Files
uroma 7a491b1548 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
2026-01-22 15:35:55 +00:00

62 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown

# 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]
```