mathias
62cfe46927
The vendored skills were written against a generic `Task()` and an operator called "your human partner". Neither exists here. An agent following dispatching-parallel-agents literally would call a tool that is not in its list. `Task tool` becomes the `Agent` tool with `subagent_type` across all six prompt templates and the Gemini mapping table, and the dispatch example gains the three options that actually matter for parallel work: issuing every dispatch in ONE message (several Agent uses in a single turn run concurrently; one per turn serialises them), `isolation: "worktree"` so two agents cannot fight over the same tree, and per-agent `model` override for cheap mechanical fan-out. `Workflow` is named as the structured alternative — phases, per-finding verify, fan-in — with its opt-in condition stated, because a skill that told an agent to reach for it unprompted would be teaching a policy violation. "your human partner" becomes "the operator" in five skills. Beyond phrasing, it was factually wrong in executing-plans, which told the reader to *ask* whether subagents are available; on this fleet Claude Code has them and Crush/Pi/OpenCode do not, so it now says which skill to use where. Closes #17 Bump-Type: patch
1.7 KiB
1.7 KiB
Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.
Purpose: Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.
Dispatch after: Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/
Agent tool (`subagent_type: "general-purpose"`):
description: "Review spec document"
prompt: |
You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.
**Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
## What to Check
| Category | What to Look For |
|----------|------------------|
| Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
| Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
| Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
| Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
| YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |
## Calibration
**Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.
Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.
## Output Format
## Spec Review
**Status:** Approved | Issues Found
**Issues (if any):**
- [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]
**Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
- [suggestions for improvement]
Reviewer returns: Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations