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
- kazemcodes/skill-treetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ZhouYinLong-lab/Dog-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- salmandev/everything-geminitheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- lucasnscr/issue-to-pr-aitheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- Thirumalai-Tech-Developer/Kratos_Agenttheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- Peiiii/nextclawtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
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.
GoogleSkillto-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
GoogleSkilltdd
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
Other versions15 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 15
- Peiiii/nextclaw★ 263same name
- belos-street/skill-kit★ 8same name
- ZhouYinLong-lab/Dog-Skills★ 7same name
- HK-hub/AgentSkills★ 6same name
- Agnik47/claude-skills★ 3same name
- grasscaograss/AwesomeWeldoneSkills★ 2same name
- hillwang1983-web/agent-factory★ 2same name
- salmandev/everything-gemini★ 2same name
- kazemcodes/skill-tree★ 1same name
- Thirumalai-Tech-Developer/Kratos_Agent★ 1same name
5 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository63 other files it gives its agents.
- account-intelligenceSkill
- account-researchSkill
- ad-creativeSkill
- agent-evaluationSkill
- agent-reliabilitySkill
- ai-adoption-leadSkill
- ai-data-stewardSkill
- ai-seoSkill
- ai-workflow-architectSkill
- appsec-reviewSkill
- audit-supportSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- call-prepSkill
- cash-flow-snapshotSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- claude-memSkill
- close-managementSkill
- compliance-checkSkill
- context7Skill
- copywritingSkill
- croSkill
- cto-advisorSkill
- customer-researchSkill
- draft-outreachSkill
- financial-statementsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- growth-engineeringSkill
- growth-experimentsSkill
- growth-strategySkill
- hook-generatorSkill
- invoice-chaseSkill
- journal-entrySkill
- lead-magnetsSkill
- legal-risk-assessmentSkill
- lifecycle-growthSkill
- margin-analyzerSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- objection-handlerSkill
- pipeline-reviewSkill
- plan-payrollSkill
- post-writerSkill
- profile-optimizerSkill
- proposal-builderSkill
- reconciliationSkill
- reels-scriptingSkill
- revenue-operationsSkill
- review-contractSkill
- run-campaignSkill
- signature-requestSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- skill-vettingSkill
- tasteSkill
- tax-prepSkill
- token-accountantSkill
- transitionsSkill
- triage-ndaSkill
- ui-ux-pro-maxSkill
- variance-analysisSkill
- vendor-checkSkill
- voice-builderSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 15
After an incident — "write the postmortem"
- Distinctive: line 44
If the task changes phase mid-flight (the build surfaces a bug), switch protocols explicitly.
- Distinctive: line 71
Ask: "The login test is flaky — fix it properly."
“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.
Files
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
| # | Protocol | Core move |
| P1 | Brainstorm | Generate 3+ approaches, score against constraints, pick one on the record. |
| P2 | Spec | Acceptance criteria and non-goals written before any code. |
| P3 | Plan | Ordered steps, each independently verifiable. |
| P4 | Scaffold | Skeleton with tooling wired — lint, test runner, entry point, CI hook. |
| P5 | TDD | Red-green-refactor: failing test first, minimal pass, then clean. |
| P6 | Systematic debugging | Reproduce → isolate → hypothesize → fix → regress. |
| P7 | Refactoring | Behavior-preserving change under green tests, one move at a time. |
| P8 | Code review | Line-level and design-level pass — correctness, security, perf, readability. |
| P9 | Performance pass | Measure first, profile the hot path, fix, re-measure. |
| P10 | Security pass | Inputs, authn/z, secrets, dependencies, injection surfaces. |
| P11 | Docs | README, API reference, runbook — written from the reader's seat. |
| P12 | Git hygiene | Small atomic commits, imperative messages, clean history. |
| P13 | Release checklist | Version, changelog, tests green, rollback plan, ship, verify live. |
| P14 | Postmortem | Blameless timeline, root cause, action items with owners. |
Workflow
- Identify the task's phase: idea, build, break/fix, ship, or learn.
- Pick the matching protocol(s) from the table and announce the pick — "Running P6 — systematic debugging."
- 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.
- For a full feature, chain: P1 → P2 → P3 → P4 → P5 → P8 → P11 → P12 → P13. Skip a link only by saying so and why.
- End every protocol with an artifact — spec file, failing-then-passing test, review notes, changelog — never just narrative.
- If the task changes phase mid-flight (the build surfaces a bug), switch protocols explicitly; don't blur two into mush.
- 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> | doneQuality 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.
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
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.

