Files

uroma 5889d3428b Add comprehensive skills, agents, commands collection

- Added 44 external skills from obra/superpowers, ui-ux-pro-max-skill, claude-codex-settings
- Added 8 autonomous agents (commit-creator, pr-creator, pr-reviewer, etc.)
- Added 23 slash commands for Git/GitHub, setup, and plugin development
- Added hooks for code formatting, notifications, and validation
- Added MCP configurations for Azure, GCloud, Supabase, MongoDB, etc.
- Added awesome-openclaw-skills registry (3,002 skills referenced)
- Updated comprehensive README with full documentation

Sources:
- github.com/obra/superpowers (14 skills)
- github.com/nextlevelbuilder/ui-ux-pro-max-skill (1 skill)
- github.com/fcakyon/claude-codex-settings (29 skills, 8 agents, 23 commands)
- github.com/VoltAgent/awesome-openclaw-skills (registry)
- skills.sh (reference)
- buildwithclaude.com (reference)

2026-02-13 10:30:11 +00:00

2.0 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.

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

Task tool (general-purpose):
  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]

2.0 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

2.0 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History