agentleFS
alebgl77alebgl77/claude-inc/skills/superpowers/SKILL.md

superpowers

Skill21 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Runs 14 numbered engineering protocols in one pack — brainstorm, spec, plan, scaffold, TDD red-green-refactor, systematic debugging, refactoring, code review, performance, security, docs, git hygiene, release checklist, postmortem. Use when the user says "build this feature properly", "debug this systematically", "review my diff", "run a security pass", "ship the release", "write the postmortem", or names any engineering phase from idea to retrospective.

15 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use to-prd, tdd and 1 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • GoogleSkill

    to-prd

    Turn the current conversation into a PRD and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GoogleSkill

    tdd

    Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +1 more from google

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    After an incident — "write the postmortem"

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    If the task changes phase mid-flight (the build surfaces a bug), switch protocols explicitly.

    line 44
  3. Distinctive:

    Ask: "The login test is flaky — fix it properly."

    line 71

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Superpowers — Skill Forge

"14-skill power pack"

When to use

  • End-to-end feature work that deserves discipline — "let's build this properly, not vibe-code it"
  • A bug that resists poking — "debug this systematically", "it fails randomly and I'm lost"
  • Pre-merge and pre-ship gates — "review my diff", "run a security pass", "are we ready to release?"
  • After an incident — "write the postmortem"
  • Any single phase named outright — spec it, plan it, refactor it, profile it, document it

The 14 protocols

#ProtocolCore move
P1BrainstormGenerate 3+ approaches, score against constraints, pick one on the record.
P2SpecAcceptance criteria and non-goals written before any code.
P3PlanOrdered steps, each independently verifiable.
P4ScaffoldSkeleton with tooling wired — lint, test runner, entry point, CI hook.
P5TDDRed-green-refactor: failing test first, minimal pass, then clean.
P6Systematic debuggingReproduce → isolate → hypothesize → fix → regress.
P7RefactoringBehavior-preserving change under green tests, one move at a time.
P8Code reviewLine-level and design-level pass — correctness, security, perf, readability.
P9Performance passMeasure first, profile the hot path, fix, re-measure.
P10Security passInputs, authn/z, secrets, dependencies, injection surfaces.
P11DocsREADME, API reference, runbook — written from the reader's seat.
P12Git hygieneSmall atomic commits, imperative messages, clean history.
P13Release checklistVersion, changelog, tests green, rollback plan, ship, verify live.
P14PostmortemBlameless timeline, root cause, action items with owners.

Workflow

  1. Identify the task's phase: idea, build, break/fix, ship, or learn.
  2. Pick the matching protocol(s) from the table and announce the pick — "Running P6 — systematic debugging."
  3. Execute the protocol as concrete steps. P6, for example: reproduce deterministically, isolate by bisecting code/data/env, state one falsifiable hypothesis, fix, add a regression test.
  4. For a full feature, chain: P1 → P2 → P3 → P4 → P5 → P8 → P11 → P12 → P13. Skip a link only by saying so and why.
  5. End every protocol with an artifact — spec file, failing-then-passing test, review notes, changelog — never just narrative.
  6. If the task changes phase mid-flight (the build surfaces a bug), switch protocols explicitly; don't blur two into mush.
  7. Log each run in the output format below and hand the next protocol its inputs.

Output format

## Protocol run — P<n> <name>
Phase: <idea | build | fix | ship | learn>
Trigger: <the ask, one line>
Steps executed:
1. <step> → <result>
2. <step> → <result>
Artifact: <path or inline block>
Verdict: PASS | FAIL — <one-line reason>
Next: P<n> <name> | done

Quality bar

  • Protocol named before work started, not retrofitted after
  • Every run produced a concrete artifact, not just prose
  • P5/P6 runs end with a test that fails without the fix and passes with it
  • Feature chains hit at least P2, P5, and P8 — or the skip is justified in writing
  • Verdicts are earned: FAIL reported as FAIL, never softened to "mostly works"

Example

Ask: "The login test is flaky — fix it properly."

Run P6: reproduced 5x (fails ~40%), isolated to the token-expiry check reading the real clock, hypothesis "clock skew between test container and issuer" confirmed by freezing time, fixed with an injected clock, regression test added that fails on the old code. Artifact: tests/auth/token-clock.spec.ts. Verdict PASS. Next: P12, one atomic commit.

Credits

Inspired by obra/superpowers.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.