create-agentic-app 1.1.53 → 1.1.55

package/template/.agents/skills/using-superpowers/SKILL.md

@@ -1,117 +0,0 @@
----
-name: using-superpowers
-description: Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring Skill tool invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions
----
-
-<SUBAGENT-STOP>
-If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill.
-</SUBAGENT-STOP>
-
-<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
-If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to what you are doing, you ABSOLUTELY MUST invoke the skill.
-
-IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.
-
-This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this.
-</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
-
-## Instruction Priority
-
-Superpowers skills override default system prompt behavior, but **user instructions always take precedence**:
-
-1. **User's explicit instructions** (CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, AGENTS.md, direct requests) — highest priority
-2. **Superpowers skills** — override default system behavior where they conflict
-3. **Default system prompt** — lowest priority
-
-If CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, or AGENTS.md says "don't use TDD" and a skill says "always use TDD," follow the user's instructions. The user is in control.
-
-## How to Access Skills
-
-**In Claude Code:** Use the `Skill` tool. When you invoke a skill, its content is loaded and presented to you—follow it directly. Never use the Read tool on skill files.
-
-**In Copilot CLI:** Use the `skill` tool. Skills are auto-discovered from installed plugins. The `skill` tool works the same as Claude Code's `Skill` tool.
-
-**In Gemini CLI:** Skills activate via the `activate_skill` tool. Gemini loads skill metadata at session start and activates the full content on demand.
-
-**In other environments:** Check your platform's documentation for how skills are loaded.
-
-## Platform Adaptation
-
-Skills use Claude Code tool names. Non-CC platforms: see `references/copilot-tools.md` (Copilot CLI), `references/codex-tools.md` (Codex) for tool equivalents. Gemini CLI users get the tool mapping loaded automatically via GEMINI.md.
-
-# Using Skills
-
-## The Rule
-
-**Invoke relevant or requested skills BEFORE any response or action.** Even a 1% chance a skill might apply means that you should invoke the skill to check. If an invoked skill turns out to be wrong for the situation, you don't need to use it.
-
-```dot
-digraph skill_flow {
-    "User message received" [shape=doublecircle];
-    "About to EnterPlanMode?" [shape=doublecircle];
-    "Already brainstormed?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Invoke brainstorming skill" [shape=box];
-    "Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Invoke Skill tool" [shape=box];
-    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box];
-    "Has checklist?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [shape=box];
-    "Follow skill exactly" [shape=box];
-    "Respond (including clarifications)" [shape=doublecircle];
-
-    "About to EnterPlanMode?" -> "Already brainstormed?";
-    "Already brainstormed?" -> "Invoke brainstorming skill" [label="no"];
-    "Already brainstormed?" -> "Might any skill apply?" [label="yes"];
-    "Invoke brainstorming skill" -> "Might any skill apply?";
-
-    "User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?";
-    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke Skill tool" [label="yes, even 1%"];
-    "Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"];
-    "Invoke Skill tool" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
-    "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?";
-    "Has checklist?" -> "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [label="yes"];
-    "Has checklist?" -> "Follow skill exactly" [label="no"];
-    "Create TodoWrite todo per item" -> "Follow skill exactly";
-}
-```
-
-## Red Flags
-
-These thoughts mean STOP—you're rationalizing:
-
-| Thought | Reality |
-|---------|---------|
-| "This is just a simple question" | Questions are tasks. Check for skills. |
-| "I need more context first" | Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions. |
-| "Let me explore the codebase first" | Skills tell you HOW to explore. Check first. |
-| "I can check git/files quickly" | Files lack conversation context. Check for skills. |
-| "Let me gather information first" | Skills tell you HOW to gather information. |
-| "This doesn't need a formal skill" | If a skill exists, use it. |
-| "I remember this skill" | Skills evolve. Read current version. |
-| "This doesn't count as a task" | Action = task. Check for skills. |
-| "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. |
-| "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. |
-| "This feels productive" | Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this. |
-| "I know what that means" | Knowing the concept ≠ using the skill. Invoke it. |
-
-## Skill Priority
-
-When multiple skills could apply, use this order:
-
-1. **Process skills first** (brainstorming, debugging) - these determine HOW to approach the task
-2. **Implementation skills second** (frontend-design, mcp-builder) - these guide execution
-
-"Let's build X" → brainstorming first, then implementation skills.
-"Fix this bug" → debugging first, then domain-specific skills.
-
-## Skill Types
-
-**Rigid** (TDD, debugging): Follow exactly. Don't adapt away discipline.
-
-**Flexible** (patterns): Adapt principles to context.
-
-The skill itself tells you which.
-
-## User Instructions
-
-Instructions say WHAT, not HOW. "Add X" or "Fix Y" doesn't mean skip workflows.

package/template/.agents/skills/using-superpowers/references/codex-tools.md

@@ -1,100 +0,0 @@
-# Codex Tool Mapping
-
-Skills use Claude Code tool names. When you encounter these in a skill, use your platform equivalent:
-
-| Skill references | Codex equivalent |
-|-----------------|------------------|
-| `Task` tool (dispatch subagent) | `spawn_agent` (see [Named agent dispatch](#named-agent-dispatch)) |
-| Multiple `Task` calls (parallel) | Multiple `spawn_agent` calls |
-| Task returns result | `wait` |
-| Task completes automatically | `close_agent` to free slot |
-| `TodoWrite` (task tracking) | `update_plan` |
-| `Skill` tool (invoke a skill) | Skills load natively — just follow the instructions |
-| `Read`, `Write`, `Edit` (files) | Use your native file tools |
-| `Bash` (run commands) | Use your native shell tools |
-
-## Subagent dispatch requires multi-agent support
-
-Add to your Codex config (`~/.codex/config.toml`):
-
-```toml
-[features]
-multi_agent = true
-```
-
-This enables `spawn_agent`, `wait`, and `close_agent` for skills like `dispatching-parallel-agents` and `subagent-driven-development`.
-
-## Named agent dispatch
-
-Claude Code skills reference named agent types like `superpowers:code-reviewer`.
-Codex does not have a named agent registry — `spawn_agent` creates generic agents
-from built-in roles (`default`, `explorer`, `worker`).
-
-When a skill says to dispatch a named agent type:
-
-1. Find the agent's prompt file (e.g., `agents/code-reviewer.md` or the skill's
-   local prompt template like `code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md`)
-2. Read the prompt content
-3. Fill any template placeholders (`{BASE_SHA}`, `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}`, etc.)
-4. Spawn a `worker` agent with the filled content as the `message`
-
-| Skill instruction | Codex equivalent |
-|-------------------|------------------|
-| `Task tool (superpowers:code-reviewer)` | `spawn_agent(agent_type="worker", message=...)` with `code-reviewer.md` content |
-| `Task tool (general-purpose)` with inline prompt | `spawn_agent(message=...)` with the same prompt |
-
-### Message framing
-
-The `message` parameter is user-level input, not a system prompt. Structure it
-for maximum instruction adherence:
-
-```
-Your task is to perform the following. Follow the instructions below exactly.
-
-<agent-instructions>
-[filled prompt content from the agent's .md file]
-</agent-instructions>
-
-Execute this now. Output ONLY the structured response following the format
-specified in the instructions above.
-```
-
-- Use task-delegation framing ("Your task is...") rather than persona framing ("You are...")
-- Wrap instructions in XML tags — the model treats tagged blocks as authoritative
-- End with an explicit execution directive to prevent summarization of the instructions
-
-### When this workaround can be removed
-
-This approach compensates for Codex's plugin system not yet supporting an `agents`
-field in `plugin.json`. When `RawPluginManifest` gains an `agents` field, the
-plugin can symlink to `agents/` (mirroring the existing `skills/` symlink) and
-skills can dispatch named agent types directly.
-
-## Environment Detection
-
-Skills that create worktrees or finish branches should detect their
-environment with read-only git commands before proceeding:
-
-```bash
-GIT_DIR=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
-GIT_COMMON=$(cd "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)" 2>/dev/null && pwd -P)
-BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
-```
-
-- `GIT_DIR != GIT_COMMON` → already in a linked worktree (skip creation)
-- `BRANCH` empty → detached HEAD (cannot branch/push/PR from sandbox)
-
-See `using-git-worktrees` Step 0 and `finishing-a-development-branch`
-Step 1 for how each skill uses these signals.
-
-## Codex App Finishing
-
-When the sandbox blocks branch/push operations (detached HEAD in an
-externally managed worktree), the agent commits all work and informs
-the user to use the App's native controls:
-
-- **"Create branch"** — names the branch, then commit/push/PR via App UI
-- **"Hand off to local"** — transfers work to the user's local checkout
-
-The agent can still run tests, stage files, and output suggested branch
-names, commit messages, and PR descriptions for the user to copy.

package/template/.agents/skills/using-superpowers/references/copilot-tools.md

@@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
-# Copilot CLI Tool Mapping
-
-Skills use Claude Code tool names. When you encounter these in a skill, use your platform equivalent:
-
-| Skill references | Copilot CLI equivalent |
-|-----------------|----------------------|
-| `Read` (file reading) | `view` |
-| `Write` (file creation) | `create` |
-| `Edit` (file editing) | `edit` |
-| `Bash` (run commands) | `bash` |
-| `Grep` (search file content) | `grep` |
-| `Glob` (search files by name) | `glob` |
-| `Skill` tool (invoke a skill) | `skill` |
-| `WebFetch` | `web_fetch` |
-| `Task` tool (dispatch subagent) | `task` (see [Agent types](#agent-types)) |
-| Multiple `Task` calls (parallel) | Multiple `task` calls |
-| Task status/output | `read_agent`, `list_agents` |
-| `TodoWrite` (task tracking) | `sql` with built-in `todos` table |
-| `WebSearch` | No equivalent — use `web_fetch` with a search engine URL |
-| `EnterPlanMode` / `ExitPlanMode` | No equivalent — stay in the main session |
-
-## Agent types
-
-Copilot CLI's `task` tool accepts an `agent_type` parameter:
-
-| Claude Code agent | Copilot CLI equivalent |
-|-------------------|----------------------|
-| `general-purpose` | `"general-purpose"` |
-| `Explore` | `"explore"` |
-| Named plugin agents (e.g. `superpowers:code-reviewer`) | Discovered automatically from installed plugins |
-
-## Async shell sessions
-
-Copilot CLI supports persistent async shell sessions, which have no direct Claude Code equivalent:
-
-| Tool | Purpose |
-|------|---------|
-| `bash` with `async: true` | Start a long-running command in the background |
-| `write_bash` | Send input to a running async session |
-| `read_bash` | Read output from an async session |
-| `stop_bash` | Terminate an async session |
-| `list_bash` | List all active shell sessions |
-
-## Additional Copilot CLI tools
-
-| Tool | Purpose |
-|------|---------|
-| `store_memory` | Persist facts about the codebase for future sessions |
-| `report_intent` | Update the UI status line with current intent |
-| `sql` | Query the session's SQLite database (todos, metadata) |
-| `fetch_copilot_cli_documentation` | Look up Copilot CLI documentation |
-| GitHub MCP tools (`github-mcp-server-*`) | Native GitHub API access (issues, PRs, code search) |

package/template/.agents/skills/using-superpowers/references/gemini-tools.md

@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
-# Gemini CLI Tool Mapping
-
-Skills use Claude Code tool names. When you encounter these in a skill, use your platform equivalent:
-
-| Skill references | Gemini CLI equivalent |
-|-----------------|----------------------|
-| `Read` (file reading) | `read_file` |
-| `Write` (file creation) | `write_file` |
-| `Edit` (file editing) | `replace` |
-| `Bash` (run commands) | `run_shell_command` |
-| `Grep` (search file content) | `grep_search` |
-| `Glob` (search files by name) | `glob` |
-| `TodoWrite` (task tracking) | `write_todos` |
-| `Skill` tool (invoke a skill) | `activate_skill` |
-| `WebSearch` | `google_web_search` |
-| `WebFetch` | `web_fetch` |
-| `Task` tool (dispatch subagent) | No equivalent — Gemini CLI does not support subagents |
-
-## No subagent support
-
-Gemini CLI has no equivalent to Claude Code's `Task` tool. Skills that rely on subagent dispatch (`subagent-driven-development`, `dispatching-parallel-agents`) will fall back to single-session execution via `executing-plans`.
-
-## Additional Gemini CLI tools
-
-These tools are available in Gemini CLI but have no Claude Code equivalent:
-
-| Tool | Purpose |
-|------|---------|
-| `list_directory` | List files and subdirectories |
-| `save_memory` | Persist facts to GEMINI.md across sessions |
-| `ask_user` | Request structured input from the user |
-| `tracker_create_task` | Rich task management (create, update, list, visualize) |
-| `enter_plan_mode` / `exit_plan_mode` | Switch to read-only research mode before making changes |

package/template/.agents/skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
----
-name: verification-before-completion
-description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
----
-
-# Verification Before Completion
-
-## Overview
-
-Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
-
-**Core principle:** Evidence before claims, always.
-
-**Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.**
-
-## The Iron Law
-
-```
-NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
-```
-
-If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
-
-## The Gate Function
-
-```
-BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
-
-1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
-2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
-3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
-4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
-   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
-   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
-5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
-
-Skip any step = lying, not verifying
-```
-
-## Common Failures
-
-| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
-|-------|----------|----------------|
-| Tests pass | Test command output: 0 failures | Previous run, "should pass" |
-| Linter clean | Linter output: 0 errors | Partial check, extrapolation |
-| Build succeeds | Build command: exit 0 | Linter passing, logs look good |
-| Bug fixed | Test original symptom: passes | Code changed, assumed fixed |
-| Regression test works | Red-green cycle verified | Test passes once |
-| Agent completed | VCS diff shows changes | Agent reports "success" |
-| Requirements met | Line-by-line checklist | Tests passing |
-
-## Red Flags - STOP
-
-- Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
-- Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
-- About to commit/push/PR without verification
-- Trusting agent success reports
-- Relying on partial verification
-- Thinking "just this once"
-- Tired and wanting work over
-- **ANY wording implying success without having run verification**
-
-## Rationalization Prevention
-
-| Excuse | Reality |
-|--------|---------|
-| "Should work now" | RUN the verification |
-| "I'm confident" | Confidence ≠ evidence |
-| "Just this once" | No exceptions |
-| "Linter passed" | Linter ≠ compiler |
-| "Agent said success" | Verify independently |
-| "I'm tired" | Exhaustion ≠ excuse |
-| "Partial check is enough" | Partial proves nothing |
-| "Different words so rule doesn't apply" | Spirit over letter |
-
-## Key Patterns
-
-**Tests:**
-```
-✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
-❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"
-```
-
-**Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):**
-```
-✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
-❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)
-```
-
-**Build:**
-```
-✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
-❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)
-```
-
-**Requirements:**
-```
-✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
-❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"
-```
-
-**Agent delegation:**
-```
-✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
-❌ Trust agent report
-```
-
-## Why This Matters
-
-From 24 failure memories:
-- your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
-- Undefined functions shipped - would crash
-- Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
-- Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
-- Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."
-
-## When To Apply
-
-**ALWAYS before:**
-- ANY variation of success/completion claims
-- ANY expression of satisfaction
-- ANY positive statement about work state
-- Committing, PR creation, task completion
-- Moving to next task
-- Delegating to agents
-
-**Rule applies to:**
-- Exact phrases
-- Paraphrases and synonyms
-- Implications of success
-- ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness
-
-## The Bottom Line
-
-**No shortcuts for verification.**
-
-Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.
-
-This is non-negotiable.

package/template/.agents/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -1,152 +0,0 @@
----
-name: writing-plans
-description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code
----
-
-# Writing Plans
-
-## Overview
-
-Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
-
-Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
-
-**Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
-
-**Context:** This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
-
-**Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
-- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
-
-## Scope Check
-
-If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
-
-## File Structure
-
-Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
-
-- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
-- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
-- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
-- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
-
-This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
-
-## Bite-Sized Task Granularity
-
-**Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):**
-- "Write the failing test" - step
-- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
-- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
-- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
-- "Commit" - step
-
-## Plan Document Header
-
-**Every plan MUST start with this header:**
-
-```markdown
-# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
-
-> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
-
-**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
-
-**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
-
-**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
-
----
-```
-
-## Task Structure
-
-````markdown
-### Task N: [Component Name]
-
-**Files:**
-- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
-- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
-- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
-
-- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing test**
-
-```python
-def test_specific_behavior():
-    result = function(input)
-    assert result == expected
-```
-
-- [ ] **Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
-
-Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
-Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
-
-- [ ] **Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
-
-```python
-def function(input):
-    return expected
-```
-
-- [ ] **Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
-
-Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
-Expected: PASS
-
-- [ ] **Step 5: Commit**
-
-```bash
-git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
-git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
-```
-````
-
-## No Placeholders
-
-Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are **plan failures** — never write them:
-- "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
-- "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
-- "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
-- "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
-- Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
-- References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task
-
-## Remember
-- Exact file paths always
-- Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
-- Exact commands with expected output
-- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
-
-## Self-Review
-
-After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.
-
-**1. Spec coverage:** Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.
-
-**2. Placeholder scan:** Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.
-
-**3. Type consistency:** Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called `clearLayers()` in Task 3 but `clearFullLayers()` in Task 7 is a bug.
-
-If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.
-
-## Execution Handoff
-
-After saving the plan, offer execution choice:
-
-**"Plan complete and saved to `docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md`. Two execution options:**
-
-**1. Subagent-Driven (recommended)** - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
-
-**2. Inline Execution** - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
-
-**Which approach?"**
-
-**If Subagent-Driven chosen:**
-- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
-- Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review
-
-**If Inline Execution chosen:**
-- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use superpowers:executing-plans
-- Batch execution with checkpoints for review

package/template/.agents/skills/writing-plans/plan-document-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
-# Plan Document Reviewer Prompt Template
-
-Use this template when dispatching a plan document reviewer subagent.
-
-**Purpose:** Verify the plan is complete, matches the spec, and has proper task decomposition.
-
-**Dispatch after:** The complete plan is written.
-
-```
-Task tool (general-purpose):
-  description: "Review plan document"
-  prompt: |
-    You are a plan document reviewer. Verify this plan is complete and ready for implementation.
-
-    **Plan to review:** [PLAN_FILE_PATH]
-    **Spec for reference:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]
-
-    ## What to Check
-
-    | Category | What to Look For |
-    |----------|------------------|
-    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, incomplete tasks, missing steps |
-    | Spec Alignment | Plan covers spec requirements, no major scope creep |
-    | Task Decomposition | Tasks have clear boundaries, steps are actionable |
-    | Buildability | Could an engineer follow this plan without getting stuck? |
-
-    ## Calibration
-
-    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation.**
-    An implementer building the wrong thing or getting stuck is an issue.
-    Minor wording, stylistic preferences, and "nice to have" suggestions are not.
-
-    Approve unless there are serious gaps — missing requirements from the spec,
-    contradictory steps, placeholder content, or tasks so vague they can't be acted on.
-
-    ## Output Format
-
-    ## Plan Review
-
-    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found
-
-    **Issues (if any):**
-    - [Task X, Step Y]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for implementation]
-
-    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
-    - [suggestions for improvement]
-```
-
-**Reviewer returns:** Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations

package/template/.claude/commands/checkpoint.md

@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Create commit with detailed comment
----
-
-Please create a comprehensive checkpoint commit with the following steps:
-
-1. **Initialize Git if needed**: Run `git init` if git has not been instantiated for the project yet.
-
-2. **Analyze all changes**:
-   - Run `git status` to see all tracked and untracked files
-   - Run `git diff` to see detailed changes in tracked files
-   - Run `git log -5 --oneline` to understand the commit message style of this repository
-
-3. **Stage everything**:
-   - Add ALL tracked changes (modified and deleted files)
-   - Add ALL untracked files (new files)
-   - Use `git add -A` or `git add .` to stage everything
-
-4. **Create a detailed commit message**:
-   - **First line**: Write a clear, concise summary (50-72 chars) describing the primary change
-     - Use imperative mood (e.g., "Add feature" not "Added feature")
-     - Examples: "feat: add user authentication", "fix: resolve database connection issue", "refactor: improve API route structure"
-   - **Body**: Provide a detailed description including:
-     - What changes were made (list of key modifications)
-     - Why these changes were made (purpose/motivation)
-     - Any important technical details or decisions
-     - Breaking changes or migration notes if applicable
-   - **Footer**: Include co-author attribution as shown in the Git Safety Protocol
-
-5. **Execute the commit**: Create the commit with the properly formatted message following this repository's conventions.
-
-IMPORTANT:
-
-- Do NOT skip any files - include everything
-- Make the commit message descriptive enough that someone reviewing the git log can understand what was accomplished
-- Follow the project's existing commit message conventions (check git log first)
-- Include the Claude Code co-author attribution in the commit message