely cannot open the architecture document it points at, so the facts
it depends on get inlined with provenance.

Pressure-tested per #19, and the RED phase argued against half the issue. A
subagent with no skill wrote a strong spec and then explained that it had
deliberately NOT inlined architecture context, "because both are owned by the
existing architecture document and duplicating them here would create two
drifting sources of truth". That objection is correct, so the section is built
around answering it: snapshot what the implementer cannot look up, always cite
source and version, and state that the source wins on disagreement. Prose
criteria came out fine unaided; EARS phrasing did not appear at all, which is
where the real gap was.

The GREEN run then found seven defects in the first draft, all fixed here:

- The example was in the same domain as the test scenario, so it got copied
  rather than read — the spec inherited an extraction-confidence requirement
  its feature request never mentioned. The example is now deliberately
  off-domain, with that failure written up as the reason.
- EARS-lite had no unconditional form, so a genuine invariant ("no instruction
  above threshold ever reaches a file") had to be bent into a WHILE that a
  system trivially satisfies by never entering the state. Added.
- "Maps 1:1 onto a test" was false for the WHILE form, which is universally
  quantified. Softened to say which forms map to one test and which do not.
- The provenance rule had no answer for the case it was written for: an author
  who also cannot read the source. Now: mark the block UNVERIFIED in those
  words and make confirmation the implementer's first task.
- "Snapshot only what this spec's decisions rest on" was narrower than the
  section's own purpose; a table name underpins no decision and still blocks
  the migration. Widened, with the omissions stated deliberately.
- "Say so in the section itself" did not say what, at what granularity. Now one
  opening line, not a per-fact annotation.
- The template had no slot for EARS lines, so their placement was a guess.
  Added as a subsection with a note that they are properties, not checkboxes.

Closes #12
Bump-Type: minor

.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "skills",
   "description": "Mathias's engineering skills library, plus the hooks and MCP servers that make it enforceable: TDD, clean code, debugging, specs, discovery, CI, and secret hygiene.",
-  "version": "0.10.1",
+  "version": "0.11.0",
   "author": {
     "name": "Mathias",
     "url": "https://git.d-ma.be/mathias"

SKILLS_INDEX.md

@@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ the SKILL.md, not the table.
 | `superpowers-receiving-code-review` | Acting on received review feedback | Responding to review comments | claude-code, library |
 | `superpowers-requesting-code-review` | Requesting a code review well | Asking another agent/human to review | claude-code, library |
 | `superpowers-subagent-driven-development` | Subagent-driven development workflow | Building via orchestrated subagents | claude-code, library |
-| `superpowers-systematic-debugging` | Hypothesis-first systematic debugging | Diagnosing a failure methodically | claude-code, library |
 | `superpowers-using-git-worktrees` | Isolating work with git worktrees | Parallel/isolated work in a worktree | claude-code, library |
 | `superpowers-using-superpowers` | Meta: orienting in the superpowers set | Learning how to use the superpowers skills | claude-code, library |
 | `superpowers-verification-before-completion` | Verify behavior before claiming done | Before marking any task complete | claude-code, library |

skills/debug/SKILL.md

@@ -31,6 +31,33 @@ Debugging is hypothesis generation, not fix generation. The first instinct — "
 2. **Generate 3-5 hypotheses, ordered by likelihood (most likely first).** Fewer than 3 means you stopped thinking; more than 5 means you are not prioritizing.
 3. **Diagnose only — do not fix in this skill.** The fix happens in a separate TDD cycle (load `tdd` skill) once a hypothesis is confirmed.
 
+## When the bug spans components
+
+A system with boundaries (CI → build → signing, API → service → database) hides the
+question "which component is wrong?" behind the question "why is the output wrong?".
+Specify, as a pre-step, what to log entering and leaving **each** boundary, plus
+whether config and environment actually propagated. One run of that narrows the search
+to a single component.
+
+This does not suspend Iron Law 2. Still emit 3-5 hypotheses — the boundary spec comes
+first in the output, and each hypothesis says which boundary observation would kill it.
+What the pre-step forbids is hypotheses that quietly assume a component is the faulty
+one before any evidence says so.
+
+## When several fixes have already failed
+
+Three or more plausible fixes that failed to eliminate a symptom is not a run of bad
+luck — it is evidence that nobody has identified the mechanism. (Fixes that changed
+nothing at all count double: they are stronger evidence of a misidentified mechanism
+than fixes that partially worked.) Each one has been narrowing a window rather than
+closing it, and a fourth guess buys another tenth of the rate plus a layer of
+interacting guards nobody can reason about.
+
+Say that explicitly — the refusal is the finding, not a preamble to it. Then aim the
+hypotheses one level up: the premise those fixes share is itself the thing to falsify.
+This is not an exemption from the output format. It is the format, pointed at the
+assumption instead of at the symptom.
+
 ## Process
 
 ### Step 1: Read the failure
@@ -147,3 +174,15 @@ This skill produces high-volume mechanical output (hypothesis enumeration) and i
 - After a hypothesis is confirmed, load `tdd` skill — write a failing regression test that proves the bug exists, then fix it.
 - For test failures specifically caused by mock-vs-real divergence, also load `tdd/references/testing-anti-patterns.md`.
 - Load `code-review` skill if the diagnosis surfaces a structural issue (god object, shotgun surgery) rather than a pointwise bug.
+
+Techniques kept in `debug/references/`, inherited from the deleted
+`superpowers-systematic-debugging` (#14):
+
+- `root-cause-tracing.md` — load when the failure surfaces far from its trigger and the
+  stack is the only thread back to it.
+- `defense-in-depth.md` — load after a root cause is confirmed, to decide which layers
+  should have caught it.
+- `condition-based-waiting.md` — load whenever a timeout appears anywhere in the report,
+  including as one of the fixes already tried. A bumped timeout is a symptom.
+- `find-polluter.sh` — run when a test passes alone and fails in the suite, or when
+  something in the tree appears that no test admits to creating.

skills/feature-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -32,6 +32,90 @@ A feature spec is the implementation-level contract for one feature or component
 2. **An "Out of scope" section is mandatory.** If you do not draw the boundary, the implementer (you, future-you, or another agent) will guess wrong.
 3. **Every technical decision in "Technical approach" must have a rationale.** A decision is any choice where a reasonable alternative existed and was not taken. "Use Postgres" is not a decision; "use Postgres because the rest of the stack uses it and we need transactions across user + invoice" is.
 
+## EARS-lite acceptance criteria
+
+Measurable criteria answer "is it done?". They do not always answer "what should it do
+when X happens?" — and behavioural requirements written as prose are where ambiguity
+survives review. For any criterion that is conditional or event-driven, use EARS-lite
+instead of prose:
+
+```
+WHEN <trigger> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+WHILE <state> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+IF <unwanted condition> THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+There is a fourth, unconditional form. Use it for invariants — the properties that must
+hold with no trigger at all, which are usually the ones that matter most:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+Worked, deliberately from a domain unlike whatever you are specifying:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL reject a firmware image whose signature does not verify
+WHEN a sensor reports a temperature above the shutdown limit
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL open the contactor within 200ms
+WHILE the contactor is open
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL refuse every start command
+IF a sensor reading is missing or stale by more than one interval
+  THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL treat it as above the limit
+```
+
+The example is off-domain on purpose. An on-domain example gets copied: a spec written
+against an invoice-flavoured example inherited a requirement about extraction confidence
+that its feature request never mentioned, and the author only noticed on review. Read
+the shapes, not the content.
+
+Each conditional line names a trigger and one observable response, which usually maps
+onto a single test. The `WHILE` and unconditional forms are universally quantified —
+"every start command", "a firmware image" — so they map onto a property or a set of
+cases, not one assertion. That is still worth writing: it closes the requirements half
+of the audit trail, which is otherwise issue-body prose.
+
+**This is an option, not a replacement.** Threshold criteria ("p99 < 200ms under 100
+RPS") stay as they are — EARS phrasing adds nothing to a number. Use it for conditional
+behaviour, error handling, and state-dependent rules.
+
+## Context snapshot
+
+The executor of this spec will not see the conversation that produced it, and often
+cannot see the architecture document either — a different agent, a fresh session, a
+different machine. A spec that says "see the architecture doc" hands them a lookup they
+may not be able to perform.
+
+So inline the specific facts this spec depends on, not the whole document:
+
+```markdown
+## Context snapshot
+Taken from <source> @ <commit-or-date>. Re-check before implementing if stale.
+
+- The mailbox poller writes rows to `invoices` with `state = 'received'`.
+- The payment-file writer reads `invoices` and emits one file per batch.
+- Money is int64 minor units plus an ISO-4217 code; float is banned repo-wide.
+```
+
+Three rules keep this from becoming a second source of truth, which is the real
+objection to inlining and a good one:
+
+1. **Snapshot what the implementer cannot look up and cannot proceed without.** That is
+   wider than "facts this spec's decisions rest on" — a table name may underpin no
+   decision here and still be the thing that blocks writing the migration. It is still
+   narrower than the whole document: if a fact changes nothing and blocks nothing, leave
+   it out, and say what you left out so the omission reads as deliberate.
+2. **Always cite source and version.** A snapshot without provenance cannot be
+   revalidated, and an unrevalidatable copy is exactly the drift everyone fears.
+3. **If you could not read the source either, say so in those words.** Writing a spec
+   against a document you cannot open is common and is not a reason to skip the section
+   — it is a reason to mark the whole block `UNVERIFIED — reconstructed, not read`, and
+   to make confirming it the implementer's first task, before the first failing test.
+   An unmarked guess is the only genuinely dangerous version.
+4. **The snapshot is evidence, not authority.** Open the section with one line to that
+   effect — "where this disagrees with the source, the source wins and this spec is
+   stale" — rather than annotating each fact.
+
 ## Spec Template
 
 ```markdown
@@ -42,12 +126,21 @@ A feature spec is the implementation-level contract for one feature or component
 What problem does this feature solve? For whom? Why now?
 (2-4 sentences. If you cannot answer "why now," ask before writing the rest.)
 
+## Context snapshot
+[Facts the implementer cannot look up, with source and version. See "Context snapshot" above.]
+
 ## Success Criteria
 
 - [ ] Criterion 1 — measurable and verifiable
 - [ ] Criterion 2 — measurable and verifiable
 - [ ] Criterion 3 — measurable and verifiable
 
+### Behavioural criteria (EARS-lite)
+
+[Conditional and event-driven behaviour, one trigger and one observable response per
+line. Not checkboxes — these are properties, and several need more than one test each.
+Omit the subsection entirely if the feature has no conditional behaviour.]
+
 ## Constraints
 
 Non-negotiable requirements the solution must satisfy.

skills/spec-driven-dev/SKILL.md

@@ -200,6 +200,56 @@ Dev:     [full command]
 [Anything unresolved that needs input before implementation begins]
 ```
 
+## EARS-lite acceptance criteria
+
+Measurable criteria answer "is it done?". They do not always answer "what should it do
+when X happens?" — and behavioural requirements written as prose are where ambiguity
+survives review. For any criterion that is conditional or event-driven, use EARS-lite
+instead of prose:
+
+```
+WHEN <trigger> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+WHILE <state> THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+IF <unwanted condition> THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+There is a fourth, unconditional form. Use it for invariants — the properties that must
+hold with no trigger at all, which are usually the ones that matter most:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL <observable response>
+```
+
+Worked, deliberately from a domain unlike whatever you are specifying:
+
+```
+THE SYSTEM SHALL reject a firmware image whose signature does not verify
+WHEN a sensor reports a temperature above the shutdown limit
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL open the contactor within 200ms
+WHILE the contactor is open
+  THE SYSTEM SHALL refuse every start command
+IF a sensor reading is missing or stale by more than one interval
+  THEN THE SYSTEM SHALL treat it as above the limit
+```
+
+The example is off-domain on purpose. An on-domain example gets copied: a spec written
+against an invoice-flavoured example inherited a requirement about extraction confidence
+that its feature request never mentioned, and the author only noticed on review. Read
+the shapes, not the content.
+
+Each conditional line names a trigger and one observable response, which usually maps
+onto a single test. The `WHILE` and unconditional forms are universally quantified —
+"every start command", "a firmware image" — so they map onto a property or a set of
+cases, not one assertion. That is still worth writing: it closes the requirements half
+of the audit trail, which is otherwise issue-body prose.
+
+**This is an option, not a replacement.** Threshold criteria ("p99 < 200ms under 100
+RPS") stay as they are — EARS phrasing adds nothing to a number. Use it for conditional
+behaviour, error handling, and state-dependent rules.
+
+For the executor-facing handoff, `feature-spec` also carries a **Context snapshot**
+section — inline the architecture facts the implementer cannot look up.
+
 ## Reframing Vague Requirements
 
 When you receive a vague requirement, translate it into specific success criteria before writing any spec content:

skills/superpowers-systematic-debugging/CREATION-LOG.md

@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
-# Creation Log: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-Reference example of extracting, structuring, and bulletproofing a critical skill.
-
-## Source Material
-
-Extracted debugging framework from `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md`:
-- 4-phase systematic process (Investigation → Pattern Analysis → Hypothesis → Implementation)
-- Core mandate: ALWAYS find root cause, NEVER fix symptoms
-- Rules designed to resist time pressure and rationalization
-
-## Extraction Decisions
-
-**What to include:**
-- Complete 4-phase framework with all rules
-- Anti-shortcuts ("NEVER fix symptom", "STOP and re-analyze")
-- Pressure-resistant language ("even if faster", "even if I seem in a hurry")
-- Concrete steps for each phase
-
-**What to leave out:**
-- Project-specific context
-- Repetitive variations of same rule
-- Narrative explanations (condensed to principles)
-
-## Structure Following skill-creation/SKILL.md
-
-1. **Rich when_to_use** - Included symptoms and anti-patterns
-2. **Type: technique** - Concrete process with steps
-3. **Keywords** - "root cause", "symptom", "workaround", "debugging", "investigation"
-4. **Flowchart** - Decision point for "fix failed" → re-analyze vs add more fixes
-5. **Phase-by-phase breakdown** - Scannable checklist format
-6. **Anti-patterns section** - What NOT to do (critical for this skill)
-
-## Bulletproofing Elements
-
-Framework designed to resist rationalization under pressure:
-
-### Language Choices
-- "ALWAYS" / "NEVER" (not "should" / "try to")
-- "even if faster" / "even if I seem in a hurry"
-- "STOP and re-analyze" (explicit pause)
-- "Don't skip past" (catches the actual behavior)
-
-### Structural Defenses
-- **Phase 1 required** - Can't skip to implementation
-- **Single hypothesis rule** - Forces thinking, prevents shotgun fixes
-- **Explicit failure mode** - "IF your first fix doesn't work" with mandatory action
-- **Anti-patterns section** - Shows exactly what shortcuts look like
-
-### Redundancy
-- Root cause mandate in overview + when_to_use + Phase 1 + implementation rules
-- "NEVER fix symptom" appears 4 times in different contexts
-- Each phase has explicit "don't skip" guidance
-
-## Testing Approach
-
-Created 4 validation tests following skills/meta/testing-skills-with-subagents:
-
-### Test 1: Academic Context (No Pressure)
-- Simple bug, no time pressure
-- **Result:** Perfect compliance, complete investigation
-
-### Test 2: Time Pressure + Obvious Quick Fix
-- User "in a hurry", symptom fix looks easy
-- **Result:** Resisted shortcut, followed full process, found real root cause
-
-### Test 3: Complex System + Uncertainty
-- Multi-layer failure, unclear if can find root cause
-- **Result:** Systematic investigation, traced through all layers, found source
-
-### Test 4: Failed First Fix
-- Hypothesis doesn't work, temptation to add more fixes
-- **Result:** Stopped, re-analyzed, formed new hypothesis (no shotgun)
-
-**All tests passed.** No rationalizations found.
-
-## Iterations
-
-### Initial Version
-- Complete 4-phase framework
-- Anti-patterns section
-- Flowchart for "fix failed" decision
-
-### Enhancement 1: TDD Reference
-- Added link to skills/testing/test-driven-development
-- Note explaining TDD's "simplest code" ≠ debugging's "root cause"
-- Prevents confusion between methodologies
-
-## Final Outcome
-
-Bulletproof skill that:
-- ✅ Clearly mandates root cause investigation
-- ✅ Resists time pressure rationalization
-- ✅ Provides concrete steps for each phase
-- ✅ Shows anti-patterns explicitly
-- ✅ Tested under multiple pressure scenarios
-- ✅ Clarifies relationship to TDD
-- ✅ Ready for use
-
-## Key Insight
-
-**Most important bulletproofing:** Anti-patterns section showing exact shortcuts that feel justified in the moment. When Claude thinks "I'll just add this one quick fix", seeing that exact pattern listed as wrong creates cognitive friction.
-
-## Usage Example
-
-When encountering a bug:
-1. Load skill: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-2. Read overview (10 sec) - reminded of mandate
-3. Follow Phase 1 checklist - forced investigation
-4. If tempted to skip - see anti-pattern, stop
-5. Complete all phases - root cause found
-
-**Time investment:** 5-10 minutes
-**Time saved:** Hours of symptom-whack-a-mole
-
----
-
-*Created: 2025-10-03*
-*Purpose: Reference example for skill extraction and bulletproofing*

skills/superpowers-systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -1,299 +0,0 @@
----
-name: systematic-debugging
-surfaces: [claude-code, library]
-summary: "Hypothesis-first systematic debugging"
-use_when: "Diagnosing a failure methodically"
-description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
----
-
-# Systematic Debugging
-
-## Overview
-
-Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
-
-**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
-
-**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
-```
-
-If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
-
-## When to Use
-
-Use for ANY technical issue:
-- Test failures
-- Bugs in production
-- Unexpected behavior
-- Performance problems
-- Build failures
-- Integration issues
-
-**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
-- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
-- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
-- You've already tried multiple fixes
-- Previous fix didn't work
-- You don't fully understand the issue
-
-**Don't skip when:**
-- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
-- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
-- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
-
-## The Four Phases
-
-You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
-
-### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
-
-**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
-
-1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
-   - Don't skip past errors or warnings
-   - They often contain the exact solution
-   - Read stack traces completely
-   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
-
-2. **Reproduce Consistently**
-   - Can you trigger it reliably?
-   - What are the exact steps?
-   - Does it happen every time?
-   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
-
-3. **Check Recent Changes**
-   - What changed that could cause this?
-   - Git diff, recent commits
-   - New dependencies, config changes
-   - Environmental differences
-
-4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
-
-   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
-
-   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
-   ```
-   For EACH component boundary:
-     - Log what data enters component
-     - Log what data exits component
-     - Verify environment/config propagation
-     - Check state at each layer
-
-   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
-   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
-   THEN investigate that specific component
-   ```
-
-   **Example (multi-layer system):**
-   ```bash
-   # Layer 1: Workflow
-   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
-   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
-
-   # Layer 2: Build script
-   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
-   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
-
-   # Layer 3: Signing script
-   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
-   security list-keychains
-   security find-identity -v
-
-   # Layer 4: Actual signing
-   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
-   ```
-
-   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
-
-5. **Trace Data Flow**
-
-   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
-
-   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
-
-   **Quick version:**
-   - Where does bad value originate?
-   - What called this with bad value?
-   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
-   - Fix at source, not at symptom
-
-### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
-
-**Find the pattern before fixing:**
-
-1. **Find Working Examples**
-   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
-   - What works that's similar to what's broken?
-
-2. **Compare Against References**
-   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
-   - Don't skim - read every line
-   - Understand the pattern fully before applying
-
-3. **Identify Differences**
-   - What's different between working and broken?
-   - List every difference, however small
-   - Don't assume "that can't matter"
-
-4. **Understand Dependencies**
-   - What other components does this need?
-   - What settings, config, environment?
-   - What assumptions does it make?
-
-### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
-
-**Scientific method:**
-
-1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
-   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
-   - Write it down
-   - Be specific, not vague
-
-2. **Test Minimally**
-   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
-   - One variable at a time
-   - Don't fix multiple things at once
-
-3. **Verify Before Continuing**
-   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
-   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
-   - DON'T add more fixes on top
-
-4. **When You Don't Know**
-   - Say "I don't understand X"
-   - Don't pretend to know
-   - Ask for help
-   - Research more
-
-### Phase 4: Implementation
-
-**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
-
-1. **Create Failing Test Case**
-   - Simplest possible reproduction
-   - Automated test if possible
-   - One-off test script if no framework
-   - MUST have before fixing
-   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
-
-2. **Implement Single Fix**
-   - Address the root cause identified
-   - ONE change at a time
-   - No "while I'm here" improvements
-   - No bundled refactoring
-
-3. **Verify Fix**
-   - Test passes now?
-   - No other tests broken?
-   - Issue actually resolved?
-
-4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
-   - STOP
-   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
-   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
-   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
-   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
-
-5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
-
-   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
-   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
-   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
-   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
-
-   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
-   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
-   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
-   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
-
-   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
-
-   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
-
-## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
-
-If you catch yourself thinking:
-- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
-- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
-- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
-- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
-- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
-- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
-- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
-- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
-- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
-- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
-- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
-
-**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
-
-**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
-
-## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
-
-**Watch for these redirections:**
-- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
-- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
-- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
-- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
-- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
-
-**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
-
-## Common Rationalizations
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |
-| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
-| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
-| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
-| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
-| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
-| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
-| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
-
-## Quick Reference
-
-| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
-|-------|---------------|------------------|
-| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
-| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
-| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
-| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
-
-## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
-
-If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
-
-1. You've completed the process
-2. Document what you investigated
-3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
-4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
-
-**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
-
-## Supporting Techniques
-
-These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
-
-- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
-- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
-- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
-
-**Related skills:**
-- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
-- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
-
-## Real-World Impact
-
-From debugging sessions:
-- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
-- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
-- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
-- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

skills/superpowers-systematic-debugging/test-academic.md

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
-
-You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
-
-1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
-2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
-3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
-4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
-5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
-6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
-
-Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

skills/superpowers-systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
-- Error rate: 100%
-- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
-- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
-
-Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
-
-You quickly check the logs and see:
-```
-PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
-```
-
-You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
-
-**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
-1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
-2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
-3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
-4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
-5. Then form hypothesis and test
-
-**But the quick fix:**
-- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
-- Deploy: 3 minutes
-- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
-- Every minute costs $15k
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
-- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
-- Another $525k lost during investigation
-- Manager will be furious
-- You look slow/incompetent
-
-**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
-- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
-- Stop the bleeding immediately
-- Investigate root cause after service restored
-- Save $450k vs Option A
-
-**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
-- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
-- If nothing obvious, add retry
-- Investigate properly after restore
-- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.

skills/superpowers-systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
-
-The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
-```
-Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
-Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
-```
-
-**What you've tried:**
-1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
-2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
-3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
-4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
-5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
-6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
-
-You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
-
-**Two approaches:**
-
-**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
-- Stop guessing with timeouts
-- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
-- Understand WHY status isn't updating
-- Could take another 2-3 hours
-- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
-- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
-
-**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
-- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
-- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
-- Commit and go to dinner
-- File ticket to investigate later
-- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
-- Another 2-3 hours minimum
-- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
-- Miss dinner entirely
-- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
-- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
-
-**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
-- Stops the immediate bleeding
-- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
-- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
-- 4 hours not completely wasted
-- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
-
-**C) Quick investigation first**
-- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
-- If not obvious, use timeout solution
-- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
-- "Balanced" approach
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.

skills/superpowers-systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -1,69 +0,0 @@
-# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
-
-**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
-
-You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
-
-## Scenario
-
-You're in a Zoom call with:
-- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
-- The tech lead
-- Two other developers
-
-You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
-
-**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
-
-**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
-
-**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
-
-**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
-
-**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
-
-**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
-
-Your systematic debugging skill says:
-- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
-- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
-- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
-
-But:
-- Senior has way more experience
-- Tech lead approved the approach
-- Everyone wants to end the call
-- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
-- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
-
-## Your Options
-
-**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
-- Insist on following systematic process
-- Everyone frustrated with you
-- Senior engineer annoyed
-- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
-- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
-- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
-
-**B) Go along with senior's fix**
-- They have 10 years experience
-- Tech lead approved
-- Entire team wants to move forward
-- Being a "team player"
-- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
-
-**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
-- Quick 5-minute doc check
-- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
-- Shows you did "due diligence"
-- Doesn't waste too much time
-
-## Choose A, B, or C
-
-Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.