agemon 6.0.0 → 6.3.1

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-brainstorming/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-brainstorming/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Vendored skill
+
+- Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+- Path in source: skills/brainstorming
+- Commit: 22f0b463e7a5e579904dd6211a520321035526f7
+- Retrieved: 2026-11-05
+- License: MIT — see `LICENSE` in this directory.
+
+## agemon modifications
+
+- Renamed from `brainstorming` to `agemon-brainstorming`, and updated references to upstream's other skills to their agemon names (`systematic-debugging` is `agemon-root-cause`, `verification-before-completion` is `agemon-verify-before-done`, both in the `self-review` group).
+- Moved working files from `.superpowers/` to `.agemon-workflow/` and documents from `docs/superpowers/` to `docs/`.
+- One of several skills cherry-picked from the superpowers framework; its `using-superpowers` bootstrap and session hook are not vendored, so nothing forces these skills to load.
+- Left out the optional visual companion (`visual-companion.md`, `scripts/`) and every mention of it: it starts a local web server, and its page loads a logo from upstream's website, which reports the version in use.

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
+---
+name: agemon-brainstorming
+description: "You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or planning anything new, in software or out of it (a talk, a business, a renovation)."
+---
+
+# Brainstorming
+
+You are very good at building. You build what you believe your human
+partner wants, and that belief is usually thinner than it feels. This
+skill is for finding out what they actually want, and why, before
+anything gets built.
+
+People often haven't finished working out what they want. Good questions
+help them think it through. When you understand the why, you make the
+hundred decisions they never mention the way they would have made them.
+
+## First: What Do You Actually Know?
+
+Before you reply, ask yourself: what do I know about what they want, and
+why?
+
+- **Everything that matters is in the request** ("make the icon cornflower
+  blue"). This is a quick, clear task. Do it, and say what you did.
+- **Something non-trivial is missing.** Start the conversation.
+
+Before you start implementing, you must, in order:
+
+1. Lay out the approaches in a message of their own, and have your
+   human partner pick one (see Lay out the approaches).
+2. Write the design doc, short or full (see Size the Work).
+3. Get their approval of that doc.
+4. Invoke the agemon-writing-plans skill.
+
+If nothing is open when you write your first message and there's one
+sensible way, steps 1 to 3 happen in that message (see Your First
+Message).
+
+Two things aren't implementing: a spike they said yes to (see Spike to
+feel things out), and doing what they asked once they've opted out of
+the questions.
+
+## Look Before You Ask
+
+In an existing project, or when they've given you context (a spec, a plan,
+a handoff, files they pointed at, earlier conversation), dig in before your
+first message. Read what they referred to and the code or material it
+connects to, and keep reading until you can explain how the relevant
+parts work today and what this change would touch. Never ask what the
+project or their context already answers, or reopen what they've
+already decided.
+
+## Your First Message
+
+Move the work forward, with one of these:
+
+- **They've already said what they want** (a spec, a plan, a detailed
+  request): aim for about 200 words for the whole message. Echo their
+  request back in your own words, so they can see whether you've got its
+  shape: what they want, who it's for, and why, as far as they've said.
+  Add what you found that bears on it: how the relevant parts work today
+  and what the change would touch. If you found something they may not
+  have considered that would change what they're asking for or how it
+  has to be built, like a constraint, a conflict, or a cheaper path, say
+  so plainly. How to build it comes later, once you understand what they
+  want (see Lay out the approaches). End with one line inviting
+  corrections. Then, if they haven't told you why they want it, even if
+  you can guess, ask about that: one open question in their own terms,
+  with nothing to pick from. If they have told you, and their request
+  and the project leave open something whose answer would change what
+  gets built, ask about the one that would change it most; when its
+  choices can be named, sketch each concretely, with what it trades off
+  and which you'd pick. If nothing like that is open, there's one
+  sensible way: end with the short design itself (the approach, a line on
+  why the others don't fit, and the design in a few lines) and ask them
+  to approve it. Their approval covers the approach and the design: write
+  the short design doc as approved and go on to the plan.
+  Specs are often incomplete, so confirm before you build on one.
+- **They haven't:** one open question, in their own terms, about the
+  biggest thing their request leaves unsettled. Say why you're asking:
+  what the answer would change about what you build. For "a website for
+  my bakery": "If it's mostly for people deciding whether to stop by,
+  I'd lead with hours and what's in the case today; taking orders is a
+  different site. What do you want someone to do when they land on it?"
+
+How the message ends depends on whether their message asked for
+brainstorming:
+
+- **They asked for it** (by name, by invoking it, or by asking for a
+  design discussion): end there. They want this conversation.
+- **They didn't:** they may not want a conversation at all. End with a
+  light, one-line offer to just get going instead, like
+  "Or if you'd rather I just dive in, say so." If they take you up on
+  it, this skill is done: state any significant how-it-gets-made choice
+  (platform, language, medium) in one plain line, then do what they
+  asked through the normal workflow.
+
+That's the whole message.
+
+## The Conversation
+
+Ask a question only when the answer would change what gets built and
+neither the request nor the project answers it. Otherwise, state your
+call and your reason as a proposal they can correct, and move the work
+forward. Process steps are always your calls: writing things up, where
+files go, looking further, how to show something. Do them and say so.
+Ask one at a time. Use plain language, pitched just a little above where
+your human partner is. Match their vocabulary; never use process jargon.
+You never need to quote this skill to your human partner.
+
+Be clear and concise. Lead with what matters. Avoid jargon. When you
+report what you found, give them the most important findings and offer
+the rest.
+
+**Get them describing.** Until you know why they want it, ask open
+questions, with no example answers attached. Their own words carry
+intent that your options can't. Once you know why, when a decision has
+choices you can name, sketch each concretely, with what it trades off
+and which you'd pick. When they say "just guess" or "what do you think?",
+propose something concrete.
+
+**How it gets made.** Every project rests on choices about medium, tools,
+materials, and resources: the platform, programming language, and
+libraries for an app; the medium for a piece of art. Read from how they
+talk which of those choices they want to make. Someone who raises the how
+or asks about trade-offs wants the options with your pick. Someone who
+talks about outcomes is handing you the how: make those calls and state
+each in a line. When there's existing work, build on what it already
+uses. Any choice you make goes in the design as your call, never as
+something they agreed to.
+
+**Ground to cover.** This is territory, not a script. Never read these
+out as questions:
+
+- what kind of thing this is, and what makes it special
+- why now, and what success looks like to them
+- goals, non-goals, and anti-goals (what would make this a failure even
+  if it technically works)
+- prior art: what they've seen elsewhere, loved or hated
+- current state: what exists now, what they've tried
+- the details they care about
+
+**Make every question specific** to their project and what they've told
+you. Ask Socratically, the way a sharp colleague would: build each
+question on their last answer or on something you found, so it helps
+them think through a consequence or a case they may have missed
+("Voting closes before the meeting, and two members joined this month.
+Does someone who joins mid-round get a vote?"). When the reason isn't
+already plain, say what you're hoping to learn or what the answer would
+change. A proposal they can correct, plus your reason for it, often
+beats a question.
+
+**Do recon.** Once you have a bit of grounding and looking further
+would help, go look: deeper into their codebase or project, their own
+files and data, or the web. Say what you looked for and what you found.
+
+**Lay out the approaches.** Once you understand what they want, and
+before you write anything up, put the ways of building it in a message
+of its own. Come up with several real alternatives and drop the weak
+ones, including any that work against why they want it and any the
+existing work rules out. Sketch the two or three that remain concretely
+enough to picture, grounded in what the project actually does, with what
+each trades off. Recommend one and say why, then ask which way they want
+to go; if they've handed you the how, say you'll go with your pick
+instead. When there's genuinely one sensible way, say so in that
+message and explain why the others don't fit; the design comes in the
+next one. This is for how it gets built; for what they want, get them
+describing first.
+
+**Show, don't tell.** Whenever seeing would help more than reading,
+sketch it in text: a few lines of what they'd see. It helps most with:
+
+- something they'll look at: a screen, a page, a printout, a sign
+- a layout or arrangement: of a screen, a room, a schedule
+- a flow or a sequence of steps
+- options that would look different from each other
+- a structure that's easier to see than read: a diagram, a timeline, a map
+
+**Spike to feel things out.** Agentic work is waterfall, but very, very
+fast. A quick throwaway build is often the cheapest way to learn what
+they want or whether something works. Offer one when it would help.
+When they just want to spike, get out of the way. Spikes get no tests
+or minimal ones, aren't bulletproof, and skip the plan, implementation,
+and review process. Bring what the spike taught you back into the
+conversation.
+
+## Play It Back
+
+Play back as you go. As soon as you understand one part well enough to
+describe it (what it's for and who it serves, say, or how one piece
+behaves), describe that part back in about 200-300 words, then return to
+questions about the next part. Playback and questions alternate through
+the whole conversation; the last chunk covers whatever is left.
+
+Only what they said goes in as theirs. Anything you filled in goes in
+as your proposal, with your reason. End each chunk by asking what's wrong
+or missing.
+
+Before you send a chunk, check it: does it describe something they'll
+look at, like a page, a screen, a schedule, or a printout? If so, put a
+text sketch next to the description.
+
+## Size the Work
+
+Once you understand what they want and they've picked an approach, say
+how big the work is in plain words. They can override it.
+
+| Size | The design doc |
+|------|----------------|
+| A small change | a short one: what you already covered together, written down |
+| A project | the full written design (below) |
+
+Short or full, the design doc has an **Approaches** part: the two or
+three ways you considered building it, what each trades off, which one
+they picked, and why. They pick in the conversation, before you write
+the doc.
+
+If it grows mid-task, stop, say so, and step up a size.
+
+If this is really several independent projects, say so, agree on an
+order, and brainstorm them one at a time.
+
+## The Written Design
+
+Write a plain document a talented builder in the domain could plan
+from without going back to your human partner. Cover:
+
+- intent and the why
+- goals, non-goals, anti-goals
+- constraints
+- approaches (above)
+- the parts of the how they decided, as they decided them
+- what's left to the builder
+
+For a small change, the short design covers the same points in a line
+or two each and goes straight to your human partner, without the
+builder check.
+
+**Where it goes:** in a software repo,
+`docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`, committed.
+Otherwise, pick a sensible place and say where. Your human partner's
+preferences override both.
+
+**Builder check** (for a project): dispatch a fresh subagent with
+`builder-check-prompt.md` in this directory. When you tell your human
+partner you're writing it up, say a reviewer will read it first and you
+may come back once with a few questions. Don't hand over the document
+until the check is back. Sort what the builder asks into three piles:
+
+- **Answered already** by the conversation or the project: put the answer
+  in the document.
+- **Minor:** a sensible builder could settle it without changing what gets
+  built. Settle it yourself and mark it in the document as your call.
+- **Theirs:** only your human partner can answer it, and the answer changes
+  what gets built.
+
+Bring the "theirs" pile in one message, most important first. Update the
+document with their answers, then hand it over with a short list of the
+calls you made so they can check those while reading. That's the only
+round of questions the check produces. Without a subagent tool, read the
+document as that builder yourself.
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Nothing gets built until your human partner approves the design doc:
+the short one for a small change, the full one for a project.
+Building includes writing product code, scaffolding, installing
+dependencies, creating projects, and invoking an implementation skill.
+Reading and exploring are fine.
+
+Two exceptions. If they opted out of the questions, the skill is done
+and the gate goes with it. A spike they said yes to may be built; it
+stays labeled throwaway, and keeping what it produced is a new request
+that comes back through this gate.
+
+After the design doc is approved, the next step is the plan: invoke
+agemon-writing-plans and no other skill.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+## Red Flags
+
+| Thought | Reality |
+|---------|---------|
+| "I'll offer a menu of what they might want" | Options steer. Ask them to describe it first. |
+| "I'll fill in sensible defaults" | Good. Say them out loud. A default they never heard is one they couldn't reject. |
+| "I've answered their questions, so I'll write the doc" | Lay out the approaches first, in a message of their own (or, when nothing was open from the start, in your first message's short design). |
+| "I should explain the process first" | Ask your question. The process shows itself. |
+| "They said 'sounds good' to the idea" | Approval covers what you showed them. A design doc you haven't written isn't approved. |
+| "The spike works, I'll keep building on it" | Keeping it is a new request. Back through the gate. |

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-brainstorming/builder-check-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Builder Check Prompt
+
+Dispatch a fresh general-purpose subagent with this prompt once the
+written design exists. Fill in the domain and the document path.
+
+```
+You are a talented [DOMAIN, e.g. "software engineer", "event planner",
+"bakery consultant"]. You've been handed a design document and asked to
+put together a plan to build what it describes. You will not be able to
+talk to the person who wrote it.
+
+Read [DOCUMENT_PATH].
+
+Report only the questions you'd still need answered before you could plan
+this well: places where you'd have to guess and a wrong guess would
+matter. For each, give the question and why the answer changes the plan.
+Rank them by importance.
+
+Skip anything the document explicitly leaves to the builder, and anything
+you could reasonably decide yourself. Skip nitpicks about wording.
+
+If nothing important is left, say "nothing important left".
+```

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-dispatching-parallel-agents/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-dispatching-parallel-agents/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Vendored skill
+
+- Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+- Path in source: skills/dispatching-parallel-agents
+- Commit: 22f0b463e7a5e579904dd6211a520321035526f7
+- Retrieved: 2026-11-05
+- License: MIT — see `LICENSE` in this directory.
+
+## agemon modifications
+
+- Renamed from `dispatching-parallel-agents` to `agemon-dispatching-parallel-agents`, and updated references to upstream's other skills to their agemon names (`systematic-debugging` is `agemon-root-cause`, `verification-before-completion` is `agemon-verify-before-done`, both in the `self-review` group).
+- Moved working files from `.superpowers/` to `.agemon-workflow/` and documents from `docs/superpowers/` to `docs/`.
+- One of several skills cherry-picked from the superpowers framework; its `using-superpowers` bootstrap and session hook are not vendored, so nothing forces these skills to load.

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+---
+name: agemon-dispatching-parallel-agents
+description: Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
+---
+
+# Dispatching Parallel Agents
+
+## Overview
+
+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.
+
+When you have multiple unrelated failures (different test files, different subsystems, different bugs), investigating them sequentially wastes time. Each investigation is independent and can happen in parallel.
+
+**Core principle:** Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently.
+
+## When to Use
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Multiple failures?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Are they independent?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Single agent investigates all" [shape=box];
+    "One agent per problem domain" [shape=box];
+    "Can they work in parallel?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Sequential agents" [shape=box];
+    "Parallel dispatch" [shape=box];
+
+    "Multiple failures?" -> "Are they independent?" [label="yes"];
+    "Are they independent?" -> "Single agent investigates all" [label="no - related"];
+    "Are they independent?" -> "Can they work in parallel?" [label="yes"];
+    "Can they work in parallel?" -> "Parallel dispatch" [label="yes"];
+    "Can they work in parallel?" -> "Sequential agents" [label="no - shared state"];
+}
+```
+
+**Use when:**
+- 3+ test files failing with different root causes
+- Multiple subsystems broken independently
+- Each problem can be understood without context from others
+- No shared state between investigations
+
+**Don't use when:**
+- Failures are related (fix one might fix others)
+- Need to understand full system state
+- Agents would interfere with each other
+
+## The Pattern
+
+### 1. Identify Independent Domains
+
+Group failures by what's broken:
+- File A tests: Tool approval flow
+- File B tests: Batch completion behavior
+- File C tests: Abort functionality
+
+Each domain is independent - fixing tool approval doesn't affect abort tests.
+
+### 2. Create Focused Agent Tasks
+
+Each agent gets:
+- **Specific scope:** One test file or subsystem
+- **Clear goal:** Make these tests pass
+- **Constraints:** Don't change other code
+- **Expected output:** Summary of what you found and fixed
+
+### 3. Dispatch in Parallel
+
+Issue all three subagent dispatches in the same response — they run in parallel:
+
+```text
+Subagent (general-purpose): "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts failures"
+Subagent (general-purpose): "Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts failures"
+Subagent (general-purpose): "Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts failures"
+# All three run concurrently.
+```
+
+Multiple dispatch calls in one response = parallel execution. One per response = sequential.
+
+### 4. Review and Integrate
+
+When agents return:
+- Read each summary
+- Verify fixes don't conflict
+- Run full test suite
+- Integrate all changes
+
+## Agent Prompt Structure
+
+Good agent prompts are:
+1. **Focused** - One clear problem domain
+2. **Self-contained** - All context needed to understand the problem
+3. **Specific about output** - What should the agent return?
+
+```markdown
+Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:
+
+1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" - expects 'interrupted at' in message
+2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" - fast tool aborted instead of completed
+3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" - expects 3 results but gets 0
+
+These are timing/race condition issues. Your task:
+
+1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
+2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?
+3. Fix by:
+   - Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting
+   - Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found
+   - Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior
+
+Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.
+
+Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.
+```
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**❌ Too broad:** "Fix all the tests" - agent gets lost
+**✅ Specific:** "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts" - focused scope
+
+**❌ No context:** "Fix the race condition" - agent doesn't know where
+**✅ Context:** Paste the error messages and test names
+
+**❌ No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything
+**✅ Constraints:** "Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only"
+
+**❌ Vague output:** "Fix it" - you don't know what changed
+**✅ Specific:** "Return summary of root cause and changes"
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+**Related failures:** Fixing one might fix others - investigate together first
+**Need full context:** Understanding requires seeing entire system
+**Exploratory debugging:** You don't know what's broken yet
+**Shared state:** Agents would interfere (editing same files, using same resources)
+
+## Real Example from Session
+
+**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring
+
+**Failures:**
+- agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)
+- batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)
+- tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)
+
+**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions
+
+**Dispatch:**
+```
+Agent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts
+Agent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts
+Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts
+```
+
+**Results:**
+- Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting
+- Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)
+- Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete
+
+**Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green
+
+## Verification
+
+After agents return:
+1. **Review each summary** - Understand what changed
+2. **Check for conflicts** - Did agents edit same code?
+3. **Run full suite** - Verify all fixes work together
+4. **Spot check** - Agents can make systematic errors

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-executing-plans/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Jesse Vincent
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/assets/skills/workflow/agemon-executing-plans/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# Vendored skill
+
+- Source: https://github.com/obra/superpowers
+- Path in source: skills/executing-plans
+- Commit: 22f0b463e7a5e579904dd6211a520321035526f7
+- Retrieved: 2026-11-05
+- License: MIT — see `LICENSE` in this directory.
+
+## agemon modifications
+
+- Renamed from `executing-plans` to `agemon-executing-plans`, and updated references to upstream's other skills to their agemon names (`systematic-debugging` is `agemon-root-cause`, `verification-before-completion` is `agemon-verify-before-done`, both in the `self-review` group).
+- Moved working files from `.superpowers/` to `.agemon-workflow/` and documents from `docs/superpowers/` to `docs/`.
+- One of several skills cherry-picked from the superpowers framework; its `using-superpowers` bootstrap and session hook are not vendored, so nothing forces these skills to load.
+- Removed the pointer to upstream's per-platform references, which are not vendored.
+- Points at `code-reviewer.md` in `agemon-subagent-driven-development`.