Add skills improvement plan from user feedback

Analyzed feedback from two Claude instances using superpowers in real
development scenarios. Identified 8 core problems and proposed improvements
organized by impact and risk.

Key problems:
- Configuration change verification gap (verify success not intent)
- Background process accumulation across subagents
- Context bloat in subagent prompts
- Missing self-reflection before handoff
- Mock-interface drift
- Code reviewer file access issues
- Skills not being read/enforced
- Fix workflow latency

Proposed improvements organized in 3 phases:
- Phase 1: High-impact, low-risk (do first)
- Phase 2: Moderate changes (test carefully)
- Phase 3: Optimization (validate first)

See plan for detailed analysis and open questions.

docs/plans/2025-11-28-skills-improvements-from-user-feedback.md

@@ -0,0 +1,711 @@
+# Skills Improvements from User Feedback
+
+**Date:** 2025-11-28
+**Status:** Draft
+**Source:** Two Claude instances using superpowers in real development scenarios
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+Two Claude instances provided detailed feedback from actual development sessions. Their feedback reveals **systematic gaps** in current skills that allowed preventable bugs to ship despite following the skills.
+
+**Critical insight:** These are problem reports, not just solution proposals. The problems are real; the solutions need careful evaluation.
+
+**Key themes:**
+1. **Verification gaps** - We verify operations succeed but not that they achieve intended outcomes
+2. **Process hygiene** - Background processes accumulate and interfere across subagents
+3. **Context optimization** - Subagents get too much irrelevant information
+4. **Self-reflection missing** - No prompt to critique own work before handoff
+5. **Mock safety** - Mocks can drift from interfaces without detection
+6. **Skill activation** - Skills exist but aren't being read/used
+
+---
+
+## Problems Identified
+
+### Problem 1: Configuration Change Verification Gap
+
+**What happened:**
+- Subagent tested "OpenAI integration"
+- Set `OPENAI_API_KEY` env var
+- Got status 200 responses
+- Reported "OpenAI integration working"
+- **BUT** response contained `"model": "claude-sonnet-4-20250514"` - was actually using Anthropic
+
+**Root cause:**
+`verification-before-completion` checks operations succeed but not that outcomes reflect intended configuration changes.
+
+**Impact:** High - False confidence in integration tests, bugs ship to production
+
+**Example failure pattern:**
+- Switch LLM provider → verify status 200 but don't check model name
+- Enable feature flag → verify no errors but don't check feature is active
+- Change environment → verify deployment succeeds but don't check environment vars
+
+---
+
+### Problem 2: Background Process Accumulation
+
+**What happened:**
+- Multiple subagents dispatched during session
+- Each started background server processes
+- Processes accumulated (4+ servers running)
+- Stale processes still bound to ports
+- Later E2E test hit stale server with wrong config
+- Confusing/incorrect test results
+
+**Root cause:**
+Subagents are stateless - don't know about previous subagents' processes. No cleanup protocol.
+
+**Impact:** Medium-High - Tests hit wrong server, false passes/failures, debugging confusion
+
+---
+
+### Problem 3: Context Bloat in Subagent Prompts
+
+**What happened:**
+- Standard approach: give subagent full plan file to read
+- Experiment: give only task + pattern + file + verify command
+- Result: Faster, more focused, single-attempt completion more common
+
+**Root cause:**
+Subagents waste tokens and attention on irrelevant plan sections.
+
+**Impact:** Medium - Slower execution, more failed attempts
+
+**What worked:**
+```
+You are adding a single E2E test to packnplay's test suite.
+
+**Your task:** Add `TestE2E_FeaturePrivilegedMode` to `pkg/runner/e2e_test.go`
+
+**What to test:** A local devcontainer feature that requests `"privileged": true`
+in its metadata should result in the container running with `--privileged` flag.
+
+**Follow the exact pattern of TestE2E_FeatureOptionValidation** (at the end of the file)
+
+**After writing, run:** `go test -v ./pkg/runner -run TestE2E_FeaturePrivilegedMode -timeout 5m`
+```
+
+---
+
+### Problem 4: No Self-Reflection Before Handoff
+
+**What happened:**
+- Added self-reflection prompt: "Look at your work with fresh eyes - what could be better?"
+- Implementer for Task 5 identified failing test was due to implementation bug, not test bug
+- Traced to line 99: `strings.Join(metadata.Entrypoint, " ")` creating invalid Docker syntax
+- Without self-reflection, would have just reported "test fails" without root cause
+
+**Root cause:**
+Implementers don't naturally step back and critique their own work before reporting completion.
+
+**Impact:** Medium - Bugs handed off to reviewer that implementer could have caught
+
+---
+
+### Problem 5: Mock-Interface Drift
+
+**What happened:**
+```typescript
+// Interface defines close()
+interface PlatformAdapter {
+  close(): Promise<void>;
+}
+
+// Code (BUGGY) calls cleanup()
+await adapter.cleanup();
+
+// Mock (MATCHES BUG) defines cleanup()
+vi.mock('web-adapter', () => ({
+  WebAdapter: vi.fn().mockImplementation(() => ({
+    cleanup: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined),  // Wrong!
+  })),
+}));
+```
+- Tests passed
+- Runtime crashed: "adapter.cleanup is not a function"
+
+**Root cause:**
+Mock derived from what buggy code calls, not from interface definition. TypeScript can't catch inline mocks with wrong method names.
+
+**Impact:** High - Tests give false confidence, runtime crashes
+
+**Why testing-anti-patterns didn't prevent this:**
+The skill covers testing mock behavior and mocking without understanding, but not the specific pattern of "derive mock from interface, not implementation."
+
+---
+
+### Problem 6: Code Reviewer File Access
+
+**What happened:**
+- Code reviewer subagent dispatched
+- Couldn't find test file: "The file doesn't appear to exist in the repository"
+- File actually exists
+- Reviewer didn't know to explicitly read it first
+
+**Root cause:**
+Reviewer prompts don't include explicit file reading instructions.
+
+**Impact:** Low-Medium - Reviews fail or incomplete
+
+---
+
+### Problem 7: Fix Workflow Latency
+
+**What happened:**
+- Implementer identifies bug during self-reflection
+- Implementer knows the fix
+- Current workflow: report → I dispatch fixer → fixer fixes → I verify
+- Extra round-trip adds latency without adding value
+
+**Root cause:**
+Rigid separation between implementer and fixer roles when implementer has already diagnosed.
+
+**Impact:** Low - Latency, but no correctness issue
+
+---
+
+### Problem 8: Skills Not Being Read
+
+**What happened:**
+- `testing-anti-patterns` skill exists
+- Neither human nor subagents read it before writing tests
+- Would have prevented some issues (though not all - see Problem 5)
+
+**Root cause:**
+No enforcement that subagents read relevant skills. No prompt includes skill reading.
+
+**Impact:** Medium - Skill investment wasted if not used
+
+---
+
+## Proposed Improvements
+
+### 1. verification-before-completion: Add Configuration Change Verification
+
+**Add new section:**
+
+```markdown
+## Verifying Configuration Changes
+
+When testing changes to configuration, providers, feature flags, or environment:
+
+**Don't just verify the operation succeeded. Verify the output reflects the intended change.**
+
+### Common Failure Pattern
+
+Operation succeeds because *some* valid config exists, but it's not the config you intended to test.
+
+### Examples
+
+| Change | Insufficient | Required |
+|--------|-------------|----------|
+| Switch LLM provider | Status 200 | Response contains expected model name |
+| Enable feature flag | No errors | Feature behavior actually active |
+| Change environment | Deploy succeeds | Logs/vars reference new environment |
+| Set credentials | Auth succeeds | Authenticated user/context is correct |
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE claiming configuration change works:
+
+1. IDENTIFY: What should be DIFFERENT after this change?
+2. LOCATE: Where is that difference observable?
+   - Response field (model name, user ID)
+   - Log line (environment, provider)
+   - Behavior (feature active/inactive)
+3. RUN: Command that shows the observable difference
+4. VERIFY: Output contains expected difference
+5. ONLY THEN: Claim configuration change works
+
+Red flags:
+  - "Request succeeded" without checking content
+  - Checking status code but not response body
+  - Verifying no errors but not positive confirmation
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Forces verification of INTENT, not just operation success.
+
+---
+
+### 2. subagent-driven-development: Add Process Hygiene for E2E Tests
+
+**Add new section:**
+
+```markdown
+## Process Hygiene for E2E Tests
+
+When dispatching subagents that start services (servers, databases, message queues):
+
+### Problem
+
+Subagents are stateless - they don't know about processes started by previous subagents. Background processes persist and can interfere with later tests.
+
+### Solution
+
+**Before dispatching E2E test subagent, include cleanup in prompt:**
+
+```
+BEFORE starting any services:
+1. Kill existing processes: pkill -f "<service-pattern>" 2>/dev/null || true
+2. Wait for cleanup: sleep 1
+3. Verify port free: lsof -i :<port> && echo "ERROR: Port still in use" || echo "Port free"
+
+AFTER tests complete:
+1. Kill the process you started
+2. Verify cleanup: pgrep -f "<service-pattern>" || echo "Cleanup successful"
+```
+
+### Example
+
+```
+Task: Run E2E test of API server
+
+Prompt includes:
+"Before starting the server:
+- Kill any existing servers: pkill -f 'node.*server.js' 2>/dev/null || true
+- Verify port 3001 is free: lsof -i :3001 && exit 1 || echo 'Port available'
+
+After tests:
+- Kill the server you started
+- Verify: pgrep -f 'node.*server.js' || echo 'Cleanup verified'"
+```
+
+### Why This Matters
+
+- Stale processes serve requests with wrong config
+- Port conflicts cause silent failures
+- Process accumulation slows system
+- Confusing test results (hitting wrong server)
+```
+
+**Trade-off analysis:**
+- Adds boilerplate to prompts
+- But prevents very confusing debugging
+- Worth it for E2E test subagents
+
+---
+
+### 3. subagent-driven-development: Add Lean Context Option
+
+**Modify Step 2: Execute Task with Subagent**
+
+**Before:**
+```
+Read that task carefully from [plan-file].
+```
+
+**After:**
+```
+## Context Approaches
+
+**Full Plan (default):**
+Use when tasks are complex or have dependencies:
+```
+Read Task N from [plan-file] carefully.
+```
+
+**Lean Context (for independent tasks):**
+Use when task is standalone and pattern-based:
+```
+You are implementing: [1-2 sentence task description]
+
+File to modify: [exact path]
+Pattern to follow: [reference to existing function/test]
+What to implement: [specific requirement]
+Verification: [exact command to run]
+
+[Do NOT include full plan file]
+```
+
+**Use lean context when:**
+- Task follows existing pattern (add similar test, implement similar feature)
+- Task is self-contained (doesn't need context from other tasks)
+- Pattern reference is sufficient (e.g., "follow TestE2E_FeatureOptionValidation")
+
+**Use full plan when:**
+- Task has dependencies on other tasks
+- Requires understanding of overall architecture
+- Complex logic that needs context
+```
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Lean context prompt:
+
+"You are adding a test for privileged mode in devcontainer features.
+
+File: pkg/runner/e2e_test.go
+Pattern: Follow TestE2E_FeatureOptionValidation (at end of file)
+Test: Feature with `"privileged": true` in metadata results in `--privileged` flag
+Verify: go test -v ./pkg/runner -run TestE2E_FeaturePrivilegedMode -timeout 5m
+
+Report: Implementation, test results, any issues."
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Reduces token usage, increases focus, faster completion when appropriate.
+
+---
+
+### 4. subagent-driven-development: Add Self-Reflection Step
+
+**Modify Step 2: Execute Task with Subagent**
+
+**Add to prompt template:**
+
+```
+When done, BEFORE reporting back:
+
+Take a step back and review your work with fresh eyes.
+
+Ask yourself:
+- Does this actually solve the task as specified?
+- Are there edge cases I didn't consider?
+- Did I follow the pattern correctly?
+- If tests are failing, what's the ROOT CAUSE (implementation bug vs test bug)?
+- What could be better about this implementation?
+
+If you identify issues during this reflection, fix them now.
+
+Then report:
+- What you implemented
+- Self-reflection findings (if any)
+- Test results
+- Files changed
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Catches bugs implementer can find themselves before handoff. Documented case: identified entrypoint bug through self-reflection.
+
+**Trade-off:**
+Adds ~30 seconds per task, but catches issues before review.
+
+---
+
+### 5. requesting-code-review: Add Explicit File Reading
+
+**Modify the code-reviewer template:**
+
+**Add at the beginning:**
+
+```markdown
+## Files to Review
+
+BEFORE analyzing, read these files:
+
+1. [List specific files that changed in the diff]
+2. [Files referenced by changes but not modified]
+
+Use Read tool to load each file.
+
+If you cannot find a file:
+- Check exact path from diff
+- Try alternate locations
+- Report: "Cannot locate [path] - please verify file exists"
+
+DO NOT proceed with review until you've read the actual code.
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Explicit instruction prevents "file not found" issues.
+
+---
+
+### 6. testing-anti-patterns: Add Mock-Interface Drift Anti-Pattern
+
+**Add new Anti-Pattern 6:**
+
+```markdown
+## Anti-Pattern 6: Mocks Derived from Implementation
+
+**The violation:**
+```typescript
+// Code (BUGGY) calls cleanup()
+await adapter.cleanup();
+
+// Mock (MATCHES BUG) has cleanup()
+const mock = {
+  cleanup: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined)
+};
+
+// Interface (CORRECT) defines close()
+interface PlatformAdapter {
+  close(): Promise<void>;
+}
+```
+
+**Why this is wrong:**
+- Mock encodes the bug into the test
+- TypeScript can't catch inline mocks with wrong method names
+- Test passes because both code and mock are wrong
+- Runtime crashes when real object is used
+
+**The fix:**
+```typescript
+// ✅ GOOD: Derive mock from interface
+
+// Step 1: Open interface definition (PlatformAdapter)
+// Step 2: List methods defined there (close, initialize, etc.)
+// Step 3: Mock EXACTLY those methods
+
+const mock = {
+  initialize: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined),
+  close: vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(undefined),  // From interface!
+};
+
+// Now test FAILS because code calls cleanup() which doesn't exist
+// That failure reveals the bug BEFORE runtime
+```
+
+### Gate Function
+
+```
+BEFORE writing any mock:
+
+  1. STOP - Do NOT look at the code under test yet
+  2. FIND: The interface/type definition for the dependency
+  3. READ: The interface file
+  4. LIST: Methods defined in the interface
+  5. MOCK: ONLY those methods with EXACTLY those names
+  6. DO NOT: Look at what your code calls
+
+  IF your test fails because code calls something not in mock:
+    ✅ GOOD - The test found a bug in your code
+    Fix the code to call the correct interface method
+    NOT the mock
+
+  Red flags:
+    - "I'll mock what the code calls"
+    - Copying method names from implementation
+    - Mock written without reading interface
+    - "The test is failing so I'll add this method to the mock"
+```
+
+**Detection:**
+
+When you see runtime error "X is not a function" and tests pass:
+1. Check if X is mocked
+2. Compare mock methods to interface methods
+3. Look for method name mismatches
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Directly addresses the failure pattern from feedback.
+
+---
+
+### 7. subagent-driven-development: Require Skills Reading for Test Subagents
+
+**Add to prompt template when task involves testing:**
+
+```markdown
+BEFORE writing any tests:
+
+1. Read testing-anti-patterns skill:
+   Use Skill tool: superpowers:testing-anti-patterns
+
+2. Apply gate functions from that skill when:
+   - Writing mocks
+   - Adding methods to production classes
+   - Mocking dependencies
+
+This is NOT optional. Tests that violate anti-patterns will be rejected in review.
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Ensures skills are actually used, not just exist.
+
+**Trade-off:**
+Adds time to each task, but prevents entire classes of bugs.
+
+---
+
+### 8. subagent-driven-development: Allow Implementer to Fix Self-Identified Issues
+
+**Modify Step 2:**
+
+**Current:**
+```
+Subagent reports back with summary of work.
+```
+
+**Proposed:**
+```
+Subagent performs self-reflection, then:
+
+IF self-reflection identifies fixable issues:
+  1. Fix the issues
+  2. Re-run verification
+  3. Report: "Initial implementation + self-reflection fix"
+
+ELSE:
+  Report: "Implementation complete"
+
+Include in report:
+- Self-reflection findings
+- Whether fixes were applied
+- Final verification results
+```
+
+**Why this works:**
+Reduces latency when implementer already knows the fix. Documented case: would have saved one round-trip for entrypoint bug.
+
+**Trade-off:**
+Slightly more complex prompt, but faster end-to-end.
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Plan
+
+### Phase 1: High-Impact, Low-Risk (Do First)
+
+1. **verification-before-completion: Configuration change verification**
+   - Clear addition, doesn't change existing content
+   - Addresses high-impact problem (false confidence in tests)
+   - File: `skills/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md`
+
+2. **testing-anti-patterns: Mock-interface drift**
+   - Adds new anti-pattern, doesn't modify existing
+   - Addresses high-impact problem (runtime crashes)
+   - File: `skills/testing-anti-patterns/SKILL.md`
+
+3. **requesting-code-review: Explicit file reading**
+   - Simple addition to template
+   - Fixes concrete problem (reviewers can't find files)
+   - File: `skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md`
+
+### Phase 2: Moderate Changes (Test Carefully)
+
+4. **subagent-driven-development: Process hygiene**
+   - Adds new section, doesn't change workflow
+   - Addresses medium-high impact (test reliability)
+   - File: `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
+
+5. **subagent-driven-development: Self-reflection**
+   - Changes prompt template (higher risk)
+   - But documented to catch bugs
+   - File: `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
+
+6. **subagent-driven-development: Skills reading requirement**
+   - Adds prompt overhead
+   - But ensures skills are actually used
+   - File: `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
+
+### Phase 3: Optimization (Validate First)
+
+7. **subagent-driven-development: Lean context option**
+   - Adds complexity (two approaches)
+   - Needs validation that it doesn't cause confusion
+   - File: `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
+
+8. **subagent-driven-development: Allow implementer to fix**
+   - Changes workflow (higher risk)
+   - Optimization, not bug fix
+   - File: `skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md`
+
+---
+
+## Open Questions
+
+1. **Lean context approach:**
+   - Should we make it the default for pattern-based tasks?
+   - How do we decide which approach to use?
+   - Risk of being too lean and missing important context?
+
+2. **Self-reflection:**
+   - Will this slow down simple tasks significantly?
+   - Should it only apply to complex tasks?
+   - How do we prevent "reflection fatigue" where it becomes rote?
+
+3. **Process hygiene:**
+   - Should this be in subagent-driven-development or a separate skill?
+   - Does it apply to other workflows beyond E2E tests?
+   - How do we handle cases where process SHOULD persist (dev servers)?
+
+4. **Skills reading enforcement:**
+   - Should we require ALL subagents to read relevant skills?
+   - How do we keep prompts from becoming too long?
+   - Risk of over-documenting and losing focus?
+
+---
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+How do we know these improvements work?
+
+1. **Configuration verification:**
+   - Zero instances of "test passed but wrong config was used"
+   - Jesse doesn't say "that's not actually testing what you think"
+
+2. **Process hygiene:**
+   - Zero instances of "test hit wrong server"
+   - No port conflict errors during E2E test runs
+
+3. **Mock-interface drift:**
+   - Zero instances of "tests pass but runtime crashes on missing method"
+   - No method name mismatches between mocks and interfaces
+
+4. **Self-reflection:**
+   - Measurable: Do implementer reports include self-reflection findings?
+   - Qualitative: Do fewer bugs make it to code review?
+
+5. **Skills reading:**
+   - Subagent reports reference skill gate functions
+   - Fewer anti-pattern violations in code review
+
+---
+
+## Risks and Mitigations
+
+### Risk: Prompt Bloat
+**Problem:** Adding all these requirements makes prompts overwhelming
+**Mitigation:**
+- Phase implementation (don't add everything at once)
+- Make some additions conditional (E2E hygiene only for E2E tests)
+- Consider templates for different task types
+
+### Risk: Analysis Paralysis
+**Problem:** Too much reflection/verification slows execution
+**Mitigation:**
+- Keep gate functions quick (seconds, not minutes)
+- Make lean context opt-in initially
+- Monitor task completion times
+
+### Risk: False Sense of Security
+**Problem:** Following checklist doesn't guarantee correctness
+**Mitigation:**
+- Emphasize gate functions are minimums, not maximums
+- Keep "use judgment" language in skills
+- Document that skills catch common failures, not all failures
+
+### Risk: Skill Divergence
+**Problem:** Different skills give conflicting advice
+**Mitigation:**
+- Review changes across all skills for consistency
+- Document how skills interact (Integration sections)
+- Test with real scenarios before deployment
+
+---
+
+## Recommendation
+
+**Proceed with Phase 1 immediately:**
+- verification-before-completion: Configuration change verification
+- testing-anti-patterns: Mock-interface drift
+- requesting-code-review: Explicit file reading
+
+**Test Phase 2 with Jesse before finalizing:**
+- Get feedback on self-reflection impact
+- Validate process hygiene approach
+- Confirm skills reading requirement is worth overhead
+
+**Hold Phase 3 pending validation:**
+- Lean context needs real-world testing
+- Implementer-fix workflow change needs careful evaluation
+
+These changes address real problems documented by users while minimizing risk of making skills worse.