f5792c40be
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>
62 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
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]
|
|
```
|