Files
skills/superpowers-brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md
T
mathiasandClaude Opus 4.8 1e29c6d1af
release / tag (push) Failing after 1s
feat(skills): import 17 skills from local-dev; fix stale host
Consolidating the divergence between this repo and local-dev's embedded
~/dev/.skills/ (the two had drifted; the 19 overlapping skills were byte-identical).

- Import the 17 skills that existed only in local-dev: discovery-framing,
  stage-gate-review, web-shot, and the 14 superpowers-* skills. This repo is now
  the superset / single source of truth.
- SKILLS_INDEX.md: add rows for the 17.
- install.sh + Taskfile.yml: git.d-ma.be host (was stale gitea.d-ma.be, which
  broke the one-line curl|bash installer post-rename).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-04 00:10:21 +02:00

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/

Task tool (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