feat(directives): scavenge superpowers plugin (using-superpowers, brainstorming, dispatching-parallel-agents, executing-plans): 6 directives

conductor/directives/design_leads_with_recommendation/meta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+# design_leads_with_recommendation
+
+## v1
+
+**Why this iteration:** Lifted from the global OpenCode superpowers plugin (obra/superpowers) — `skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md`. The directive encodes the "lead with your recommended option and explain why" rule from the Exploring Approaches section. Counterweight to the LLM default of presenting neutral option-lists that abdicate the decision.
+**Source:** superpowers plugin `skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md:82-84` (Exploring approaches, "Lead with your recommended option and explain why")
+
+**Lifted:** 2026-07-04 (scavenge sweep: superpowers plugin directives)

conductor/directives/design_leads_with_recommendation/v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Brainstorming designs must lead with a recommended approach plus the reasoning — never present 2-3 unranked options and ask the user to pick
+
+## The rule
+
+When proposing brainstorming approaches, the agent presents 2-3 alternatives with trade-offs, BUT leads the presentation with the recommended option and an explicit "why this is best" rationale. The user can override, but the agent's first sentence is the recommendation, not a list of choices.
+
+Per `skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md:82-84`:
+
+> **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**
+
+## Why
+
+A neutral "here are three options" presentation puts the decision weight on the user, who has less context than the agent. The agent's job is to make the call and explain the reasoning. The user can reject the recommendation, but starting from a list of unranked options forces them to reconstruct the trade-off analysis the agent already did.
+
+An unranked list also reads as indecisive — the agent appears unsure, which the user reads as "this is risky." A clear recommendation with reasoning reads as "here is what I would do and why you might disagree."
+
+## What this means in practice
+
+- First sentence of any approach comparison: "I recommend X, because Y."
+- The 2-3 alternatives come AFTER the recommendation, not before.
+- "What would you like to do?" with no recommendation is forbidden.
+- The agent states its confidence and the residual risks in the recommendation, not just the upside.
+- If new context invalidates the recommendation, the agent RE-states the recommendation with the new information; it does not silently switch to a hedge.