@hiai-gg/hiai-opencode 1.0.0

package/skills/source-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: source-driven-development
+description: Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.
+---
+
+# Source-Driven Development
+
+## Overview
+
+Every framework-specific code decision must be backed by official documentation. Don't implement from memory — verify, cite, and let the user see your sources. Training data goes stale, APIs get deprecated, best practices evolve. This skill ensures the user gets code they can trust because every pattern traces back to an authoritative source they can check.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- The user wants code that follows current best practices for a given framework
+- Building boilerplate, starter code, or patterns that will be copied across a project
+- The user explicitly asks for documented, verified, or "correct" implementation
+- Implementing features where the framework's recommended approach matters (forms, routing, data fetching, state management, auth)
+- Reviewing or improving code that uses framework-specific patterns
+- Any time you are about to write framework-specific code from memory
+
+**When NOT to use:**
+
+- Correctness does not depend on a specific version (renaming variables, fixing typos, moving files)
+- Pure logic that works the same across all versions (loops, conditionals, data structures)
+- The user explicitly wants speed over verification ("just do it quickly")
+
+## The Process
+
+```
+DETECT ──→ FETCH ──→ IMPLEMENT ──→ CITE
+  │          │           │            │
+  ▼          ▼           ▼            ▼
+ What       Get the    Follow the   Show your
+ stack?     relevant   documented   sources
+            docs       patterns
+```
+
+### Step 1: Detect Stack and Versions
+
+Read the project's dependency file to identify exact versions:
+
+```
+package.json    → Node/React/Vue/Angular/Svelte
+composer.json   → PHP/Symfony/Laravel
+requirements.txt / pyproject.toml → Python/Django/Flask
+go.mod          → Go
+Cargo.toml      → Rust
+Gemfile         → Ruby/Rails
+```
+
+State what you found explicitly:
+
+```
+STACK DETECTED:
+- React 19.1.0 (from package.json)
+- Vite 6.2.0
+- Tailwind CSS 4.0.3
+→ Fetching official docs for the relevant patterns.
+```
+
+If versions are missing or ambiguous, **ask the user**. Don't guess — the version determines which patterns are correct.
+
+### Step 2: Fetch Official Documentation
+
+Fetch the specific documentation page for the feature you're implementing. Not the homepage, not the full docs — the relevant page.
+
+**Source hierarchy (in order of authority):**
+
+| Priority | Source | Example |
+|----------|--------|---------|
+| 1 | Official documentation | react.dev, docs.djangoproject.com, symfony.com/doc |
+| 2 | Official blog / changelog | react.dev/blog, nextjs.org/blog |
+| 3 | Web standards references | MDN, web.dev, html.spec.whatwg.org |
+| 4 | Browser/runtime compatibility | caniuse.com, node.green |
+
+**Not authoritative — never cite as primary sources:**
+
+- Stack Overflow answers
+- Blog posts or tutorials (even popular ones)
+- AI-generated documentation or summaries
+- Your own training data (that is the whole point — verify it)
+
+**Be precise with what you fetch:**
+
+```
+BAD:  Fetch the React homepage
+GOOD: Fetch react.dev/reference/react/useActionState
+
+BAD:  Search "django authentication best practices"
+GOOD: Fetch docs.djangoproject.com/en/6.0/topics/auth/
+```
+
+After fetching, extract the key patterns and note any deprecation warnings or migration guidance.
+
+When official sources conflict with each other (e.g. a migration guide contradicts the API reference), surface the discrepancy to the user and verify which pattern actually works against the detected version.
+
+### Step 3: Implement Following Documented Patterns
+
+Write code that matches what the documentation shows:
+
+- Use the API signatures from the docs, not from memory
+- If the docs show a new way to do something, use the new way
+- If the docs deprecate a pattern, don't use the deprecated version
+- If the docs don't cover something, flag it as unverified
+
+**When docs conflict with existing project code:**
+
+```
+CONFLICT DETECTED:
+The existing codebase uses useState for form loading state,
+but React 19 docs recommend useActionState for this pattern.
+(Source: react.dev/reference/react/useActionState)
+
+Options:
+A) Use the modern pattern (useActionState) — consistent with current docs
+B) Match existing code (useState) — consistent with codebase
+→ Which approach do you prefer?
+```
+
+Surface the conflict. Don't silently pick one.
+
+### Step 4: Cite Your Sources
+
+Every framework-specific pattern gets a citation. The user must be able to verify every decision.
+
+**In code comments:**
+
+```typescript
+// React 19 form handling with useActionState
+// Source: https://react.dev/reference/react/useActionState#usage
+const [state, formAction, isPending] = useActionState(submitOrder, initialState);
+```
+
+**In conversation:**
+
+```
+I'm using useActionState instead of manual useState for the
+form submission state. React 19 replaced the manual
+isPending/setIsPending pattern with this hook.
+
+Source: https://react.dev/blog/2024/12/05/react-19#actions
+"useTransition now supports async functions [...] to handle
+pending states automatically"
+```
+
+**Citation rules:**
+
+- Full URLs, not shortened
+- Prefer deep links with anchors where possible (e.g. `/useActionState#usage` over `/useActionState`) — anchors survive doc restructuring better than top-level pages
+- Quote the relevant passage when it supports a non-obvious decision
+- Include browser/runtime support data when recommending platform features
+- If you cannot find documentation for a pattern, say so explicitly:
+
+```
+UNVERIFIED: I could not find official documentation for this
+pattern. This is based on training data and may be outdated.
+Verify before using in production.
+```
+
+Honesty about what you couldn't verify is more valuable than false confidence.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "I'm confident about this API" | Confidence is not evidence. Training data contains outdated patterns that look correct but break against current versions. Verify. |
+| "Fetching docs wastes tokens" | Hallucinating an API wastes more. The user debugs for an hour, then discovers the function signature changed. One fetch prevents hours of rework. |
+| "The docs won't have what I need" | If the docs don't cover it, that's valuable information — the pattern may not be officially recommended. |
+| "I'll just mention it might be outdated" | A disclaimer doesn't help. Either verify and cite, or clearly flag it as unverified. Hedging is the worst option. |
+| "This is a simple task, no need to check" | Simple tasks with wrong patterns become templates. The user copies your deprecated form handler into ten components before discovering the modern approach exists. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Writing framework-specific code without checking the docs for that version
+- Using "I believe" or "I think" about an API instead of citing the source
+- Implementing a pattern without knowing which version it applies to
+- Citing Stack Overflow or blog posts instead of official documentation
+- Using deprecated APIs because they appear in training data
+- Not reading `package.json` / dependency files before implementing
+- Delivering code without source citations for framework-specific decisions
+- Fetching an entire docs site when only one page is relevant
+
+## Verification
+
+After implementing with source-driven development:
+
+- [ ] Framework and library versions were identified from the dependency file
+- [ ] Official documentation was fetched for framework-specific patterns
+- [ ] All sources are official documentation, not blog posts or training data
+- [ ] Code follows the patterns shown in the current version's documentation
+- [ ] Non-trivial decisions include source citations with full URLs
+- [ ] No deprecated APIs are used (checked against migration guides)
+- [ ] Conflicts between docs and existing code were surfaced to the user
+- [ ] Anything that could not be verified is explicitly flagged as unverified

package/skills/spec-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+---
+name: spec-driven-development
+description: Creates specs before coding. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change and no specification exists yet. Use when requirements are unclear, ambiguous, or only exist as a vague idea.
+---
+
+# Spec-Driven Development
+
+## Overview
+
+Write a structured specification before writing any code. The spec is the shared source of truth between you and the human engineer — it defines what we're building, why, and how we'll know it's done. Code without a spec is guessing.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Starting a new project or feature
+- Requirements are ambiguous or incomplete
+- The change touches multiple files or modules
+- You're about to make an architectural decision
+- The task would take more than 30 minutes to implement
+
+**When NOT to use:** Single-line fixes, typo corrections, or changes where requirements are unambiguous and self-contained.
+
+## The Gated Workflow
+
+Spec-driven development has four phases. Do not advance to the next phase until the current one is validated.
+
+```
+SPECIFY ──→ PLAN ──→ TASKS ──→ IMPLEMENT
+   │          │        │          │
+   ▼          ▼        ▼          ▼
+ Human      Human    Human      Human
+ reviews    reviews  reviews    reviews
+```
+
+### Phase 1: Specify
+
+Start with a high-level vision. Ask the human clarifying questions until requirements are concrete.
+
+**Surface assumptions immediately.** Before writing any spec content, list what you're assuming:
+
+```
+ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
+1. This is a web application (not native mobile)
+2. Authentication uses session-based cookies (not JWT)
+3. The database is PostgreSQL (based on existing Prisma schema)
+4. We're targeting modern browsers only (no IE11)
+→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
+```
+
+Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The spec's entire purpose is to surface misunderstandings *before* code gets written — assumptions are the most dangerous form of misunderstanding.
+
+**Write a spec document covering these six core areas:**
+
+1. **Objective** — What are we building and why? Who is the user? What does success look like?
+
+2. **Commands** — Full executable commands with flags, not just tool names.
+   ```
+   Build: npm run build
+   Test: npm test -- --coverage
+   Lint: npm run lint --fix
+   Dev: npm run dev
+   ```
+
+3. **Project Structure** — Where source code lives, where tests go, where docs belong.
+   ```
+   src/           → Application source code
+   src/components → React components
+   src/lib        → Shared utilities
+   tests/         → Unit and integration tests
+   e2e/           → End-to-end tests
+   docs/          → Documentation
+   ```
+
+4. **Code Style** — One real code snippet showing your style beats three paragraphs describing it. Include naming conventions, formatting rules, and examples of good output.
+
+5. **Testing Strategy** — What framework, where tests live, coverage expectations, which test levels for which concerns.
+
+6. **Boundaries** — Three-tier system:
+   - **Always do:** Run tests before commits, follow naming conventions, validate inputs
+   - **Ask first:** Database schema changes, adding dependencies, changing CI config
+   - **Never do:** Commit secrets, edit vendor directories, remove failing tests without approval
+
+**Spec template:**
+
+```markdown
+# Spec: [Project/Feature Name]
+
+## Objective
+[What we're building and why. User stories or acceptance criteria.]
+
+## Tech Stack
+[Framework, language, key dependencies with versions]
+
+## Commands
+[Build, test, lint, dev — full commands]
+
+## Project Structure
+[Directory layout with descriptions]
+
+## Code Style
+[Example snippet + key conventions]
+
+## Testing Strategy
+[Framework, test locations, coverage requirements, test levels]
+
+## Boundaries
+- Always: [...]
+- Ask first: [...]
+- Never: [...]
+
+## Success Criteria
+[How we'll know this is done — specific, testable conditions]
+
+## Open Questions
+[Anything unresolved that needs human input]
+```
+
+**Reframe instructions as success criteria.** When receiving vague requirements, translate them into concrete conditions:
+
+```
+REQUIREMENT: "Make the dashboard faster"
+
+REFRAMED SUCCESS CRITERIA:
+- Dashboard LCP < 2.5s on 4G connection
+- Initial data load completes in < 500ms
+- No layout shift during load (CLS < 0.1)
+→ Are these the right targets?
+```
+
+This lets you loop, retry, and problem-solve toward a clear goal rather than guessing what "faster" means.
+
+### Phase 2: Plan
+
+With the validated spec, generate a technical implementation plan:
+
+1. Identify the major components and their dependencies
+2. Determine the implementation order (what must be built first)
+3. Note risks and mitigation strategies
+4. Identify what can be built in parallel vs. what must be sequential
+5. Define verification checkpoints between phases
+
+The plan should be reviewable: the human should be able to read it and say "yes, that's the right approach" or "no, change X."
+
+### Phase 3: Tasks
+
+Break the plan into discrete, implementable tasks:
+
+- Each task should be completable in a single focused session
+- Each task has explicit acceptance criteria
+- Each task includes a verification step (test, build, manual check)
+- Tasks are ordered by dependency, not by perceived importance
+- No task should require changing more than ~5 files
+
+**Task template:**
+```markdown
+- [ ] Task: [Description]
+  - Acceptance: [What must be true when done]
+  - Verify: [How to confirm — test command, build, manual check]
+  - Files: [Which files will be touched]
+```
+
+### Phase 4: Implement
+
+Execute tasks one at a time following `incremental-implementation` and `test-driven-development` skills. Use `context-engineering` to load the right spec sections and source files at each step rather than flooding the agent with the entire spec.
+
+## Keeping the Spec Alive
+
+The spec is a living document, not a one-time artifact:
+
+- **Update when decisions change** — If you discover the data model needs to change, update the spec first, then implement.
+- **Update when scope changes** — Features added or cut should be reflected in the spec.
+- **Commit the spec** — The spec belongs in version control alongside the code.
+- **Reference the spec in PRs** — Link back to the spec section that each PR implements.
+
+## Common Rationalizations
+
+| Rationalization | Reality |
+|---|---|
+| "This is simple, I don't need a spec" | Simple tasks don't need *long* specs, but they still need acceptance criteria. A two-line spec is fine. |
+| "I'll write the spec after I code it" | That's documentation, not specification. The spec's value is in forcing clarity *before* code. |
+| "The spec will slow us down" | A 15-minute spec prevents hours of rework. Waterfall in 15 minutes beats debugging in 15 hours. |
+| "Requirements will change anyway" | That's why the spec is a living document. An outdated spec is still better than no spec. |
+| "The user knows what they want" | Even clear requests have implicit assumptions. The spec surfaces those assumptions. |
+
+## Red Flags
+
+- Starting to write code without any written requirements
+- Asking "should I just start building?" before clarifying what "done" means
+- Implementing features not mentioned in any spec or task list
+- Making architectural decisions without documenting them
+- Skipping the spec because "it's obvious what to build"
+
+## Verification
+
+Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:
+
+- [ ] The spec covers all six core areas
+- [ ] The human has reviewed and approved the spec
+- [ ] Success criteria are specific and testable
+- [ ] Boundaries (Always/Ask First/Never) are defined
+- [ ] The spec is saved to a file in the repository

package/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+---
+name: subagent-driven-development
+description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
+---
+
+# Subagent-Driven Development
+
+Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.
+
+**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.
+
+**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Stay in this session?" [shape=diamond];
+    "subagent-driven-development" [shape=box];
+    "executing-plans" [shape=box];
+    "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];
+
+    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
+    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Stay in this session?" [label="yes"];
+    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
+    "Stay in this session?" -> "subagent-driven-development" [label="yes"];
+    "Stay in this session?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - parallel session"];
+}
+```
+
+**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
+- Same session (no context switch)
+- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
+- Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
+- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
+
+## The Process
+
+```dot
+digraph process {
+    rankdir=TB;
+
+    subgraph cluster_per_task {
+        label="Per Task";
+        "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
+        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
+        "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
+        "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
+        "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
+        "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [shape=box];
+    }
+
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
+    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
+    "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
+
+    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
+    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
+    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
+    "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
+    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
+    "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
+    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
+    "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
+    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
+    "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
+    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
+}
+```
+
+## Model Selection
+
+Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.
+
+**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.
+
+**Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.
+
+**Architecture, design, and review tasks**: use the most capable available model.
+
+**Task complexity signals:**
+- Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model
+- Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
+- Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model
+
+## Handling Implementer Status
+
+Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:
+
+**DONE:** Proceed to spec compliance review.
+
+**DONE_WITH_CONCERNS:** The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.
+
+**NEEDS_CONTEXT:** The implementer needs information that wasn't provided. Provide the missing context and re-dispatch.
+
+**BLOCKED:** The implementer cannot complete the task. Assess the blocker:
+1. If it's a context problem, provide more context and re-dispatch with the same model
+2. If the task requires more reasoning, re-dispatch with a more capable model
+3. If the task is too large, break it into smaller pieces
+4. If the plan itself is wrong, escalate to the human
+
+**Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.
+
+## Prompt Templates
+
+- `./implementer-prompt.md` - Dispatch implementer subagent
+- `./spec-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
+- `./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent
+
+## Example Workflow
+
+```
+You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
+
+[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
+[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
+[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]
+
+Task 1: Hook installation script
+
+[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
+[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
+
+Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
+
+You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
+
+Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
+[Later] Implementer:
+  - Implemented install-hook command
+  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
+  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
+  - Committed
+
+[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
+Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra
+
+[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
+Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.
+
+[Mark Task 1 complete]
+
+Task 2: Recovery modes
+
+[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
+[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]
+
+Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
+Implementer:
+  - Added verify/repair modes
+  - 8/8 tests passing
+  - Self-review: All good
+  - Committed
+
+[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
+Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
+  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
+  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
+
+[Implementer fixes issues]
+Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting
+
+[Spec reviewer reviews again]
+Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now
+
+[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
+Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
+
+[Implementer fixes]
+Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
+
+[Code reviewer reviews again]
+Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
+
+[Mark Task 2 complete]
+
+...
+
+[After all tasks]
+[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
+Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
+
+Done!
+```
+
+## Advantages
+
+**vs. Manual execution:**
+- Subagents follow TDD naturally
+- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
+- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
+- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
+
+**vs. Executing Plans:**
+- Same session (no handoff)
+- Continuous progress (no waiting)
+- Review checkpoints automatic
+
+**Efficiency gains:**
+- No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
+- Controller curates exactly what context is needed
+- Subagent gets complete information upfront
+- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
+
+**Quality gates:**
+- Self-review catches issues before handoff
+- Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
+- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
+- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
+- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
+
+**Cost:**
+- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
+- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
+- Review loops add iterations
+- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
+- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
+- Proceed with unfixed issues
+- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
+- Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
+- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
+- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
+- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
+- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
+- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
+- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order)
+- Move to next task while either review has open issues
+
+**If subagent asks questions:**
+- Answer clearly and completely
+- Provide additional context if needed
+- Don't rush them into implementation
+
+**If reviewer finds issues:**
+- Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
+- Reviewer reviews again
+- Repeat until approved
+- Don't skip the re-review
+
+**If subagent fails task:**
+- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
+- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)
+
+## Integration
+
+**Required workflow skills:**
+- **superpowers:using-git-worktrees** - REQUIRED: Set up isolated workspace before starting
+- **superpowers:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
+- **superpowers:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for reviewer subagents
+- **superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks
+
+**Subagents should use:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - Subagents follow TDD for each task
+
+**Alternative workflow:**
+- **superpowers:executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution