ed/manual_slop
Private
Public Access
0
0
Fork 0
Code Activity

docs(session): add SESSION_REPORT_superpowers_review_init_20260619.md (3 commits, 1 track parked)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Edward R. Gonzalez
2026-06-19 20:45:11 -04:00
parent ac24b2f615
commit 7a973ae319
1 changed files with 201 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/reports/SESSION_REPORT_superpowers_review_init_20260619.md
+201
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
# Session Report: Superpowers Skills Review — Track Initialization (2026-06-19)
**Date:** 2026-06-19
**Total commits:** 3 (spec + 1 fix + plan)
**Tracks planned:** 1 (`superpowers_review_20260619`)
**Tracks shipped:** 0
**Doc updates:** 0 (no project-level docs touched; only the new track's own artifacts)
**Process rules added:** 0 (followed existing conventions; the HARD BAN on day estimates + the Tier 1 5-question clarifying-question protocol + the verdict-block template are pre-existing)
---
## Scope executed
This session initialized a new research-only track (`superpowers_review_20260619`) that will review the 14 superpowers-plugin skills against Manual Slop's existing AI-directive corpus. The session was a single continuous brainstorming → spec → plan workflow with the user. No production code changed.
1. **Brainstorming dialogue (5 questions)** — confirmed scope (Q1 = research-only + dual-convention + "anything else"), output location (Q4 = conductor convention), report structure (Q3 = nagent-style one section per skill, 16 sections total), and verdict taxonomy (Q5 = hybrid nagent-style primary + skill-integration secondary tag).
2. **Spec authoring** — wrote `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/spec.md` (319 lines, 10 sections) with full audit of existing state, scope boundaries, locked verdict vocabulary, and 12 verification criteria.
3. **Self-review of spec** — fixed one internal-consistency issue (Section 15 depth label "Medium-Large" → "Cluster" to match the verdict-block vocabulary). The fix was committed separately to keep the history atomic.
4. **Metadata + state authoring** — wrote `metadata.json` (~9 KB, structured per the project's metadata schema) and `state.toml` (~8 KB with `current_phase=0`, 10 phases, 35 task entries, all 8 user_directives logged).
5. **Plan authoring** — wrote `plan.md` (1,251 lines, 10 phases, 35 tasks, 34 atomic commits) with bite-sized 2-5 minute steps per the writing-plans skill convention. Each section task follows the same pattern: read superpowers skill source → read project file refs → draft section content with verdict block → self-review → commit with git note.
---
## What was built
### The track: `superpowers_review_20260619`
A research-only track that produces a reference document the user will read **alongside** `nagent_review_20260608`, `fable_review_20260617`, and `intent_dsl_survey_20260612` — the 4-track meta-analysis corpus the user has been building since 2026-06-08.
### New files (4)
| File | Size | Lines | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/spec.md` | ~30 KB | 319 | Track design intent (10 sections, 12 VCs, 8 risks, 10 phases) |
| `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/metadata.json` | ~9 KB | (JSON) | Track metadata, verdict taxonomy, scope, risks, user_directives |
| `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/state.toml` | ~8 KB | (TOML) | Track state (`current_phase=0`, 10 phases, 35 tasks, 12 verification flags) |
| `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/plan.md` | ~50 KB | 1,251 | Implementation plan (10 phases, 35 tasks, 34 atomic commits) |
### Modified files (0)
No project-level files modified. No `src/`, `tests/`, `AGENTS.md`, `conductor/*.md`, `.opencode/agents/*.md`, `.opencode/commands/*.md`, `conductor/code_styleguides/*.md`, or `scripts/audit_*.py` files were touched.
### Track registration
The track is **NOT** registered in `conductor/tracks.md` "Active Tracks" table. Registration happens in Phase 1 Task 3 of the plan, which doesn't execute until `chronology_20260619` ships. The track sits as `status="active"` / `current_phase=0` in its own folder, blocked by chronology per the user's directive.
---
## The 5 design decisions (logged in `state.toml` user_directives_logged)
| # | Question | User choice | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Track type? | A. Research-only | No `src/`, `tests/`, or agent-directive changes. Recommendations go in `decisions.md` for the user's deferred rebuild. |
| Q2 | (n/a — implied by Q1) | (A = research-only) | The actual conservative changes become follow-up tracks. |
| Q3 | Report structure? | A. nagent-style: one section per skill (16 sections) | 14 superpowers-plugin skills + 1 MMA cluster + 1 dual-convention/anything-else. Single-author (Tier 1); no parallel sub-agent dispatch. |
| Q4 | Output file location? | A. Conductor convention | All artifacts at `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/`. No `docs/superpowers/specs/` usage. |
| Q5 | Verdict taxonomy? | C. Hybrid: primary nagent-style + secondary integration tag | Primary: `PARITY` / `PARTIAL` / `GAP` / `ARCH-DIFF` / `SUBSUMED`. Integration tag: `INTEGRATED` / `INTEGRATE-PARTIAL` / `INTEGRATE` / `REJECT-WITH-REASON` / `N/A`. |
The user's framing (2026-06-19, logged in `state.toml`):
> "conservative changes incrementally to improve AI performance and quality standards of output. I'm not after speed, pure discipline, high grade inference, good tool use, and careful text generation."
This frames the review's lens: *AI quality* (discipline + inference + tool use + text generation), not AI speed.
---
## The 16 sections of the future `report.md`
| # | Section | Skill/topic | Depth |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Using Superpowers | `using-superpowers` | Brief (50-100 LOC) |
| 2 | Brainstorming | `brainstorming` | Deep-dive (200-400 LOC) |
| 3 | Writing Plans | `writing-plans` | Deep-dive (200-400 LOC) |
| 4 | Test-Driven Development | `test-driven-development` | Deep-dive (200-400 LOC) |
| 5 | Verification Before Completion | `verification-before-completion` | Deep-dive (200-400 LOC) |
| 6 | Systematic Debugging | `systematic-debugging` | Deep-dive (200-400 LOC) |
| 7 | Subagent-Driven Development | `subagent-driven-development` | Deep-dive (200-400 LOC) |
| 8 | Executing Plans | `executing-plans` | Medium (100-250 LOC) |
| 9 | Dispatching Parallel Agents | `dispatching-parallel-agents` | Brief (50-150 LOC) |
| 10 | Receiving Code Review | `receiving-code-review` | Medium (100-250 LOC) |
| 11 | Requesting Code Review | `requesting-code-review` | Brief (50-150 LOC) |
| 12 | Finishing a Development Branch | `finishing-a-development-branch` | Brief (50-150 LOC) |
| 13 | Using Git Worktrees | `using-git-worktrees` | Brief (50-150 LOC) |
| 14 | Writing Skills | `writing-skills` | Medium (100-250 LOC) |
| 15 | MMA Skills Cluster | All 5 project MMA skills | Cluster (300-500 LOC; 5 sub-sections, each with its own verdict block) |
| 16 | Dual-Convention + Anything Else | Cross-cutting | Medium (200-400 LOC; one paragraph per finding) |
**Total report scope:** ~2,800-4,500 LOC across 16 sections. Plus 3 side artifacts (`comparison_table.md` 20 rows, `decisions.md` 15-25 entries, `nagent_takeaways_superpowers_20260619.md` ~150 LOC bridge).
---
## Hybrid verdict block template (locked in `spec.md` §3.2)
Every section ends with this block (verbatim):
```markdown
**Verdict.**
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| **Primary** | `<PARITY | PARTIAL | GAP | ARCH-DIFF | SUBSUMED>` |
| **Integration tag** | `<INTEGRATED | INTEGRATE-PARTIAL | INTEGRATE | REJECT-WITH-REASON | N/A>` |
| **Section size** | `<brief | medium | deep-dive | cluster>` |
| **Cross-refs** | `<nagent_review_20260608 §X.Y, fable_review_20260617 §X.Y, intent_dsl_survey_20260612 §X.Y>` (if any; "none" if N/A) |
**Rationale.** [1-3 sentences.]
**Recommended change.** [1 sentence if INTEGRATE or INTEGRATE-PARTIAL; 1 sentence with reason if REJECT-WITH-REASON; blank otherwise.]
```
This template is the unit of actionability. The user uses the verdicts to plan the deferred rebuild.
---
## Critical findings (this session's most important discoveries)
1. **The dual-convention problem is concrete and quantified.** `docs/superpowers/specs/` has 20 files; `docs/superpowers/plans/` has 21 files. These co-exist with `conductor/tracks/<id>/spec.md` + `plan.md`. Some tracks in `conductor/tracks.md` reference the superpowers convention (e.g., the UI Polish track, the Multi-Theme TOML System track); others reference the conductor convention. The user explicitly chose to keep the conductor convention for this track (Q4 = A); Section 16 of the future `report.md` will survey the situation and present 3 options for the deferred rebuild.
2. **The superpowers plugin has 14 skills, of which 5 are "foundational" (briefer verdicts) and 9 are "deep-dive" candidates.** The plan's depth allocation (Section 1 + 13 + 14 brief; Sections 2-7 deep-dive; Sections 8 + 10 + 14 medium; Section 15 cluster; Section 16 cross-cutting) reflects this. Estimated total report LOC: ~2,800-4,500.
3. **The project's existing `nagent_review` and `fable_review` are the precedents.** The hybrid verdict taxonomy borrows `PARITY` / `PARTIAL` / `GAP` / `ARCH-DIFF` / `SUBSUMED` from nagent_review's primary verdicts and adds a new integration tag axis. The single-author approach (vs. fable_review's 10 parallel cluster sub-agents) is appropriate here because the corpus is small (14 + 5 + 1 = 20 things to review).
4. **The chronology blocker is real.** `chronology_20260619` is at `current_phase=0` (spec written, no implementation yet). The cross-check (Phase 8 of the chronology track) will dominate its execution time. This track cannot start until chronology ships, which is why the user said "blocked_by chronology_20260619".
5. **The plan produces 34 atomic commits, not 21 as the spec estimated.** The spec's 21 was an idealized count (16 section commits + side-artifact batch + setup + finalize). The plan's 34 is more granular: each section is 1 commit + each phase has a state-only checkpoint commit + the 3 side artifacts + Section 0 (TL;DR) + 4 finalize commits. Both are correct under different definitions; the plan's 34 matches the project's per-file atomic convention strictly.
---
## State
- **Branch:** `master`
- **Commits this session:** 3 (8dce46ac + 888616be + 4fd79abc)
- **Track state:** `status="active"` / `current_phase=0`
- **Blocked by:** `chronology_20260619` (per user 2026-06-19 directive)
- **Test pass count:** unchanged (no tests run; this session was informational + planning + docs)
- **Pre-existing dirty files in working tree (NOT touched this session):** `config.toml`, `manual_slop_history.toml`, `manualslop_layout.ini`, `project.toml`, `workspace_profiles.toml` — same set flagged in prior session reports; out of scope per AGENTS.md "HARD BAN" rule (no `git restore` / `git checkout --` / `git reset` without explicit user permission).
### Git notes attached (per `conductor/workflow.md` §"Task Workflow" step 9.2)
| Commit | Git note content |
|---|---|
| `8dce46ac` (spec + metadata + state) | "Spec + metadata + state for superpowers_review_20260619. 16-section research-only track reviewing the 14 superpowers-plugin skills + 5 MMA skills + dual-convention problem. Hybrid verdict taxonomy (nagent-style primary + integration tag). Blocked by chronology_20260619. Sibling to nagent_review, fable_review, intent_dsl_survey. 21 atomic commits planned (Phases 1-10). No src/, tests/, or agent-directive changes; recommendations go in decisions.md for the user's deferred rebuild." |
| `888616be` (spec fix: Section 15 depth) | "Self-review fix: Section 15 depth column now uses 'Cluster' to match the verdict-block vocabulary in spec section 3.2 (brief \| medium \| deep-dive \| cluster). The 'Medium-Large' label was inconsistent; Cluster is the locked term." |
| `4fd79abc` (plan) | "Plan for superpowers_review_20260619. 10 phases, 35 tasks, 34 atomic commits. Single-author (Tier 1). Each section task follows the pattern: read superpowers skill source → read project file refs → draft section content with verdict block → self-review → commit with git note. Phase 7 fills in the 3 side-artifact skeletons from the report verdicts. Phase 8 is the brainstorming-skill self-review pass. Phase 9 is the user review gate. Phase 10 finalizes state.toml + tracks.md + metadata.json. No src/, tests/, or agent-directive changes; the report + side artifacts are the deliverable." |
---
## Followup recommendations (for the next session / Tier 2 / user)
1. **Do nothing right now.** The track is parked. The spec + plan are durable artifacts that will survive compaction. When chronology ships, the implementer (Tier 2 Tech Lead, or you in a future session) reads `plan.md`, walks Phase 1 Task 1 (create report.md skeleton), bumps `state.toml` to `current_phase=1`, and proceeds through the 35 tasks.
2. **When `chronology_20260619` ships, this track can start.** The plan's Phase 1 (setup) begins with creating 3 skeleton files (report.md, comparison_table.md, decisions.md, nagent_takeaways_superpowers_20260619.md) and registering the track in `conductor/tracks.md` Active Tracks table. Phase 2-6 author the 16 sections. Phase 7 fills in the side artifacts. Phase 8 is the brainstorming-skill self-review pass. Phase 9 is the user review gate. Phase 10 finalizes.
3. **When the deferred nagent-rebuild happens (your parallel future track):** this track's `decisions.md` is one of the inputs. The user explicitly framed this as "sibling" to `nagent_review_20260608`, `fable_review_20260617`, and `intent_dsl_survey_20260612` — the 4-track meta-analysis corpus the user has been building since 2026-06-08.
4. **If the user later wants to lift the chronology blocker:** explicitly edit `metadata.json` `blocked_by` to `[]` and `state.toml` `[blocked_by]` section. Then the track can start before chronology ships. (Not recommended — the dual-convention analysis in Section 16 benefits from the chronology work being done first.)
5. **For the next brainstorming-style session:** the user's Q1-Q5 clarifying-question protocol worked well. The 5 questions covered scope, location, structure, depth, and verdict taxonomy — the 5 axes that define a research-only track. This protocol is reusable for future Tier 1 planning sessions.
---
## See Also
### Internal references (this session's deliverables)
- `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/spec.md` — the design intent (319 lines)
- `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/plan.md` — the implementation plan (1,251 lines)
- `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/metadata.json` — the structured metadata
- `conductor/tracks/superpowers_review_20260619/state.toml` — the track state
### Sibling tracks (read for context, not modified)
- `conductor/tracks/chronology_20260619/` — the immediate predecessor; this track is `blocked_by` it
- `conductor/tracks/nagent_review_20260608/` — the primary precedent (verdict taxonomy + section structure)
- `conductor/tracks/fable_review_20260617/` — the secondary precedent (cluster + cross-cutting pattern)
- `conductor/tracks/intent_dsl_survey_20260612/` — the sibling reference track (named by user)
- `docs/reports/TRACK_COMPLETION_tier2_autonomous_sandbox_20260616.md` — the precedent for TRACK_COMPLETION format
- `docs/reports/SESSION_REPORT_20260616.md` — the precedent for SESSION_REPORT format (this report follows it)
### Architecture references
- `AGENTS.md` §"Critical Anti-Patterns" — the HARD BAN on day estimates (followed)
- `conductor/workflow.md` §"Tier 1 Track Initialization Rules" — the 5 rules followed
- `conductor/workflow.md` §"Tier 1 Track Initialization Protocol" — the protocol followed (audit, gaps, worker-ready tasks, root cause, architecture)
- `conductor/code_styleguides/error_handling.md` — the data-oriented error convention (applied to spec.md; not modified)
- `docs/guide_tier2_autonomous.md` — the Tier 2 autonomous sandbox guide (not used this session; this session is Tier 1 inline)
### External references
- `C:\Users\Ed\.cache\opencode\packages\superpowers@git+https_\github.com\obra\superpowers.git\node_modules\superpowers\skills\` — the 14 superpowers-plugin skills (the *subject* of the future report)
- `https://github.com/obra/superpowers` — the superpowers plugin source
- `https://github.com/macton/nagent` — Mike Acton's nagent reference (the primary precedent's source)
---
## Closing note
The session started with a single user request ("review the superpowers skills and write a report similar to nagent"). It grew into: a 5-question clarifying dialogue, a 319-line spec with locked verdict vocabulary, a 1,251-line implementation plan with 34 atomic commits, and 4 durable planning artifacts committed to git. **3 commits, 1 track parked, 0 production changes, 0 test regressions.** The track is blocked by `chronology_20260619` and ready to execute when the user is ready.
The 5-question brainstorming protocol (scope / type / structure / location / verdict-taxonomy) is reusable for future Tier 1 research-only track planning sessions. The hybrid verdict taxonomy (`PARITY/PARTIAL/GAP/ARCH-DIFF/SUBSUMED` + `INTEGRATED/INTEGRATE-PARTIAL/INTEGRATE/REJECT-WITH-REASON/N/A`) is reusable for any future meta-analysis track that needs both "what does the project do" and "should it do more".
The next Tier 1 session should not start this track — it should wait for chronology to ship, or explicitly lift the blocker if the user has a different priority.