feat(directives): scavenge superpowers plugin (finishing-a-development-branch, verification-before-completion, writing-plans): 5 directives

conductor/directives/evidence_before_completion_claims/meta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+# evidence_before_completion_claims
+
+## v1
+
+**Why this iteration:** Lifted from the global OpenCode superpowers plugin (obra/superpowers) — `skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md`. The directive encodes the Iron Law (lines 17-21 "NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE") plus the Gate Function (lines 24-37) and the Red Flags list. Counterweight to the LLM's training-data bias toward "should pass now" / "looks good" / "I think it's done" — premature satisfaction expressions that ship broken work to user debugging.
+**Source:** superpowers plugin `skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md:17-37` (Iron Law + Gate Function)
+
+**Lifted:** 2026-07-04 (scavenge sweep: superpowers plugin directives)

conductor/directives/evidence_before_completion_claims/v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# No completion claims without fresh verification evidence — "should work" / "looks good" / "probably fine" are lies, not hedges
+
+## The iron law
+
+The agent NEVER claims a test passes, a build succeeds, a bug is fixed, or a task is complete without having run the verification command in the SAME message and observed the output. "Should work now" / "Looks correct" / "Probably fine" / "I think it works" all count as making claims without evidence. The agent does not get to hedge its way past verification.
+
+Per `skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md:17-37` (The Iron Law + Gate Function):
+
+> ```
+> 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
+> ```
+
+## Why
+
+The agent's training data biases toward agreement: if the user asks "is it done?", the agent says "yes" because the conversation feels complete and the tests "should" pass. This is dishonest. The user trusts the agent's word; the agent's word is built on a guess; the guess is wrong N% of the time; the user discovers the failure at the worst moment.
+
+The verification requirement is also a forcing function against premature "Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!" — satisfaction expressions before evidence. Per `skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md:55-56` (Red Flags): "Expressing satisfaction before verification ('Great!', 'Perfect!', 'Done!', etc.)" is a STOP signal.
+
+## What this means in practice
+
+- Every test claim is preceded by a test run in the same message. The user can see the `[34/34 pass]` output immediately before the claim.
+- Every build claim is preceded by the build command's exit code. The exit code is the evidence, not the agent's belief.
+- Every "fixed" claim is preceded by running the original symptom (not just the new code's own tests). The symptom may be a test or a manual repro.
+- The agent does NOT aggregate ("all looks good") when the verification command output is ambiguous. Ambiguous = verify again, or run a more specific check.
+- "I think it's done" is NEVER a valid answer. Either the verification output is in the message (and the claim follows) or the message says "I have not yet verified; running the check now" and the next message contains the evidence.
+- This directive applies to ALL completion claims: agent → user, agent → another agent, agent → commit message ("fixed: closes #123" requires the test run, not just the code change).