SuperCharge Claude Code v1.0.0 - Complete Customization Package
Features: - 30+ Custom Skills (cognitive, development, UI/UX, autonomous agents) - RalphLoop autonomous agent integration - Multi-AI consultation (Qwen) - Agent management system with sync capabilities - Custom hooks for session management - MCP servers integration - Plugin marketplace setup - Comprehensive installation script Components: - Skills: always-use-superpowers, ralph, brainstorming, ui-ux-pro-max, etc. - Agents: 100+ agents across engineering, marketing, product, etc. - Hooks: session-start-superpowers, qwen-consult, ralph-auto-trigger - Commands: /brainstorm, /write-plan, /execute-plan - MCP Servers: zai-mcp-server, web-search-prime, web-reader, zread - Binaries: ralphloop wrapper Installation: ./supercharge.sh
This commit is contained in:
uroma
207
plugins/claude-delegator/rules/delegation-format.md
Normal file
207
plugins/claude-delegator/rules/delegation-format.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
|
||||
# Delegation Prompt Templates
|
||||
|
||||
When delegating to GPT experts, use these structured templates.
|
||||
|
||||
## The 7-Section Format (MANDATORY)
|
||||
|
||||
Every delegation prompt MUST include these sections:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. TASK: [One sentence—atomic, specific goal]
|
||||
|
||||
2. EXPECTED OUTCOME: [What success looks like]
|
||||
|
||||
3. CONTEXT:
|
||||
- Current state: [what exists now]
|
||||
- Relevant code: [paths or snippets]
|
||||
- Background: [why this is needed]
|
||||
|
||||
4. CONSTRAINTS:
|
||||
- Technical: [versions, dependencies]
|
||||
- Patterns: [existing conventions to follow]
|
||||
- Limitations: [what cannot change]
|
||||
|
||||
5. MUST DO:
|
||||
- [Requirement 1]
|
||||
- [Requirement 2]
|
||||
|
||||
6. MUST NOT DO:
|
||||
- [Forbidden action 1]
|
||||
- [Forbidden action 2]
|
||||
|
||||
7. OUTPUT FORMAT:
|
||||
- [How to structure response]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Expert-Specific Templates
|
||||
|
||||
### Architect
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
TASK: [Analyze/Design/Implement] [specific system/component] for [goal].
|
||||
|
||||
EXPECTED OUTCOME: [Clear recommendation OR working implementation]
|
||||
|
||||
MODE: [Advisory / Implementation]
|
||||
|
||||
CONTEXT:
|
||||
- Current architecture: [description]
|
||||
- Relevant code:
|
||||
[file paths or snippets]
|
||||
- Problem/Goal: [what needs to be solved]
|
||||
|
||||
CONSTRAINTS:
|
||||
- Must work with [existing systems]
|
||||
- Cannot change [protected components]
|
||||
- Performance requirements: [if applicable]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST DO:
|
||||
- [Specific requirement]
|
||||
- Provide effort estimate (Quick/Short/Medium/Large)
|
||||
- [For implementation: Report all modified files]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST NOT DO:
|
||||
- Over-engineer for hypothetical future needs
|
||||
- Introduce new dependencies without justification
|
||||
- [For implementation: Modify files outside scope]
|
||||
|
||||
OUTPUT FORMAT:
|
||||
[Advisory: Bottom line → Action plan → Effort estimate]
|
||||
[Implementation: Summary → Files modified → Verification]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Plan Reviewer
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
TASK: Review [plan name/description] for completeness and clarity.
|
||||
|
||||
EXPECTED OUTCOME: APPROVE/REJECT verdict with specific feedback.
|
||||
|
||||
CONTEXT:
|
||||
- Plan to review:
|
||||
[plan content]
|
||||
- Goals: [what the plan is trying to achieve]
|
||||
- Constraints: [timeline, resources, technical limits]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST DO:
|
||||
- Evaluate all 4 criteria (Clarity, Verifiability, Completeness, Big Picture)
|
||||
- Simulate actually doing the work to find gaps
|
||||
- Provide specific improvements if rejecting
|
||||
|
||||
MUST NOT DO:
|
||||
- Rubber-stamp without real analysis
|
||||
- Provide vague feedback
|
||||
- Approve plans with critical gaps
|
||||
|
||||
OUTPUT FORMAT:
|
||||
[APPROVE / REJECT]
|
||||
Justification: [explanation]
|
||||
Summary: [4-criteria assessment]
|
||||
[If REJECT: Top 3-5 improvements needed]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Scope Analyst
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
TASK: Analyze [request/feature] before planning begins.
|
||||
|
||||
EXPECTED OUTCOME: Clear understanding of scope, risks, and questions to resolve.
|
||||
|
||||
CONTEXT:
|
||||
- Request: [what was asked for]
|
||||
- Current state: [what exists now]
|
||||
- Known constraints: [technical, business, timeline]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST DO:
|
||||
- Classify intent (Refactoring/Build/Mid-sized/Architecture/Bug Fix/Research)
|
||||
- Identify hidden requirements and ambiguities
|
||||
- Surface questions that need answers before proceeding
|
||||
- Assess risks and blast radius
|
||||
|
||||
MUST NOT DO:
|
||||
- Start planning (that comes after analysis)
|
||||
- Make assumptions about unclear requirements
|
||||
- Skip intent classification
|
||||
|
||||
OUTPUT FORMAT:
|
||||
Intent: [classification]
|
||||
Findings: [key discoveries]
|
||||
Questions: [what needs clarification]
|
||||
Risks: [with mitigations]
|
||||
Recommendation: [Proceed / Clarify First / Reconsider]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Code Reviewer
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
TASK: [Review / Review and fix] [code/PR/file] for [focus areas].
|
||||
|
||||
EXPECTED OUTCOME: [Issue list with verdict OR fixed code]
|
||||
|
||||
MODE: [Advisory / Implementation]
|
||||
|
||||
CONTEXT:
|
||||
- Code to review:
|
||||
[file paths or snippets]
|
||||
- Purpose: [what this code does]
|
||||
- Recent changes: [what changed, if PR review]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST DO:
|
||||
- Prioritize: Correctness → Security → Performance → Maintainability
|
||||
- Focus on issues that matter, not style nitpicks
|
||||
- [For implementation: Fix issues and verify]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST NOT DO:
|
||||
- Nitpick style (let formatters handle this)
|
||||
- Flag theoretical concerns unlikely to matter
|
||||
- [For implementation: Change unrelated code]
|
||||
|
||||
OUTPUT FORMAT:
|
||||
[Advisory: Summary → Critical issues → Recommendations → Verdict]
|
||||
[Implementation: Summary → Issues fixed → Files modified → Verification]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Security Analyst
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
TASK: [Analyze / Harden] [system/code/endpoint] for security vulnerabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
EXPECTED OUTCOME: [Vulnerability report OR hardened code]
|
||||
|
||||
MODE: [Advisory / Implementation]
|
||||
|
||||
CONTEXT:
|
||||
- Code/system to analyze:
|
||||
[file paths, architecture description]
|
||||
- Assets at risk: [what's valuable]
|
||||
- Threat model: [who might attack, if known]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST DO:
|
||||
- Check OWASP Top 10 categories
|
||||
- Consider authentication, authorization, input validation
|
||||
- Provide practical remediation, not theoretical concerns
|
||||
- [For implementation: Fix vulnerabilities and verify]
|
||||
|
||||
MUST NOT DO:
|
||||
- Flag low-risk theoretical issues
|
||||
- Provide vague "be more secure" advice
|
||||
- [For implementation: Break functionality while hardening]
|
||||
|
||||
OUTPUT FORMAT:
|
||||
[Advisory: Threat summary → Vulnerabilities → Recommendations → Risk rating]
|
||||
[Implementation: Summary → Vulnerabilities fixed → Files modified → Verification]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
| Expert | Advisory Output | Implementation Output |
|
||||
|--------|-----------------|----------------------|
|
||||
| Architect | Recommendation + plan + effort | Changes + files + verification |
|
||||
| Plan Reviewer | APPROVE/REJECT + justification | Revised plan |
|
||||
| Scope Analyst | Analysis + questions + risks | Refined requirements |
|
||||
| Code Reviewer | Issues + verdict | Fixes + verification |
|
||||
| Security Analyst | Vulnerabilities + risk rating | Hardening + verification |
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user