Goal: Refactor visual brainstorming from blocking TUI feedback model to non-blocking "Browser Displays, Terminal Commands" architecture. Architecture: Browser becomes an interactive display; terminal stays the conversation channel.

--- name: using-git-worktrees description: Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback --- Ensure work happens in an isolated workspace. Prefer your platform's native worktree tools.

Goal: Make using-git-worktrees, finishing-a-development-branch, and related skills work in the Codex App's sandboxed worktree environment without breaking existing behavior. Architecture: Read-only environment detection (git-dir vs git-common-dir) at the start of two skills.

Date: 2025-11-22 Author: Bot & Jesse Status: Design Complete, Awaiting Implementation Add full superpowers support for OpenCode.ai using a native OpenCode plugin architecture that shares core functionality with the existing Codex implementation. OpenCode.ai is a coding agent similar to Claude Code and Codex.

Claude Code plugins need hooks that work on Windows, macOS, and Linux. This document describes the single generic dispatcher pattern used in hooks/run-hook.cmd.

--- name: systematic-debugging description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes --- Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.

Date: 2026-06-10 Status: Draft for Drew review Fix the security and reliability gaps found in PR #1720's brainstorming visual companion without changing the companion's core workflow or adding runtime dependencies. The fixes must be test-first and must leave clear automated evidence for: The companion serves agent-generated local UI for a single brainstorming session.

Status: Approved design (brainstormed with Jesse 2026-07-15); implementation plan to follow. Objective: make the subagent-driven-development skill's review-fix loop convergent and autonomous, and make the document readable, without rewriting its eval-tuned language.

Status: Proposed (follow-up to the 2026-06-09 SDD review-dispatch work; separate PR per the one-problem-per-PR rule) Driver: Measured evidence (2026-06-10) that some negative instructions in skill prose backfire, while others work — and that the difference is predictable. Micro-tests on 2026-06-10 (opus, 5 reps per phrasing, programmatic scoring; harness described below) measured how guidance phrasing changes what a controller composes: |---|---|---| The doctrine (use this to

--- name: test-driven-development description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code --- Write the test first. Core principle: If you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know if it tests the right thing.