Files
Video-Tree-TRM5/.claude/skills/brainstorming/spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md
T
iomgaa 6bdb802f01 chore: track claude skills, tools, templates, reference code and research-wiki
- Add all claude skills (brainstorming, commit, debugging, TDD, etc.)
- Add claude hooks (pre-commit-guard, post-edit-quality)
- Add research templates (experiment plan, research brief, etc.)
- Add claude tools (arxiv/semantic_scholar/openalex fetch, wiki, exa)
- Add TRM4 reference implementation as algorithm fidelity baseline
- Add research-wiki content (plans, index, graph, query_pack)
- Update .gitignore to exclude .graphify_version runtime state
2026-07-06 20:59:03 -04:00

1.7 KiB

Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.

Purpose: Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.

Dispatch after: Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/

Task tool (general-purpose):
  description: "Review spec document"
  prompt: |
    You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.

    **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]

    ## What to Check

    | Category | What to Look For |
    |----------|------------------|
    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
    | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
    | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
    | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |

    ## Calibration

    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
    A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
    interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
    stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.

    Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.

    ## Output Format

    ## Spec Review

    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found

    **Issues (if any):**
    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]

    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
    - [suggestions for improvement]

Reviewer returns: Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations