mathiasandClaude Opus 4.8
1e29c6d1af
release / tag (push) Failing after 1s
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>
2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
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)
Task tool (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]
## What Implementer Claims They Built
[From implementer's report]
## 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]