@leejungkiin/awkit 1.1.1 → 1.1.3

package/skill-packs/superpowers/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# 🦸 Superpowers Skill Pack
+
+> Structured development workflows ported from Claude Code Superpowers.
+
+Origin: [skainguyen1412/antigravity-superpowers](https://github.com/skainguyen1412/antigravity-superpowers)
+
+---
+
+## Install
+
+```bash
+awk enable-pack superpowers
+```
+
+Installs 13 skills into `~/.gemini/antigravity/skills/`:
+
+| # | Skill | Purpose |
+|---|-------|---------|
+| 1 | `brainstorming` | Design-first exploration before creative work |
+| 2 | `executing-plans` | Load and execute plans with review checkpoints |
+| 3 | `finishing-a-development-branch` | Structured branch completion: merge/PR/keep/discard |
+| 4 | `receiving-code-review` | Technical evaluation of review feedback |
+| 5 | `requesting-code-review` | Structured review pass before merge |
+| 6 | `single-flow-task-execution` | **One-task-at-a-time with two-stage review loop** |
+| 7 | `systematic-debugging` | Root cause analysis before fixing |
+| 8 | `test-driven-development` | Red-Green-Refactor TDD cycle |
+| 9 | `using-git-worktrees` | Isolated workspaces via git worktrees |
+| 10 | `using-superpowers` | Skill-first routing and loading |
+| 11 | `verification-before-completion` | Evidence-based completion claims |
+| 12 | `writing-plans` | Create bite-sized implementation plans |
+| 13 | `writing-skills` | TDD-based skill authoring |
+
+---
+
+## Key Feature: Two-Stage Review Loop
+
+The `single-flow-task-execution` skill introduces a disciplined review process:
+
+1. **Implement** → Self-review → Commit
+2. **Spec compliance review** → "Did we build what was requested?"
+3. **Code quality review** → "Is the code clean and maintainable?"
+4. Both pass → Next task
+
+This prevents the common failure of "code is clean but doesn't match requirements."
+
+---
+
+## Overlap with AWF Skills
+
+| Superpowers Skill | AWF Equivalent | Recommendation |
+|-------------------|---------------|----------------|
+| `brainstorming` | `brainstorm-agent` | AWF version is more comprehensive (3 modes, Vietnamese) |
+| `using-superpowers` | `orchestrator` | AWF version has Symphony + NeuralMemory integration |
+
+Both versions can coexist — they have different names and slightly different trigger patterns.
+
+---
+
+*Superpowers Skill Pack for AWK · Ported from Claude Code*

package/skill-packs/superpowers/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{
+    "name": "superpowers",
+    "auto_install": false,
+    "description": "Structured development workflows ported from Claude Code Superpowers: TDD, code review, planning, debugging, git worktree isolation, and two-stage review loops",
+    "origin": "https://github.com/skainguyen1412/antigravity-superpowers",
+    "requires": [],
+    "post_install": [],
+    "notes": {
+        "overlap": [
+            "brainstorming ↔ brainstorm-agent (AWF version is more comprehensive)",
+            "using-superpowers ↔ orchestrator (AWF version has Symphony integration)"
+        ],
+        "key_skill": "single-flow-task-execution — Two-stage review loop (spec compliance → code quality)"
+    }
+}

package/skill-packs/superpowers/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+---
+name: brainstorming
+description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation."
+---
+
+# Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs
+
+## Overview
+
+Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.
+
+Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Do NOT invoke any implementation skill, write any code, scaffold any project, or take any implementation action until you have presented a design and the user has approved it. This applies to EVERY project regardless of perceived simplicity.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"
+
+Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.
+
+## Checklist
+
+You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
+
+1. **Explore project context** — check files, docs, recent commits
+2. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
+3. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
+4. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
+5. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
+6. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
+
+## Process Flow
+
+```dot
+digraph brainstorming {
+    "Explore project context" [shape=box];
+    "Ask clarifying questions" [shape=box];
+    "Propose 2-3 approaches" [shape=box];
+    "Present design sections" [shape=box];
+    "User approves design?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Write design doc" [shape=box];
+    "Invoke writing-plans skill" [shape=doublecircle];
+
+    "Explore project context" -> "Ask clarifying questions";
+    "Ask clarifying questions" -> "Propose 2-3 approaches";
+    "Propose 2-3 approaches" -> "Present design sections";
+    "Present design sections" -> "User approves design?";
+    "User approves design?" -> "Present design sections" [label="no, revise"];
+    "User approves design?" -> "Write design doc" [label="yes"];
+    "Write design doc" -> "Invoke writing-plans skill";
+}
+```
+
+**The terminal state is invoking writing-plans.** Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.
+
+## The Process
+
+**Understanding the idea:**
+- Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
+- Ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
+- Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
+- Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
+- Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria
+
+**Exploring approaches:**
+- Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
+- Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
+- Lead with your recommended option and explain why
+
+**Presenting the design:**
+- Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
+- Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
+- Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
+- Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
+- Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense
+
+## After the Design
+
+**Documentation:**
+- Write the validated design to `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
+- Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
+- Commit the design document to git
+
+**Implementation:**
+- Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
+- Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.
+
+## Key Principles
+
+- **One question at a time** - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
+- **Multiple choice preferred** - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
+- **YAGNI ruthlessly** - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
+- **Explore alternatives** - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
+- **Incremental validation** - Present design, get approval before moving on
+- **Be flexible** - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense

package/skill-packs/superpowers/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+---
+name: executing-plans
+description: Use when you have a written implementation plan and need to execute it in Antigravity single-flow mode
+---
+
+# Executing Plans
+
+## Overview
+
+Load plan, review critically, execute tasks in batches, report for review between batches.
+
+**Core principle:** Batch execution with checkpoints for architect review.
+**Entrypoint principle:** This is the standard execution entrypoint. Do not offer alternate execution modes.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
+
+## The Process
+
+### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
+
+1. Read plan file
+2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
+3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
+4. If no concerns: follow the single-flow execution model from `.agent/skills/single-flow-task-execution/SKILL.md`
+5. Update `<project-root>/docs/plans/task.md` (table-only tracker) and proceed
+
+### Step 2: Execute Batch
+
+**Default: First 3 tasks**
+
+For each task:
+
+1. Mark as in_progress
+2. Follow each step exactly (plan has bite-sized steps)
+3. Run verifications as specified
+4. Mark as completed
+
+### Step 3: Report
+
+When batch complete:
+
+- Show what was implemented
+- Show verification output
+- Say: "Ready for feedback."
+
+### Step 4: Continue
+
+Based on feedback:
+
+- Apply changes if needed
+- Execute next batch
+- Repeat until complete
+
+### Step 5: Complete Development
+
+After all tasks complete and verified:
+
+- Announce: "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
+- **REQUIRED SKILL:** Use `.agent/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md`
+- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice
+
+## When to Stop and Ask for Help
+
+**STOP executing immediately when:**
+
+- Hit a blocker mid-batch (missing dependency, test fails, instruction unclear)
+- Plan has critical gaps preventing starting
+- You don't understand an instruction
+- Verification fails repeatedly
+
+**Ask for clarification rather than guessing.**
+
+## When to Revisit Earlier Steps
+
+**Return to Review (Step 1) when:**
+
+- Partner updates the plan based on your feedback
+- Fundamental approach needs rethinking
+
+**Don't force through blockers** - stop and ask.
+
+## Remember
+
+- Review plan critically first
+- Follow plan steps exactly
+- Don't skip verifications
+- Reference skills when plan says to
+- Between batches: just report and wait
+- Stop when blocked, don't guess
+- Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
+- Use `task_boundary` for coding tasks; use `browser_subagent` only for browser tasks
+
+## Integration
+
+**Required workflow skills:**
+
+- **`.agent/skills/using-git-worktrees/SKILL.md`** - REQUIRED: Set up isolated workspace before starting
+- **`.agent/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md`** - Creates the plan this skill executes
+- **`.agent/skills/single-flow-task-execution/SKILL.md`** - REQUIRED: Enforce single-flow execution with two-stage review
+- **`.agent/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md`** - Complete development after all tasks

package/skill-packs/superpowers/skills/finishing-a-development-branch/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: finishing-a-development-branch
+description: Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
+---
+
+# Finishing a Development Branch
+
+## Overview
+
+Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify tests → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
+
+## The Process
+
+### Step 1: Verify Tests
+
+**Before presenting options, verify tests pass:**
+
+```bash
+# Run project's test suite
+npm test / cargo test / pytest / go test ./...
+```
+
+**If tests fail:**
+
+```
+Tests failing (<N> failures). Must fix before completing:
+
+[Show failures]
+
+Cannot proceed with merge/PR until tests pass.
+```
+
+Stop. Don't proceed to Step 2.
+
+**If tests pass:** Continue to Step 2.
+
+### Step 2: Determine Base Branch
+
+```bash
+# Try common base branches
+git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
+
+### Step 3: Present Options
+
+Present exactly these 4 options:
+
+```
+Implementation complete. What would you like to do?
+
+1. Merge back to <base-branch> locally
+2. Push and create a Pull Request
+3. Keep the branch as-is (I'll handle it later)
+4. Discard this work
+
+Which option?
+```
+
+**Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
+
+### Step 4: Execute Choice
+
+#### Option 1: Merge Locally
+
+```bash
+# Switch to base branch
+git checkout <base-branch>
+
+# Pull latest
+git pull
+
+# Merge feature branch
+git merge <feature-branch>
+
+# Verify tests on merged result
+<test command>
+
+# If tests pass
+git branch -d <feature-branch>
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
+
+#### Option 2: Push and Create PR
+
+```bash
+# Push branch
+git push -u origin <feature-branch>
+
+# Create PR
+gh pr create --title "<title>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
+## Summary
+<2-3 bullets of what changed>
+
+## Test Plan
+- [ ] <verification steps>
+EOF
+)"
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
+
+#### Option 3: Keep As-Is
+
+Report: "Keeping branch <name>. Worktree preserved at <path>."
+
+**Don't cleanup worktree.**
+
+#### Option 4: Discard
+
+**Confirm first:**
+
+```
+This will permanently delete:
+- Branch <name>
+- All commits: <commit-list>
+- Worktree at <path>
+
+Type 'discard' to confirm.
+```
+
+Wait for exact confirmation.
+
+If confirmed:
+
+```bash
+git checkout <base-branch>
+git branch -D <feature-branch>
+```
+
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 5)
+
+### Step 5: Cleanup Worktree
+
+**For Options 1, 2, 4:**
+
+Check if in worktree:
+
+```bash
+git worktree list | grep $(git branch --show-current)
+```
+
+If yes:
+
+```bash
+git worktree remove <worktree-path>
+```
+
+**For Option 3:** Keep worktree.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Option           | Merge | Push | Keep Worktree | Cleanup Branch |
+| ---------------- | ----- | ---- | ------------- | -------------- |
+| 1. Merge locally | ✓     | -    | -             | ✓              |
+| 2. Create PR     | -     | ✓    | ✓             | -              |
+| 3. Keep as-is    | -     | -    | ✓             | -              |
+| 4. Discard       | -     | -    | -             | ✓ (force)      |
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**Skipping test verification**
+
+- **Problem:** Merge broken code, create failing PR
+- **Fix:** Always verify tests before offering options
+
+**Open-ended questions**
+
+- **Problem:** "What should I do next?" → ambiguous
+- **Fix:** Present exactly 4 structured options
+
+**Automatic worktree cleanup**
+
+- **Problem:** Remove worktree when might need it (Option 2, 3)
+- **Fix:** Only cleanup for Options 1 and 4
+
+**No confirmation for discard**
+
+- **Problem:** Accidentally delete work
+- **Fix:** Require typed "discard" confirmation
+
+## Red Flags
+
+**Never:**
+
+- Proceed with failing tests
+- Merge without verifying tests on result
+- Delete work without confirmation
+- Force-push without explicit request
+
+**Always:**
+
+- Verify tests before offering options
+- Present exactly 4 options
+- Get typed confirmation for Option 4
+- Clean up worktree for Options 1 & 4 only
+
+## Integration
+
+**Called by:**
+
+- **single-flow-task-execution** (final step) - After all tasks complete
+- **executing-plans** (Step 5) - After all batches complete
+
+**Pairs with:**
+
+- **using-git-worktrees** - Cleans up worktree created by that skill

package/skill-packs/superpowers/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: receiving-code-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - 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 `.agent/AGENTS.md` style 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
+```
+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
+```
+
+**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
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## 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.
+
+## 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 |
+
+## 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."
+```
+
+## 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.