Files

Jason Woltje f5792c40be feat: Complete fleet — 94 skills across 10+ domains

Pulled ALL skills from 15 source repositories:
- anthropics/skills: 16 (docs, design, MCP, testing)
- obra/superpowers: 14 (TDD, debugging, agents, planning)
- coreyhaines31/marketingskills: 25 (marketing, CRO, SEO, growth)
- better-auth/skills: 5 (auth patterns)
- vercel-labs/agent-skills: 5 (React, design, Vercel)
- antfu/skills: 16 (Vue, Vite, Vitest, pnpm, Turborepo)
- Plus 13 individual skills from various repos

Mosaic Stack is not limited to coding — the Orchestrator and
subagents serve coding, business, design, marketing, writing,
logistics, analysis, and more.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-02-16 16:27:42 -06:00

2.0 KiB

Raw 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 Blame History

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

2.0 KiB

Raw Blame History