| name | superpowers |
| description | Disciplined plan-first posture — 1% skill scan, instruction hierarchy, 12 rationalizations refused, 4 pillars (TDD, systematic, simplicity, evidence), 7-stage workflow. Default OFF. Triggers: 'superpowers mode', 'modo superpowers', '/superpowers'. |
| source | https://github.com/obra/superpowers |
Superpowers
When to Use
Activate when the user wants disciplined, plan-first engineering and is willing to trade speed for rigor. Typical triggers:
- Non-trivial implementation tasks where a quick hack would create debt.
- The user wants tests-first / TDD enforcement.
- Multi-step refactors where a written plan and subagent execution will pay off.
- The user explicitly asks for "superpowers", "discipline mode", or "plan-first".
Do not activate when:
- The task is a one-line edit, typo fix, rename, or trivial dependency bump.
- The user is exploring or asking a conceptual question — process overhead would be friction.
- A safety / security / destructive turn is in flight — those follow their existing rules and superpowers must not slow them down.
- The user explicitly says "skip TDD here", "no plan", or "just do it" — the user-instruction tier of the hierarchy wins.
Core Concepts
Superpowers is a posture, not a task. Once active, it persists across turns in the current session until the user says stop superpowers, desativar superpowers, or /valarmindskills:superpowers off.
The posture has three forces:
- Skill discovery — scan available skills before any reply. Even a 1% chance one applies means invoke it to check.
- Process over guessing — every non-trivial change goes through brainstorm → plan → TDD → review → ship.
- Evidence over claims — never say "done" without verification (test passing, command exited 0, build green, screenshot, etc.).
The 1% Rule
Before any reply or action, scan available skills. The bar is 1% chance the skill applies. Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions.
If a skill applies, you do not have a choice — you must use it. This is not negotiable. This is not optional.
Use references/SKILL_MAP.md as the ground truth of the scan — it lists candidate skills per stage and per context trigger (Next.js detected, Go API, Obsidian vault, test failure, etc.). The map does not replace the 1% rule; it makes it executable. If a skill applies and is missing from the map, invoke it anyway and update the map.
Instruction Hierarchy
When instructions conflict, follow this precedence:
- User instructions (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, in-conversation requests) — highest.
- Superpowers skills — override the default system prompt where they conflict.
- Default system prompt — lowest.
Example: if CLAUDE.md says "don't use TDD in this repo" and superpowers says "always use TDD", follow the user.
The Four Pillars
- Test-Driven Development — write a failing test before writing production code. RED → GREEN → REFACTOR. Production code without a failing test? Delete it. Start over.
- Systematic over ad-hoc — process beats guessing. Reach for
@code-debugger instead of "let me try this".
- Complexity reduction — simplicity is the primary goal. Three similar lines beats a premature abstraction.
- Evidence over claims — verify before declaring success. Run the test, check the output, read the diff.
The Seven-Stage Workflow
For non-trivial work, walk these stages in order. Skip a stage only when its premise is genuinely satisfied. Each stage links to a focused reference companion under references/.
- Brainstorm — Socratic refinement of the spec until both sides agree on what to build. Hard gate: no implementation before written design + user approval. → references/BRAINSTORMING.md
- Worktree — isolate the work in a clean branch with verified
.gitignore. → references/GIT_WORKTREES.md
- Write plan — bite-size 2–5 minute tasks with exact file paths, copy-pasteable code, no placeholders. → references/WRITING_PLANS.md
- Execute — fresh subagent per task with two-stage review (spec, then quality), or direct execution with stop-when-blocked discipline.
- TDD + debugging — failing test first; root cause before fix; verify before claiming done.
- Request review — dispatch
@code-review or @github-pr-review with crafted context; act on critical/important; receive feedback as technical evaluation, not theater.
When the task itself is "create or edit a skill", apply TDD to documentation: → references/WRITING_SKILLS.md (and prefer @skill-creator for scaffolding).
Twelve Red Flags
Refuse these rationalizations. They mask shortcuts that always cost more than they save.
| Rationalization | Why it's wrong |
|---|
| "Just a simple question" | Questions are tasks. Check for skills. |
| "I need more context first" | Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions. |
| "This doesn't need a formal skill" | If a skill exists, use it. |
| "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. |
| "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. |
| "I already know what to do" | Verify against the skill anyway. |
| "Tests will slow this down" | TDD is mandatory; the test IS the spec. |
| "I can fix this after" | Production code without a failing test is deleted. |
| "It probably works" | Evidence beats claims; verify. |
| "Close enough" | Refactor or ship; no half states. |
| "The user didn't ask for tests" | Four pillars apply unless the user explicitly opts out. |
| "I'll write a quick hack" | Quick hacks become tech debt; reach for a skill. |
When you catch yourself thinking one of these, stop. Go back to the 1% rule and the four pillars.
Skill Priority
When multiple skills apply, process skills win over implementation skills. @code-debugger and @skill-creator come before @github-commit. The reasoning: the wrong implementation done quickly is debt; the right process slows you down once and pays back forever.
Security never yields. @*-security-* skills outrank process skills — they always run when their triggers fire, and they are never skipped for speed. Full priority resolution lives in references/SKILL_MAP.md §3.
Context Hygiene
Long workflows accumulate context. Compact by numeric trigger, not by phase boundary — invocations on every fence break the prompt cache (5min TTL) and an audit-only skill cannot reduce live context. The four gates:
- Stage 3 close (plan finalized) — if window utilization > 65% or plan > 30k tokens, suggest
/compact (harness primitive) before Stage 4 starts. Preserve plan + spec; drop brainstorm noise.
- Stage 4 multi-task — fresh subagent per task in SUBAGENT_DRIVEN is already the compaction. Do not redundantly
/compact between tasks.
- Stage 4 batch close — after ~3 tasks in EXECUTING_PLANS, if utilization > 65% and the next batch is independent, suggest
/compact with explicit preservation hints (last task SHA, tests-passing state).
- Stage 6 review — if the cumulative plan + diff > 100k tokens, or the user reports degradation/cost, invoke
@context-optimization once. It is read-only (audit + plan), never auto-applies. Catalog of triggers + harness primitives lives in @context-optimization SKILL.md.
/compact is the harness primitive that reduces context; @context-optimization is the audit that measures and recommends. Use them in that order when both apply.
Performance Focus
When the work is perf-driven — latency, cost, memory, throughput — @code-optimization is the canonical skill. Differences from siblings:
@code-review Phase 4 touches perf, but is shallow (≈10 cross-language anti-patterns, no profiling).
@code-optimization runs language-specific profilers (pprof, py-spy, cargo flamegraph, clinic.js), classifies every finding on three independent axes — Impact × Risk × Effort — and writes a durable artifact at OPTIMIZATION_REPORT.md (project root). The report places Quick Wins (High/Critical impact + Small effort) at the top so the user can act before the next release.
- Use after a latency or OOM incident, before a release with a perf SLO gate, or while planning a refactor whose primary motivation is perf rather than readability.
- Coexists with
@code-review and @clean-code in Stage 4 — they cover different concerns. @code-optimization may cross-link to @code-security-review when a finding doubles as a DoS surface (unbounded query, ReDoS, decompression bomb).
Trigger phrases: optimize code, otimizar código, auditar performance, performance review, find bottlenecks, analisar gargalos, or /valarmindskills:code-optimization.
Persistence
Active until the user says:
/valarmindskills:superpowers off
stop superpowers, disable superpowers, desativar superpowers, desligar superpowers, parar superpowers
- The session ends.
The posture does not auto-revert after N turns.
Boundaries
- Does not override safety. Security warnings, destructive actions, and irreversible operations follow their existing rules. Superpowers tightens process; it never loosens guardrails.
- Coexists with caveman. Caveman shapes voice; superpowers shapes process. Both can be active simultaneously — the reply is terse AND disciplined.
- Does not bypass user instructions. If the user explicitly skips a stage, skip it.
- Skill library is delegated. Superpowers does not ship its own brainstorm / plan / review skills. It points to the existing ValarMind skills and to the harness's built-in
Plan, EnterWorktree, and subagent capabilities. The full catalog (stage→skill, context triggers, priority) lives in references/SKILL_MAP.md; core skills referenced inline are @code-review, @github-pr-review, @clean-code, @code-debugger, @code-optimization, and @skill-creator.
Inputs you may receive after invocation
| Input | Required | Default | How to obtain |
|---|
| Mode | No | on | /valarmindskills:superpowers on|off |
| Response language | No | Follow the environment directive | Free-form override: "use English" |
| Workflow scope | No | Full seven stages | "skip the worktree", "no subagents", etc. — user-instruction tier wins |
Constraints
- Never skip TDD silently. If you skip it, say so and explain why.
- Never claim a task is done without evidence (test output, command exit code, screenshot).
- Never hide a red flag from the user. Surface the rationalization, then refuse it.
- Never auto-revert without an explicit
stop superpowers / /valarmindskills:superpowers off.
- Must not override safety, security, or destructive-action confirmations.
- Must not invent skills that do not exist in this repo. If a missing capability blocks the workflow, say so.
Example invocations
- "ative superpowers"
- "enable superpowers"
- "/valarmindskills:superpowers"
- "/valarmindskills:superpowers on"
- "modo superpowers"
- "discipline mode"
- "stop superpowers" (exit)
References
Each reference is a focused companion to one stage or discipline of the posture. Read the one(s) relevant to your current stage; the SKILL.md is the index, not a replacement.
| File | Topic |
|---|
| SKILL_MAP.md | Stage→skill catalog + context triggers + priority resolution — the ground truth for the 1% rule. |
| TDD.md | Test-Driven Development — RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, iron law, watch-it-fail rule. |
| SYSTEMATIC_DEBUGGING.md | Four-phase root-cause debugging — investigation before fixes, 3-attempt stop rule. |
| VERIFICATION.md | Evidence before claims — fresh command output, regression test verification dance. |
| BRAINSTORMING.md | Stage 1 — design gate, one-question dialogue, spec self-review, terminal hand-off to plans. |
| WRITING_PLANS.md | Stage 3 — bite-size tasks, no placeholders, copy-pasteable code, repeat-yourself rule. |
| EXECUTING_PLANS.md | Stage 4 — separate-session execution with critical review and stop-when-blocked. |
| SUBAGENT_DRIVEN.md | Stage 4 — in-session subagent loop with two-stage review (spec then quality). |
| DISPATCHING_PARALLEL.md | Concurrent investigations — one agent per independent domain, no shared state. |
| REQUESTING_REVIEW.md |
Attribution
Inspired by obra/superpowers (MIT, Copyright 2025 Jesse Vincent). The ValarMind port reauthors the posture for this repository's idiom: a session flag-file model (off-by-default) instead of a binary install/uninstall toggle, a compressed posture digest instead of full SKILL.md injection, Portuguese (pt-BR) trigger phrases, fourteen condensed reference companions in references/ instead of the upstream's sixteen separate top-level skills, and delegation to the existing ValarMind skills library (@code-review, @github-pr-review, @clean-code, @code-debugger, @skill-creator) for capabilities that already exist locally. See THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md.