diff --git a/docs/reports/SESSION_REPORT_superpowers_review_init_20260619.md b/docs/reports/SESSION_REPORT_superpowers_review_init_20260619.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b94a0fcf --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/reports/SESSION_REPORT_superpowers_review_init_20260619.md @@ -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** | `` | +| **Integration tag** | `` | +| **Section size** | `` | +| **Cross-refs** | `` (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//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.