@complexthings/superpowers-agent 9.2.1 → 10.0.1

package/skills/collaboration/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,233 +0,0 @@
----
-name: receiving-code-review
-description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable. Also use when a PR has been reviewed and you're about to start addressing comments, when another agent or tool suggests code changes you should apply, or when someone asks you to "apply the review feedback" — requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
----
-
-# Code Review Reception
-
-## Overview
-
-Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
-
-**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
-
-## The Response Pattern
-
-```
-WHEN receiving code review feedback:
-
-1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
-2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
-3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
-4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
-5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
-6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
-```
-
-## Forbidden Responses
-
-**NEVER:**
-- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
-- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
-- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
-
-**INSTEAD:**
-- Restate the technical requirement
-- Ask clarifying questions
-- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
-- Just start working (actions > words)
-
-## Handling Unclear Feedback
-
-```
-IF any item is unclear:
-  STOP - do not implement anything yet
-  ASK for clarification on unclear items
-
-WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
-```
-
-**Example:**
-```
-your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-
-❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
-✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
-```
-
-## Source-Specific Handling
-
-### From your human partner
-- **Trusted** - implement after understanding
-- **Still ask** if scope unclear
-- **No performative agreement**
-- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
-
-### From External Reviewers (human or AI)
-```
-BEFORE implementing:
-  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
-  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
-  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
-  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
-  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
-
-IF suggestion seems wrong:
-  Push back with technical reasoning
-
-IF can't easily verify:
-  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
-
-IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
-  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
-```
-
-**Note on AI reviewers:** Automated review tools (linters, AI agents, CI checks) can be confidently wrong about project-specific patterns. Apply the same external reviewer skepticism — check whether their suggestion actually fits this codebase's conventions before applying it.
-
-**your human partner's rule:** "External feedback - be skeptical, but check carefully"
-
-## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
-
-```
-IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
-  grep codebase for actual usage
-
-  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
-  IF used: Then implement properly
-```
-
-**your human partner's rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
-
-## Implementation Order
-
-```
-FOR multi-item feedback:
-  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
-  2. Then implement in this order:
-     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
-     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
-     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
-  3. Test each fix individually
-  4. Verify no regressions
-```
-
-## When To Push Back
-
-Push back when:
-- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
-- Reviewer lacks full context
-- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
-- Technically incorrect for this stack
-- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
-- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
-
-**How to push back:**
-- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
-- Ask specific questions
-- Reference working tests/code
-- Involve your human partner if architectural
-
-**If you feel uncomfortable pushing back directly**, you can signal this by saying: "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K" — this is a pre-agreed code phrase meaning "I disagree with this but feel social pressure to comply; please step in."
-
-## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
-
-When feedback IS correct:
-```
-✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
-✅ "Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
-✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
-
-❌ "You're absolutely right!"
-❌ "Great point!"
-❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
-❌ "Thanks for [anything]"
-❌ ANY gratitude expression
-```
-
-**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
-
-**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
-
-## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
-
-If you pushed back and were wrong:
-```
-✅ "You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
-✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
-
-❌ Long apology
-❌ Defending why you pushed back
-❌ Over-explaining
-```
-
-State the correction factually and move on.
-
-## After Completing All Items
-
-When all review items are addressed:
-- Summarize what was done: "Addressed all N review items: [brief list]"
-- Call out any items you pushed back on and why
-- Flag any items deferred or out of scope
-- If on GitHub: re-request review via `gh pr edit --add-reviewer <username>` or let your human partner decide
-
-Don't disappear after fixing things. A clear "done" summary closes the loop.
-
-## Common Mistakes
-
-| Mistake | Fix |
-|---------|-----|
-| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
-| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
-| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
-| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
-| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
-| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
-| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
-| Trusting AI reviewer unconditionally | Apply same skepticism as external human |
-| Silent completion | Summarize what changed when done |
-
-## Real Examples
-
-**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
-```
-
-**Technical Verification (Good):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
-✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
-```
-
-**YAGNI (Good):**
-```
-Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
-✅ "Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
-```
-
-**Unclear Item (Good):**
-```
-your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
-You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
-✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
-```
-
-**AI Reviewer Suggestion (Good):**
-```
-AI linter: "Replace all usages with the newer API"
-✅ "This project targets Node 16 which doesn't have that API. Skipping — would break CI."
-```
-
-## GitHub Thread Replies
-
-When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
-
-Verify. Question. Then implement.
-
-No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/skills/collaboration/receiving-code-review/skill.json

@@ -1,9 +0,0 @@
-{
-    "version": "1.1.0",
-    "name": "superpowers:collaboration/receiving-code-review",
-    "title": "Code Review Reception",
-    "aliases": [
-        "receiving-code-review",
-        "collaboration/receiving-code-review"
-    ]
-}

package/skills/collaboration/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,110 +0,0 @@
----
-name: requesting-code-review
-description: Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements. Also use when stuck on a problem (fresh perspective), before refactoring (baseline check), or after fixing a complex bug. If you just finished building something and haven't reviewed it yet, use this skill.
-metadata:
-  when_to_use: when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging, to verify work meets requirements
-  version: 1.2.0
----
-
-# Requesting Code Review
-
-Dispatch a code-reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history. This keeps the reviewer focused on the work product, not your thought process, and preserves your own context for continued work.
-
-**Core principle:** Review early, review often.
-
-## When to Request Review
-
-**Mandatory:**
-- After each task in subagent-driven development
-- After completing major feature
-- Before merge to main
-
-**Optional but valuable:**
-- When stuck (fresh perspective)
-- Before refactoring (baseline check)
-- After fixing complex bug
-
-## How to Request
-
-**1. Get git SHAs:**
-```bash
-BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-```
-
-**2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:**
-
-Use the `task` tool with subagent type `general`. Provide the prompt from `code-reviewer.md` with these placeholders filled in:
-
-**Placeholders:**
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do (link to plan/spec if available)
-- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit SHA
-- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit SHA
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary of changes
-
-**3. Act on feedback:**
-- Fix **Critical** issues immediately — do not proceed until resolved
-- Fix **Important** issues before moving to the next task
-- Note **Minor** issues for later (log in comments or TODO)
-- Push back if reviewer is wrong (with technical reasoning and evidence)
-
-## Example
-
-```
-[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]
-
-You: Let me request code review before proceeding.
-
-BASE_SHA=$(git log --oneline | grep "Task 1" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-
-[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent via task tool]
-  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: Verification and repair functions for conversation index
-  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from .agents/specs/deployment-plan.md
-  BASE_SHA: a7981ec
-  HEAD_SHA: 3df7661
-  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types
-
-[Subagent returns]:
-  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
-  Issues:
-    Important: Missing progress indicators
-    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
-  Assessment: Ready to proceed with fixes
-
-You: [Fix progress indicators]
-[Continue to Task 3]
-```
-
-## Integration with Workflows
-
-**Subagent-Driven Development:**
-- Review after EACH task
-- Catch issues before they compound
-- Fix before moving to next task
-
-**Executing Plans:**
-- Review after each batch (3 tasks)
-- Get feedback, apply, continue
-
-**Ad-Hoc Development:**
-- Review before merge
-- Review when stuck
-
-## Red Flags
-
-**Never:**
-- Skip review because "it's simple"
-- Ignore Critical issues
-- Proceed with unfixed Important issues
-- Argue with valid technical feedback
-
-**If reviewer wrong:**
-- Push back with technical reasoning
-- Show code/tests that prove it works
-- Request clarification on the specific concern
-
-## Reviewer Template
-
-Read `code-reviewer.md` (in the same directory as this skill) to get the full prompt to send to the subagent. Fill in all placeholders before dispatching.

package/skills/collaboration/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

@@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
-# Code Review Agent
-
-You are reviewing code changes for production readiness.
-
-**Your task:**
-1. Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-2. Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
-3. Check code quality, architecture, testing
-4. Categorize issues by severity
-5. Assess production readiness
-
-## What Was Implemented
-
-{DESCRIPTION}
-
-## Requirements/Plan
-
-{PLAN_REFERENCE}
-
-## Git Range to Review
-
-**Base:** {BASE_SHA}
-**Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
-
-```bash
-git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-```
-
-## Review Checklist
-
-**Code Quality:**
-- Clean separation of concerns?
-- Proper error handling?
-- Type safety (if applicable)?
-- DRY principle followed?
-- Edge cases handled?
-
-**Architecture:**
-- Sound design decisions?
-- Scalability considerations?
-- Performance implications?
-- Security concerns?
-
-**Testing:**
-- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
-- Edge cases covered?
-- Integration tests where needed?
-- All tests passing?
-
-**Requirements:**
-- All plan requirements met?
-- Implementation matches spec?
-- No scope creep?
-- Breaking changes documented?
-
-**Production Readiness:**
-- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
-- Backward compatibility considered?
-- Documentation complete?
-- No obvious bugs?
-
-## Output Format
-
-### Strengths
-[What's well done? Be specific.]
-
-### Issues
-
-#### Critical (Must Fix)
-[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
-
-#### Important (Should Fix)
-[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
-
-#### Minor (Nice to Have)
-[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
-
-**For each issue:**
-- File:line reference
-- What's wrong
-- Why it matters
-- How to fix (if not obvious)
-
-### Recommendations
-[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]
-
-**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]
-
-## Critical Rules
-
-**DO:**
-- Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
-- Be specific (file:line, not vague)
-- Explain WHY issues matter
-- Acknowledge strengths
-- Give clear verdict
-
-**DON'T:**
-- Say "looks good" without checking
-- Mark nitpicks as Critical
-- Give feedback on code you didn't review
-- Be vague ("improve error handling")
-- Avoid giving a clear verdict
-
-## Example Output
-
-```
-### Strengths
-- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
-- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
-- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
-
-### Issues
-
-#### Important
-1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
-   - File: index-conversations:1-31
-   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
-   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
-
-2. **Date validation missing**
-   - File: search.ts:25-27
-   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
-   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
-
-#### Minor
-1. **Progress indicators**
-   - File: indexer.ts:130
-   - Issue: No "X of Y" counter for long operations
-   - Impact: Users don't know how long to wait
-
-### Recommendations
-- Add progress reporting for user experience
-- Consider config file for excluded projects (portability)
-
-### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge: With fixes**
-
-**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests. Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect core functionality.
-```

package/skills/collaboration/requesting-code-review/skill.json

@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
-{
-    "version": "1.1.0",
-    "name": "superpowers:collaboration/requesting-code-review",
-    "title": "Requesting Code Review",
-    "helpers": [
-        "code-reviewer.md"
-    ],
-    "aliases": [
-        "requesting-code-review",
-        "collaboration/requesting-code-review"
-    ]
-}