Files

spaceman1412 fd4c3c2fc7 Add new skills and utilities for enhanced writing and testing

- Introduced graphviz conventions for visualizing process flows in writing skills.
- Added a comprehensive guide on persuasion principles to improve skill design effectiveness.
- Implemented a script to render graphviz diagrams from markdown files to SVG format.
- Created a detailed reference for testing skills with subagents, emphasizing TDD principles.
- Established a task tracker template for live task management.
- Developed a shell script to check the integrity of the antigravity profile and required files.
- Added test scripts to validate the initialization of agent projects.
- Created workflows for brainstorming, executing plans, and writing plans to streamline processes.

2026-02-26 15:16:32 +07:00

1.9 KiB

Raw Blame History

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when running a spec compliance review step in single-flow mode.

Purpose: Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)

task_boundary:
  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.

    ## What Was Requested

    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]

    ## What Implementer Claims They Built

    [From implementer's report]

    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report

    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.

    **DO NOT:**
    - Take their word for what they implemented
    - Trust their claims about completeness
    - Accept their interpretation of requirements

    **DO:**
    - Read the actual code they wrote
    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
    - Look for extra features they didn't mention

    ## Your Job

    Read the implementation code and verify:

    **Missing requirements:**
    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?

    **Extra/unneeded work:**
    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?

    **Misunderstandings:**
    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?

    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**

    Report:
    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]

1.9 KiB Raw Blame History

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

1.9 KiB

Raw Blame History