[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M70JM45ETFGZBB3GNFWPFMRT":3,"skill-same:01M70JM45ETFGZBB3GNFWPFMRT":122},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":23,"publishedAt":35,"linkOnly":36,"markdownContent":37,"markdownBody":38,"frontMatter":39,"refName":40,"commitSha":41,"skillDirectory":42,"forksCount":43,"repositoryHtmlUrl":44,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":45,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":46,"updatedAt":47,"install":48,"resources":61},"01M70JM45ETFGZBB3GNFWPFMRT","subagent-driven-development",null,"Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session","mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills","mdnaimul22","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F64520358?v=4","01M70FH95MH2H796Q01TYSFZ03","Naimul","01M70FH96798CQR4YHA13F17GA",3,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34],"subagent driven development","subagent","development","driven","when","tasks","session","plans","use","with","implementation","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: subagent-driven-development\ndescription: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session\n---\n\n# Subagent-Driven Development\n\nExecute plan by dispatching a fresh implementer subagent per task, a task review (spec compliance + code quality) after each, and a broad whole-branch review at the end.\n\n**Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.\n\n**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + task review (spec + quality) + broad final review = high quality, fast iteration\n\n**Narration:** between tool calls, narrate at most one short line — the\nledger and the tool results carry the record.\n\n**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are the four named below, or all tasks complete. \"Should I continue?\" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.\n\n**Rulings, not stalls.** A running plan does not wait on a human. Conflicts,\nambiguities, plan defects, a cap you would have asked to exceed — decide\nthem. The spec is the binding authority, the plan is its argument, and your\njudgment settles what neither answers. Record every decision in the ledger as\n`Ruling: \u003Cwhat you decided> — \u003Cwhy> — \u003Cwhat it costs if wrong>`, and keep\ngoing. A wrong ruling costs rework your human partner can see and undo; a\nsession parked on a question costs their whole day and buys nothing.\n\nFour things stop you, and only these: an irreversible or destructive\noperation; a security-sensitive action; a side effect outside this worktree\nthat norms say you ask about first (a merge, a push to a shared branch, a\npublish); and a plan so broken that every path forward is a guess. For those,\nstop and ask.\n\n## When to Use\n\n```dot\ndigraph when_to_use {\n    \"Have implementation plan?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Tasks mostly independent?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"subagent-driven-development\" [shape=box];\n    \"executing-plans\" [shape=box];\n    \"Manual execution or brainstorm first\" [shape=box];\n\n    \"Have implementation plan?\" -> \"Tasks mostly independent?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Have implementation plan?\" -> \"Manual execution or brainstorm first\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Tasks mostly independent?\" -> \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Tasks mostly independent?\" -> \"Manual execution or brainstorm first\" [label=\"no - tightly coupled\"];\n    \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" -> \"executing-plans\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" -> \"subagent-driven-development\" [label=\"no\"];\n}\n```\n\n**vs. Executing Plans (inline):**\n- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution) instead of one context doing every task\n- Review after each task (spec compliance + code quality) instead of only at the end\n- Costs a fresh context per task and per review; inline costs one context plus one final reviewer\n- Both run in this session, share the same plan workspace and ledger, and never pause between tasks\n\n## The Process\n\n```dot\ndigraph process {\n    rankdir=TB;\n\n    subgraph cluster_per_task {\n        label=\"Per Task\";\n        \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\" [shape=box];\n        \"Implementer asks questions?\" [shape=diamond];\n        \"Answer questions, provide context\" [shape=box];\n        \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\" [shape=box];\n        \"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (.\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md)\" [shape=box];\n        \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\" [shape=diamond];\n        \"Fix loop: read references\u002Ffix-loop.md before every round\" [shape=box];\n        \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" [shape=box];\n    }\n\n    \"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review\" [shape=box];\n    \"More tasks remain?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Final review and finish: read references\u002Ffinal-review.md\" [shape=box];\n    \"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace\" [shape=box];\n    \"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch\" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];\n\n    \"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review\" -> \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\";\n    \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\" -> \"Implementer asks questions?\";\n    \"Implementer asks questions?\" -> \"Answer questions, provide context\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Answer questions, provide context\" -> \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\";\n    \"Implementer asks questions?\" -> \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\" -> \"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (.\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md)\";\n    \"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (.\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md)\" -> \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\";\n    \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\" -> \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\" -> \"Fix loop: read references\u002Ffix-loop.md before every round\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Fix loop: read references\u002Ffix-loop.md before every round\" -> \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" [label=\"addressed, or parked at the cap\"];\n    \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" -> \"More tasks remain?\";\n    \"More tasks remain?\" -> \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"More tasks remain?\" -> \"Final review and finish: read references\u002Ffinal-review.md\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Final review and finish: read references\u002Ffinal-review.md\" -> \"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace\";\n    \"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace\" -> \"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch\";\n}\n```\n\n## Setup\n\nEnsure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use\nsuperpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.\nNever start implementation on a main\u002Fmaster branch without your human\npartner's explicit consent.\n\nConversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,\ncontrollers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task\nsequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in\na ledger file, not only in todos.\n\n- Each plan owns a workspace: at skill start, run this skill's\n  `bash scripts\u002Fsdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` by its absolute path, from the\n  working tree you're executing in — it prints the plan's git-ignored\n  directory (under `\u003Crepo-root>\u002F.superpowers\u002Fsdd\u002F`), home to\n  every artifact for THIS plan: ledger, briefs, reports, review packages.\n  Another plan's directory is never yours to read or write.\n- Check for this plan's ledger at `\u003Cworkspace>\u002Fprogress.md`. If one exists,\n  read [references\u002Fresuming.md](references\u002Fresuming.md) before anything\n  else: it says whose ledger it is and where to resume.\n- Create the ledger with its identity as the first line:\n  `# SDD ledger — plan: \u003Cplan file path>`.\n- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even\n  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,\n  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.\n- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the workspace (it's git-ignored scratch); if\n  that happens, recover from `git log`.\n\nRead the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a\ntodo per task. If the plan names a Spec, read that too: the spec is the\nauthority the plan argues from, and conflicts inside the plan resolve\nagainst it. A plan with no reachable spec gets a ledger note saying so —\nrulings made without one are provisional.\n\nBefore dispatching Task 1, read [references\u002Fpreflight.md](references\u002Fpreflight.md)\nand run the conflict scan it describes. Its table and rulings go in the\nledger.\n\n## Model Selection\n\nUse the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.\n\n**Mechanical implementation tasks** (isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files): use a fast, cheap model. Most implementation tasks are mechanical when the plan is well-specified.\n\n**Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.\n\n**Architecture and design tasks**: use the most capable available model.\nThe final whole-branch review is one of these — dispatch it on the most\ncapable available model, not the session default.\n\n**Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the\ndiff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the\nmost capable model; a subtle concurrency change does. Scoped re-reviews of\nsmall fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier.\n\n**Fix-loop escalation (rounds 4-5)**: use a model at least one tier above\nthe implementer that got stuck.\n\n**Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An\nomitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and\nmost expensive — which silently defeats this section.\n\n**Turn count beats token price.** Wall-clock and context cost scale with how\nmany turns a subagent takes, and the cheapest models routinely take 2-3× the\nturns on multi-step work — costing more overall. Use a mid-tier model as the\nfloor for reviewers and for implementers working from prose descriptions.\nWhen the task's plan text contains the complete code to write, the\nimplementation is transcription plus testing: use the cheapest tier for\nthat implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.\n\n**Task complexity signals (implementation tasks):**\n- Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model\n- Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model\n- Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model\n\n## The Task Loop\n\n**Small same-shape work:** when the plan lists several small edits of the\nsame kind across files, read [references\u002Fbatching.md](references\u002Fbatching.md)\nbefore dispatching them.\n\nEverything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent\nprints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session\nand is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files.\n\n**Waiting on dispatched subagents:** never poll a wait interface with\nshort timeouts, and never sit in one silent, open-ended wait either.\nWhile you have local work — ledger updates, packaging the next review,\nreading reports — keep working; child results arrive on their own.\nWhen you are genuinely idle, wait in bounded stretches (five to ten\nminutes, where your platform allows), and between stretches post one\nline of status and reconcile your live children: list them, and chase\nany that finished without reporting. A bounded stretch keeps nearly\nall of a long wait's efficiency while guaranteeing a stuck or lost\nchild is noticed within minutes, not at the end of the session.\n\n### 1. Dispatch the implementer\n\nRecord BASE (`git rev-parse HEAD`) before dispatching — the review package\nand fix-round diffs need it.\n\n- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's\n  `bash scripts\u002Ftask-brief PLAN_FILE N` by its absolute path, from the\n  working tree you're executing in — it extracts the task's full text to a\n  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the\n  brief stays the single source of\n  requirements. Your dispatch should contain: (1) one line on where this\n  task fits in the project; (2) the brief path, introduced as \"read this\n  first — it is your requirements, with the exact values to use verbatim\";\n  (3) interfaces and decisions from earlier tasks that the brief cannot\n  know; (4) your resolution of any ambiguity you noticed in the brief;\n  (5) the report-file path and report contract. Exact values (numbers,\n  magic strings, signatures, test cases) appear only in the brief. Never\n  make a subagent read the whole plan file.\n- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief\n  (brief `…\u002Ftask-N-brief.md` → report `…\u002Ftask-N-report.md`) and put it in\n  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and\n  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.\n- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not\n  paste accumulated prior-task summaries (\"state after Tasks 1-3\") into\n  later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%\n  was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it\n  touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.\n- The dispatch carries the no-subagents contract (it is in the\n  implementer template): the implementer never dispatches subagents —\n  not helpers, and never a reviewer. Review arrives from you, after the\n  report. In real sessions, every reviewer a worker spawned duplicated\n  the task review the controller dispatched anyway — a full extra\n  review seat per task.\n- If an earlier task parked a finding in the area this task touches, carry\n  a pointer to that ledger entry in the dispatch.\n- Record the implementer's agent identity from the dispatch result —\n  fix-loop rounds 1-3 resume this agent.\n- Never dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts).\n\nTemplate: [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md)\n\n### 2. Handle the report\n\nImplementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:\n\n**DONE:** Generate the review package (`bash scripts\u002Freview-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` by its absolute path, from the working tree you're executing in — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.\n\n**Any other status** (DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, NEEDS_CONTEXT, BLOCKED): read\n[references\u002Fhandling-reports.md](references\u002Fhandling-reports.md) and follow\nit, every time you get one.\n\nIf the implementer asks questions — before starting or mid-task — answer\nclearly and completely, provide additional context if needed, and don't\nrush it into implementation.\n\n### 3. Review the task\n\nPer-task reviews are task-scoped gates. The broad review happens once, at the\nfinal whole-branch review. Never skip the task review, and never accept a\nreport missing either verdict — spec compliance AND task quality are both\nrequired. Implementer self-review never replaces the task review; both are\nneeded.\n\n- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's\n  `bash scripts\u002Freview-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` by its absolute path, from\n  the working tree you're executing in, and pass the reviewer the file path\n  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,\n  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named\n  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees\n  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read\n  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —\n  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks. Never\n  dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file.\n- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief\n  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global\n  constraints that bind the task.\n- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention\n  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global\n  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the\n  stated relationships between components (\"same layout as X\", \"matches\n  Y\"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,\n  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS\n  project's spec demands.\n- Do not add open-ended directives like \"check all uses\" or \"run race tests\n  if useful\" without a concrete, task-specific reason\n- Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the\n  same code — the implementer's report carries the test evidence\n- Do not pre-judge findings for the reviewer — never instruct a reviewer to\n  ignore or not flag a specific issue. If you believe a finding would be a\n  false positive, let the reviewer raise it and adjudicate it in the review\n  loop. If the prompt you are writing contains \"do not flag,\" \"don't treat X\n  as a defect,\" \"at most Minor,\" or \"the plan chose\" — stop: you are\n  pre-judging, usually to spare yourself a review loop.\nIf the reviewer reports \"⚠️ Cannot verify from diff\" items, read\n[references\u002Fcannot-verify.md](references\u002Fcannot-verify.md) before you mark\nthe task complete.\n\nTemplate: [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md)\n\n### 4. The fix loop\n\nThe loop triggers when the review reports spec ❌, any Critical or Important\nfinding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.\n\nWhen it triggers, read [references\u002Ffix-loop.md](references\u002Ffix-loop.md) and\nfollow it. Read it again before every round, even if you read it earlier in\nthis session: it holds the round cap, the breaker, and the ledger line each\nround writes, and your memory of it does not survive compaction.\n\n### 5. Complete the task\n\nWhen the review comes back clean — or every open finding is parked with a\nruling at the cap — append the completion line to the ledger in the same\nmessage as your other bookkeeping:\n\n- `Task \u003CN>: complete (commits \u003Cbase7>..\u003Chead7>, review clean)`\n- `Task \u003CN>: complete (commits \u003Cbase7>..\u003Chead7>, \u003CK> parked)` after a\n  tripped breaker\n\nThen mark the todo complete and move on. Never move to the next task while\nthe review has open Critical\u002FImportant issues that are neither fixed nor\nparked-with-ruling at the cap.\n\n## Final Review\n\nWhen every task is complete, read\n[references\u002Ffinal-review.md](references\u002Ffinal-review.md) and follow it. It\ncovers the whole-branch review, its single fix wave, and how you finish.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Close enough on spec compliance\" | Reviewer found spec gaps = not done. Fix or hit the cap and adjudicate — those are the only exits. |\n| \"I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead\" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |\n| \"One more round will converge\" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge — the failure is structural. Adjudicate and route. |\n| \"The reviewer will just find something new anyway\" | Scoped re-reviews verify fixes; they cannot wander. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |\n| \"This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it\" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every ruling is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |\n| \"The fix was small, skip the re-review\" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. Every round ends with a scoped re-review. |\n| \"Reviews slow the loop down\" | The loop without reviews is just unverified churn. Reviews are the loop's brakes and steering. |\n| \"Ledger bookkeeping is overhead\" | The ledger is what survives compaction. Controllers without one have re-dispatched entire completed task sequences. |\n| \"The implementer spawned its own reviewer — free extra assurance\" | It's a duplicate seat reviewing the same diff; the task review is the gate. A worker-spawned reviewer is a defect to flag, not rigor. |\n","# Subagent-Driven Development\n\nExecute plan by dispatching a fresh implementer subagent per task, a task review (spec compliance + code quality) after each, and a broad whole-branch review at the end.\n\n**Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.\n\n**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + task review (spec + quality) + broad final review = high quality, fast iteration\n\n**Narration:** between tool calls, narrate at most one short line — the\nledger and the tool results carry the record.\n\n**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are the four named below, or all tasks complete. \"Should I continue?\" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.\n\n**Rulings, not stalls.** A running plan does not wait on a human. Conflicts,\nambiguities, plan defects, a cap you would have asked to exceed — decide\nthem. The spec is the binding authority, the plan is its argument, and your\njudgment settles what neither answers. Record every decision in the ledger as\n`Ruling: \u003Cwhat you decided> — \u003Cwhy> — \u003Cwhat it costs if wrong>`, and keep\ngoing. A wrong ruling costs rework your human partner can see and undo; a\nsession parked on a question costs their whole day and buys nothing.\n\nFour things stop you, and only these: an irreversible or destructive\noperation; a security-sensitive action; a side effect outside this worktree\nthat norms say you ask about first (a merge, a push to a shared branch, a\npublish); and a plan so broken that every path forward is a guess. For those,\nstop and ask.\n\n## When to Use\n\n```dot\ndigraph when_to_use {\n    \"Have implementation plan?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Tasks mostly independent?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"subagent-driven-development\" [shape=box];\n    \"executing-plans\" [shape=box];\n    \"Manual execution or brainstorm first\" [shape=box];\n\n    \"Have implementation plan?\" -> \"Tasks mostly independent?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Have implementation plan?\" -> \"Manual execution or brainstorm first\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Tasks mostly independent?\" -> \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Tasks mostly independent?\" -> \"Manual execution or brainstorm first\" [label=\"no - tightly coupled\"];\n    \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" -> \"executing-plans\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Partner chose inline, or no subagent tool?\" -> \"subagent-driven-development\" [label=\"no\"];\n}\n```\n\n**vs. Executing Plans (inline):**\n- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution) instead of one context doing every task\n- Review after each task (spec compliance + code quality) instead of only at the end\n- Costs a fresh context per task and per review; inline costs one context plus one final reviewer\n- Both run in this session, share the same plan workspace and ledger, and never pause between tasks\n\n## The Process\n\n```dot\ndigraph process {\n    rankdir=TB;\n\n    subgraph cluster_per_task {\n        label=\"Per Task\";\n        \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\" [shape=box];\n        \"Implementer asks questions?\" [shape=diamond];\n        \"Answer questions, provide context\" [shape=box];\n        \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\" [shape=box];\n        \"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (.\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md)\" [shape=box];\n        \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\" [shape=diamond];\n        \"Fix loop: read references\u002Ffix-loop.md before every round\" [shape=box];\n        \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" [shape=box];\n    }\n\n    \"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review\" [shape=box];\n    \"More tasks remain?\" [shape=diamond];\n    \"Final review and finish: read references\u002Ffinal-review.md\" [shape=box];\n    \"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace\" [shape=box];\n    \"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch\" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];\n\n    \"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review\" -> \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\";\n    \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\" -> \"Implementer asks questions?\";\n    \"Implementer asks questions?\" -> \"Answer questions, provide context\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Answer questions, provide context\" -> \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\";\n    \"Implementer asks questions?\" -> \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews\" -> \"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (.\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md)\";\n    \"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (.\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md)\" -> \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\";\n    \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\" -> \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"Spec ✅ and quality approved?\" -> \"Fix loop: read references\u002Ffix-loop.md before every round\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Fix loop: read references\u002Ffix-loop.md before every round\" -> \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" [label=\"addressed, or parked at the cap\"];\n    \"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete\" -> \"More tasks remain?\";\n    \"More tasks remain?\" -> \"Dispatch implementer subagent (.\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md)\" [label=\"yes\"];\n    \"More tasks remain?\" -> \"Final review and finish: read references\u002Ffinal-review.md\" [label=\"no\"];\n    \"Final review and finish: read references\u002Ffinal-review.md\" -> \"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace\";\n    \"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace\" -> \"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch\";\n}\n```\n\n## Setup\n\nEnsure the work happens in an isolated workspace: use\nsuperpowers:using-git-worktrees to create one or verify the existing one.\nNever start implementation on a main\u002Fmaster branch without your human\npartner's explicit consent.\n\nConversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,\ncontrollers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task\nsequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in\na ledger file, not only in todos.\n\n- Each plan owns a workspace: at skill start, run this skill's\n  `bash scripts\u002Fsdd-workspace PLAN_FILE` by its absolute path, from the\n  working tree you're executing in — it prints the plan's git-ignored\n  directory (under `\u003Crepo-root>\u002F.superpowers\u002Fsdd\u002F`), home to\n  every artifact for THIS plan: ledger, briefs, reports, review packages.\n  Another plan's directory is never yours to read or write.\n- Check for this plan's ledger at `\u003Cworkspace>\u002Fprogress.md`. If one exists,\n  read [references\u002Fresuming.md](references\u002Fresuming.md) before anything\n  else: it says whose ledger it is and where to resume.\n- Create the ledger with its identity as the first line:\n  `# SDD ledger — plan: \u003Cplan file path>`.\n- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even\n  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,\n  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.\n- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the workspace (it's git-ignored scratch); if\n  that happens, recover from `git log`.\n\nRead the plan once, note its context and Global Constraints, and create a\ntodo per task. If the plan names a Spec, read that too: the spec is the\nauthority the plan argues from, and conflicts inside the plan resolve\nagainst it. A plan with no reachable spec gets a ledger note saying so —\nrulings made without one are provisional.\n\nBefore dispatching Task 1, read [references\u002Fpreflight.md](references\u002Fpreflight.md)\nand run the conflict scan it describes. Its table and rulings go in the\nledger.\n\n## Model Selection\n\nUse the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.\n\n**Mechanical implementation tasks** (isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files): use a fast, cheap model. Most implementation tasks are mechanical when the plan is well-specified.\n\n**Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.\n\n**Architecture and design tasks**: use the most capable available model.\nThe final whole-branch review is one of these — dispatch it on the most\ncapable available model, not the session default.\n\n**Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the\ndiff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the\nmost capable model; a subtle concurrency change does. Scoped re-reviews of\nsmall fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier.\n\n**Fix-loop escalation (rounds 4-5)**: use a model at least one tier above\nthe implementer that got stuck.\n\n**Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An\nomitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and\nmost expensive — which silently defeats this section.\n\n**Turn count beats token price.** Wall-clock and context cost scale with how\nmany turns a subagent takes, and the cheapest models routinely take 2-3× the\nturns on multi-step work — costing more overall. Use a mid-tier model as the\nfloor for reviewers and for implementers working from prose descriptions.\nWhen the task's plan text contains the complete code to write, the\nimplementation is transcription plus testing: use the cheapest tier for\nthat implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.\n\n**Task complexity signals (implementation tasks):**\n- Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model\n- Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model\n- Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model\n\n## The Task Loop\n\n**Small same-shape work:** when the plan lists several small edits of the\nsame kind across files, read [references\u002Fbatching.md](references\u002Fbatching.md)\nbefore dispatching them.\n\nEverything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent\nprints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session\nand is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files.\n\n**Waiting on dispatched subagents:** never poll a wait interface with\nshort timeouts, and never sit in one silent, open-ended wait either.\nWhile you have local work — ledger updates, packaging the next review,\nreading reports — keep working; child results arrive on their own.\nWhen you are genuinely idle, wait in bounded stretches (five to ten\nminutes, where your platform allows), and between stretches post one\nline of status and reconcile your live children: list them, and chase\nany that finished without reporting. A bounded stretch keeps nearly\nall of a long wait's efficiency while guaranteeing a stuck or lost\nchild is noticed within minutes, not at the end of the session.\n\n### 1. Dispatch the implementer\n\nRecord BASE (`git rev-parse HEAD`) before dispatching — the review package\nand fix-round diffs need it.\n\n- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's\n  `bash scripts\u002Ftask-brief PLAN_FILE N` by its absolute path, from the\n  working tree you're executing in — it extracts the task's full text to a\n  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the\n  brief stays the single source of\n  requirements. Your dispatch should contain: (1) one line on where this\n  task fits in the project; (2) the brief path, introduced as \"read this\n  first — it is your requirements, with the exact values to use verbatim\";\n  (3) interfaces and decisions from earlier tasks that the brief cannot\n  know; (4) your resolution of any ambiguity you noticed in the brief;\n  (5) the report-file path and report contract. Exact values (numbers,\n  magic strings, signatures, test cases) appear only in the brief. Never\n  make a subagent read the whole plan file.\n- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief\n  (brief `…\u002Ftask-N-brief.md` → report `…\u002Ftask-N-report.md`) and put it in\n  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and\n  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.\n- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not\n  paste accumulated prior-task summaries (\"state after Tasks 1-3\") into\n  later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%\n  was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it\n  touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.\n- The dispatch carries the no-subagents contract (it is in the\n  implementer template): the implementer never dispatches subagents —\n  not helpers, and never a reviewer. Review arrives from you, after the\n  report. In real sessions, every reviewer a worker spawned duplicated\n  the task review the controller dispatched anyway — a full extra\n  review seat per task.\n- If an earlier task parked a finding in the area this task touches, carry\n  a pointer to that ledger entry in the dispatch.\n- Record the implementer's agent identity from the dispatch result —\n  fix-loop rounds 1-3 resume this agent.\n- Never dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts).\n\nTemplate: [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md)\n\n### 2. Handle the report\n\nImplementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:\n\n**DONE:** Generate the review package (`bash scripts\u002Freview-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` by its absolute path, from the working tree you're executing in — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.\n\n**Any other status** (DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, NEEDS_CONTEXT, BLOCKED): read\n[references\u002Fhandling-reports.md](references\u002Fhandling-reports.md) and follow\nit, every time you get one.\n\nIf the implementer asks questions — before starting or mid-task — answer\nclearly and completely, provide additional context if needed, and don't\nrush it into implementation.\n\n### 3. Review the task\n\nPer-task reviews are task-scoped gates. The broad review happens once, at the\nfinal whole-branch review. Never skip the task review, and never accept a\nreport missing either verdict — spec compliance AND task quality are both\nrequired. Implementer self-review never replaces the task review; both are\nneeded.\n\n- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's\n  `bash scripts\u002Freview-package PLAN_FILE BASE HEAD` by its absolute path, from\n  the working tree you're executing in, and pass the reviewer the file path\n  it prints (or, without bash: `git log --oneline`, `git diff --stat`,\n  and `git diff -U10` for the range, redirected to one uniquely named\n  file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees\n  the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read\n  call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —\n  never `HEAD~1`, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks. Never\n  dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file.\n- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief\n  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global\n  constraints that bind the task.\n- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention\n  lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global\n  Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the\n  stated relationships between components (\"same layout as X\", \"matches\n  Y\"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,\n  test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS\n  project's spec demands.\n- Do not add open-ended directives like \"check all uses\" or \"run race tests\n  if useful\" without a concrete, task-specific reason\n- Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the\n  same code — the implementer's report carries the test evidence\n- Do not pre-judge findings for the reviewer — never instruct a reviewer to\n  ignore or not flag a specific issue. If you believe a finding would be a\n  false positive, let the reviewer raise it and adjudicate it in the review\n  loop. If the prompt you are writing contains \"do not flag,\" \"don't treat X\n  as a defect,\" \"at most Minor,\" or \"the plan chose\" — stop: you are\n  pre-judging, usually to spare yourself a review loop.\nIf the reviewer reports \"⚠️ Cannot verify from diff\" items, read\n[references\u002Fcannot-verify.md](references\u002Fcannot-verify.md) before you mark\nthe task complete.\n\nTemplate: [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md)\n\n### 4. The fix loop\n\nThe loop triggers when the review reports spec ❌, any Critical or Important\nfinding, or a ⚠️ item you confirmed as a real gap.\n\nWhen it triggers, read [references\u002Ffix-loop.md](references\u002Ffix-loop.md) and\nfollow it. Read it again before every round, even if you read it earlier in\nthis session: it holds the round cap, the breaker, and the ledger line each\nround writes, and your memory of it does not survive compaction.\n\n### 5. Complete the task\n\nWhen the review comes back clean — or every open finding is parked with a\nruling at the cap — append the completion line to the ledger in the same\nmessage as your other bookkeeping:\n\n- `Task \u003CN>: complete (commits \u003Cbase7>..\u003Chead7>, review clean)`\n- `Task \u003CN>: complete (commits \u003Cbase7>..\u003Chead7>, \u003CK> parked)` after a\n  tripped breaker\n\nThen mark the todo complete and move on. Never move to the next task while\nthe review has open Critical\u002FImportant issues that are neither fixed nor\nparked-with-ruling at the cap.\n\n## Final Review\n\nWhen every task is complete, read\n[references\u002Ffinal-review.md](references\u002Ffinal-review.md) and follow it. It\ncovers the whole-branch review, its single fix wave, and how you finish.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Close enough on spec compliance\" | Reviewer found spec gaps = not done. Fix or hit the cap and adjudicate — those are the only exits. |\n| \"I'll fix it myself, dispatching is overhead\" | Controller fixes pollute your context and skip review. Resume the implementer. |\n| \"One more round will converge\" | Past the cap, rounds don't converge — the failure is structural. Adjudicate and route. |\n| \"The reviewer will just find something new anyway\" | Scoped re-reviews verify fixes; they cannot wander. New findings on untouched code go to the ledger, not the loop. |\n| \"This finding is obviously wrong, I'll drop it\" | You adjudicate only at the cap, and every ruling is a ledger entry. Silent discards are forbidden. |\n| \"The fix was small, skip the re-review\" | Unreviewed fixes are how regressions land. Every round ends with a scoped re-review. |\n| \"Reviews slow the loop down\" | The loop without reviews is just unverified churn. Reviews are the loop's brakes and steering. |\n| \"Ledger bookkeeping is overhead\" | The ledger is what survives compaction. Controllers without one have re-dispatched entire completed task sequences. |\n| \"The implementer spawned its own reviewer — free extra assurance\" | It's a duplicate seat reviewing the same diff; the task review is the gate. A worker-spawned reviewer is a defect to flag, not rigor. |\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","7092b664627bf326748a6fcbf27fee6a34c4da1d","skills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22","AI Agents Workflows Automation | Specializing in Python, FastAPI, MCP Agents & Custom ERP.","2026-11-11 21:16:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":49,"prompt":59,"zipAvailable":60},[50,53,56],{"tool":51,"command":52},"npx","npx skills add mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":54,"command":55},"bunx","bunx skills add mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":57,"command":58},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills --skill subagent-driven-development","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",true,[62,68,72,76,80,84,88,92,96,100,106,110,114,118],{"path":63,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":66,"sourceHtmlUrl":67},"implementer-prompt.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",6335,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Fimplementer-prompt.md",{"path":69,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":70,"sourceHtmlUrl":71},"re-review-prompt.md",4833,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Fre-review-prompt.md",{"path":73,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":74,"sourceHtmlUrl":75},"references\u002Fbatching.md",583,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Fbatching.md",{"path":77,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":78,"sourceHtmlUrl":79},"references\u002Fcannot-verify.md",513,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Fcannot-verify.md",{"path":81,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":82,"sourceHtmlUrl":83},"references\u002Ffinal-review.md",2576,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Ffinal-review.md",{"path":85,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":86,"sourceHtmlUrl":87},"references\u002Ffix-loop.md",4314,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Ffix-loop.md",{"path":89,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":90,"sourceHtmlUrl":91},"references\u002Fhandling-reports.md",1062,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Fhandling-reports.md",{"path":93,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":94,"sourceHtmlUrl":95},"references\u002Fpreflight.md",1353,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Fpreflight.md",{"path":97,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":98,"sourceHtmlUrl":99},"references\u002Fresuming.md",614,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Freferences\u002Fresuming.md",{"path":101,"resourceType":102,"resourceTypeDesc":103,"sizeBytes":104,"sourceHtmlUrl":105},"scripts\u002Freview-package","SCRIPT","脚本",2444,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Fscripts\u002Freview-package",{"path":107,"resourceType":102,"resourceTypeDesc":103,"sizeBytes":108,"sourceHtmlUrl":109},"scripts\u002Fsdd-repo",2356,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Fscripts\u002Fsdd-repo",{"path":111,"resourceType":102,"resourceTypeDesc":103,"sizeBytes":112,"sourceHtmlUrl":113},"scripts\u002Fsdd-workspace",4823,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Fscripts\u002Fsdd-workspace",{"path":115,"resourceType":102,"resourceTypeDesc":103,"sizeBytes":116,"sourceHtmlUrl":117},"scripts\u002Ftask-brief",4769,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Fscripts\u002Ftask-brief",{"path":119,"resourceType":64,"resourceTypeDesc":65,"sizeBytes":120,"sourceHtmlUrl":121},"task-reviewer-prompt.md",9175,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002Ftask-reviewer-prompt.md",[123,131,157,178,197,212],{"skillNo":124,"name":125,"nameZh":6,"description":126,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":127,"categories":128,"keywords":129,"publishedAt":130},"01M72JT3YP1SQHD0MANGDXQ4RT","higgsfield-websites","Build, edit, and deploy full-stack websites, apps and games via the Higgsfield CLI (`higgsfield website …`). Each is a React 19 + TanStack Start SSR app in one Cloudflare Worker (D1\u002FR2\u002FKV\u002FDO\u002FContainers). THREE product types, picked via `--type` on create: `website` (standalone, no Higgsfield integration — references\u002Fwebsite-flow.md), `app` (Sign in with Higgsfield + fnf SDK, Quanta — references\u002Fapp-flow.md), `game` (realtime multiplayer rooms — references\u002Fgame-flow.md). Routes to the right flow; each carries its own rules and deploy\u002Fpublish gates.\nUse when: \"build me a website\", \"make a landing page\", \"create a web app\", \"build a SaaS dashboard \u002F portfolio\", \"make me a game\", \"deploy this site\", \"publish\". Also owns GAME ART: \"make a spritesheet\", \"tileable texture\", \"animate a 3D character\", game music\u002FSFX — see the game-* references.\nNOT for: single image\u002Fvideo\u002Faudio generation (higgsfield-generate), product photos (higgsfield-product-photoshoot), marketplace cards (higgsfield-marketplace-cards).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fhiggsfield-ai_skills\u002Fhiggsfield-websites\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-10 22:39:42",{"skillNo":132,"name":133,"nameZh":6,"description":134,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":135,"categories":136,"keywords":149,"publishedAt":35},"01M70JPK8HAXXA85P7Q8NKZZYG","writing-skills","Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fwriting-skills\u002FSKILL.md",[137,140,145,146],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案",{"categoryNo":141,"categoryName":142,"taxonomyType":143,"taxonomyTypeDesc":144},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":147,"categoryName":148,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",[150,151,152,153,32,154,155,28,156],"writing","writing skills","editing","deployment","Existing","new","work",{"skillNo":158,"name":159,"nameZh":6,"description":160,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":161,"categories":162,"keywords":168,"publishedAt":35},"01M70JP4PHBH1CQVVDWZ94W159","writing-plans","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[163,164,165],{"categoryNo":138,"categoryName":139,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":141,"categoryName":142,"taxonomyType":143,"taxonomyTypeDesc":144},{"categoryNo":166,"categoryName":167,"taxonomyType":143,"taxonomyTypeDesc":144},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师",[150,169,31,170,28,171,172,32,173,174,175,176,177],"writing plans","you","code","for","requirements","task","multi","spec","multi-step task",{"skillNo":179,"name":180,"nameZh":6,"description":181,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":182,"categories":183,"keywords":184,"publishedAt":35},"01M70JNTYVGXFZT8PASZ844TH8","verification-before-completion","Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fverification-before-completion\u002FSKILL.md",[],[185,186,187,188,189,190,32,191,192,193,28,194,156,195,196],"verification","verification before completion","complete","about","output","assertions","prs","evidence","claim","claims","commands","running",{"skillNo":198,"name":199,"nameZh":6,"description":200,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":201,"categories":202,"keywords":204,"publishedAt":35},"01M70JNGVSQDESWN0Q5BPJ875V","using-superpowers","Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring skill invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fusing-superpowers\u002FSKILL.md",[203],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[205,206,207,208,32,28,209,210,211],"using superpowers","superpowers","conversation","how to","how","find","questions",{"skillNo":213,"name":214,"nameZh":6,"description":215,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":216,"categories":217,"keywords":218,"publishedAt":35},"01M70JN57CE588NPYPYTWH1DWG","using-git-worktrees","Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmdnaimul22\u002Fhuman-skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fstorage\u002Fobra_superpowers\u002Fusing-git-worktrees\u002FSKILL.md",[],[219,220,221,222,223,34,28,156,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,31,32,231,232],"using git worktrees","Using git","git","worktrees","git worktrees","git worktree","worktree","native","Tools","isolation","fallback","feature","via","workspace"]