| name | cookoff |
| description | This skill should be used when moving from design to implementation. Triggers on "let's build", "implement this", "looks good let's code", "ready to implement". Presents options for parallel agent competition (cookoff), single subagent, or local implementation. Each agent creates own plan from shared design for genuine variation. |
Cookoff
Same design, multiple cooks compete. Each implementation team creates their own plan from the shared design, then implements it. Natural variation emerges from independent planning decisions.
Part of Test Kitchen Development:
omakase-off - Chef's choice exploration (different approaches/designs)cookoff - Same design, multiple cooks compete (each creates own plan + implements)
Key insight: Don't share a pre-made implementation plan. Each agent generates their own plan from the design doc, ensuring genuine variation.
Directory Structure
docs/plans/<feature>/
design.md # Input: from brainstorming
cookoff/
impl-1/
plan.md # Agent 1's implementation plan
impl-2/
plan.md # Agent 2's implementation plan
impl-3/
plan.md # Agent 3's implementation plan
result.md # Cookoff results and winner
Skill Dependencies
| Reference | Primary (if installed) | Fallback |
|---|
writing-plans | superpowers:writing-plans | Each agent writes their own implementation plan |
executing-plans | superpowers:executing-plans | Execute plan tasks sequentially with verification |
parallel-agents | superpowers:dispatching-parallel-agents | Dispatch multiple Task tools in single message |
git-worktrees | superpowers:using-git-worktrees | git worktree add .worktrees/<name> -b <branch> |
tdd | superpowers:test-driven-development | RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle |
verification | superpowers:verification-before-completion | Run command, read output, THEN claim status |
fresh-eyes | fresh-eyes-review:skills (2389) | 2-5 min review for security, logic, edge cases |
judge | test-kitchen:judge | Scoring framework with checklists (MUST invoke at Phase 4) |
code-review | superpowers:requesting-code-review | Dispatch code-reviewer subagent |
scenario-testing | scenario-testing:skills (2389) | .scratch/ E2E scripts, real dependencies |
finish-branch | superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch | Verify tests, present options, cleanup |
When to Use
Trigger when user wants to implement a design:
- "Execute this plan" / "Implement the plan" / "Let's build this"
- After brainstorming completes and design doc exists
- Can also invoke explicitly: "cookoff this"
Important: Cookoff works from a design doc, not a detailed implementation plan. Each agent creates their own implementation plan.
Detecting the Design-to-Implementation Transition
Cookoff triggers at a SITUATION, not a specific skill's output.
The situation: Design is complete, implementation is about to start.
Signals that design phase just completed:
- Design doc was written/committed
- User approved a design ("looks good", "yes", "let's do it")
- Discussion shifted from "what to build" to "how to build it"
- Any skill/flow is about to start implementation
When you detect this transition, ALWAYS offer cookoff:
Before we start implementation, how would you like to proceed?
1. Cookoff (recommended) - N parallel agents, each creates own plan, pick best
→ Complexity: [assess from design]
→ Best for: medium-high complexity features
2. Single implementation - One agent/session implements
3. Direct coding - Start coding without detailed plan
This applies regardless of:
- Which brainstorming skill was used (superpowers, other, or none)
- Whether a formal design doc exists (could be informal agreement)
- What implementation options another skill might present
The key insight: We're not injecting into another skill's menu. We're recognizing a SITUATION (design→implementation) and ensuring cookoff is offered at that moment.
Phase 1: Implementation Options
Present choices when user wants to implement:
How would you like to implement this design?
1. Single subagent - One agent plans and implements
2. Cookoff - N parallel agents, each creates own plan, pick best
→ Complexity: [assess from design]
→ Recommendation: N implementations
3. Local - Plan and implement here in this session
Which approach?
Routing:
- Option 1: Single agent uses writing-plans then executing-plans, cookoff exits
- Option 2: Continue to Phase 2
- Option 3: User implements manually, cookoff exits
Phase 2: Complexity Assessment
Read design doc and assess:
- Feature scope (components, integrations, data models)
- Risk areas (auth, payments, migrations, concurrency)
- Estimated implementation size
Map to implementation count:
| Complexity | Scope | Risk signals | Implementations |
|---|
| Low | Small feature | None | 2 |
| Medium | Medium feature | Some | 3 |
| High | Large feature | Several | 4 |
| Very high | Major system | Critical areas | 5 |
Setup directories:
mkdir -p docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/impl-{1,2,3}
Announce:
Complexity assessment: medium feature, touches auth
Spawning 3 parallel implementations
Each will create their own implementation plan from the design.
Phase 3: Parallel Execution
Setup worktrees:
.worktrees/cookoff-impl-1/
.worktrees/cookoff-impl-2/
.worktrees/cookoff-impl-3/
Branches:
<feature>/cookoff/impl-1
<feature>/cookoff/impl-2
<feature>/cookoff/impl-3
CRITICAL: Dispatch ALL agents in a SINGLE message
Use parallel-agents pattern. Send ONE message with multiple Task tool calls:
<single message>
Task(impl-1, run_in_background: true)
Task(impl-2, run_in_background: true)
Task(impl-3, run_in_background: true)
</single message>
Do NOT send separate messages for each agent.
Subagent prompt (each gets same instructions with their impl number):
You are implementation team N of M in a cookoff competition.
Other teams are implementing the same design in parallel.
Each team creates their own implementation plan - your approach may differ from others.
**Your working directory:** /path/to/.worktrees/cookoff-impl-N
**Design doc:** docs/plans/<feature>/design.md
**Your plan location:** docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/impl-N/plan.md
**Your workflow:**
1. Read the design doc thoroughly
2. Use writing-plans skill to create YOUR implementation plan
- Save to: docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/impl-N/plan.md
- Make your own architectural decisions
- Don't try to guess what other teams will do
3. Use executing-plans skill to implement your plan
4. Follow TDD for each task
5. Use verification before claiming done
**Report when done:**
- Plan created: yes/no
- All tasks completed: yes/no
- Test results (npm test output)
- Files changed count
- Any issues encountered
Your goal: best possible implementation. Good luck!
Monitor progress:
Cookoff status (design: auth-system):
- impl-1: planning... → implementing 5/8 tasks
- impl-2: planning... → implementing 3/8 tasks
- impl-3: planning... → implementing 6/8 tasks
Phase 4: Judging
Step 1: Gate check
- All tests pass
- Design adherence - implemented what the design specified
Step 2: Check for identical implementations
Before fresh-eyes, diff the implementations:
diff -r .worktrees/cookoff-impl-1/src .worktrees/cookoff-impl-2/src
If implementations are >95% identical, note this - the planning step didn't create enough variation. Still proceed but flag in results.
Step 3: Fresh-eyes on survivors
Starting fresh-eyes review of impl-1 (N files)...
Checking: security, logic errors, edge cases
Fresh-eyes complete: 1 minor issue
Step 4: Invoke Judge Skill
CRITICAL: Invoke test-kitchen:judge now.
The judge skill contains the full scoring framework with checklists. Invoking it fresh ensures the scoring format is followed exactly.
Invoke: test-kitchen:judge
Context to provide:
- Implementations to judge: impl-1, impl-2, impl-3 (or however many)
- Worktree locations: .worktrees/cookoff-impl-N/
- Test results from each implementation
- Fresh-eyes findings from Step 3
- Feasibility flags identified
The judge skill will:
- Fill out the complete scoring worksheet for each implementation
- Build the scorecard with integer scores (1-5, no half points)
- Check hard gates (Fitness Δ≥2, any score=1)
- Announce winner with rationale
Do not summarize or abbreviate the scoring. The judge skill output should be the full worksheet.
Cookoff-specific context: In cookoff, all implementations target the same design, so Fitness should be similar. A Fitness gap (Δ≥2) indicates one implementation deviated from or misunderstood the design - not a different approach choice.
Phase 5: Completion
Verification on winner:
Running final verification on winner (impl-2):
- npm test: 22/22 passing ✓
- npm run build: exit 0 ✓
- Design adherence: all requirements met ✓
Verification complete. Winner confirmed.
Winner: Use finish-branch
- Options: merge locally, create PR, keep as-is, discard
Losers: Cleanup
git worktree remove .worktrees/cookoff-impl-1
git worktree remove .worktrees/cookoff-impl-3
git branch -D <feature>/cookoff/impl-1
git branch -D <feature>/cookoff/impl-3
Write result.md:
# Cookoff Results: <feature>
## Design
docs/plans/<feature>/design.md
## Implementations
| Impl | Plan Approach | Tests | Fresh-Eyes | Lines | Result |
|------|---------------|-------|------------|-------|--------|
| impl-1 | Component-first | 24/24 | 1 minor | 680 | eliminated |
| impl-2 | Data-layer-first | 22/22 | 0 issues | 720 | WINNER |
| impl-3 | TDD-strict | 26/26 | 2 minor | 590 | eliminated |
## Plans Generated
- impl-1: docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/impl-1/plan.md
- impl-2: docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/impl-2/plan.md
- impl-3: docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/impl-3/plan.md
## Winner Selection
Reason: Clean fresh-eyes review, solid data-layer-first architecture
## Cleanup
Worktrees removed: 2
Branches deleted: <feature>/cookoff/impl-1, <feature>/cookoff/impl-3
Winner branch: <feature>/cookoff/impl-2
Save to: docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/result.md
Skills Orchestrated
| Dependency | Phase | Usage |
|---|
writing-plans | 3 | Each subagent creates their own implementation plan |
executing-plans | 3 | Each subagent implements their plan |
parallel-agents | 3 | Dispatch ALL subagents in SINGLE message |
git-worktrees | 3 | Create worktree per implementation |
tdd | 3 | Subagents follow RED-GREEN-REFACTOR |
verification | 3, 5 | Before claiming done; before declaring winner |
code-review | 3 | Review each impl after completion |
fresh-eyes | 4 | Quality review → judge input |
judge | 4 | INVOKE for scoring framework (loads fresh, ensures format compliance) |
scenario-testing | 4 | Validate if scenarios defined |
finish-branch | 5 | Handle winner, cleanup losers |
Common Mistakes
Sharing a pre-made implementation plan
- Problem: All teams copy same code, no variation
- Fix: Each team uses writing-plans to create THEIR OWN plan from design doc
Dispatching agents in separate messages
- Problem: Serial dispatch instead of parallel
- Fix: Send ALL Task tools in a SINGLE message
Not using writing-plans + executing-plans
- Problem: Subagent implements ad-hoc
- Fix: Each subagent MUST use writing-plans then executing-plans
Skipping fresh-eyes
- Problem: Judge has no quality signal, just test counts
- Fix: Fresh-eyes on ALL survivors before comparing
Not checking for identical implementations
- Problem: Wasted compute on duplicates
- Fix: Diff implementations before fresh-eyes, flag if >95% similar
Forgetting cleanup
- Problem: Orphaned worktrees and branches
- Fix: Always cleanup losers, write result.md
Example Invocation
User: "Let's build this" (after brainstorming produced design.md)
Claude: I'm using cookoff.
How would you like to implement this design?
1. Single subagent - One agent plans and implements
2. Cookoff - 3 parallel agents, each creates own plan, pick best
→ Complexity: medium feature, touches auth
→ Recommendation: 3 implementations
3. Local - Plan and implement here
User: "2"
Claude: Spawning 3 parallel implementations...
Each will create their own implementation plan from the design.
[Phase 3: Create worktrees, dispatch ALL 3 agents in single message]
[Each agent: reads design → writes plan → implements]
Cookoff status:
- impl-1: planning → implementing 6/8 tasks
- impl-2: planning → implementing 4/7 tasks
- impl-3: planning → implementing 5/9 tasks
[All 3 complete]
[Phase 4: Diff check - implementations are different ✓]
[Fresh-eyes on all 3]
| Impl | Plan Approach | Tests | Fresh-Eyes |
|------|---------------|-------|------------|
| impl-1 | Component-first | 24/24 | 1 minor |
| impl-2 | Data-layer-first | 22/22 | 0 issues |
| impl-3 | TDD-strict | 26/26 | 2 minor |
Recommendation: impl-2 (cleanest)
User: "2"
[Phase 5: Verify winner, cleanup losers]
Winner: impl-2 ready to merge
Cleanup: 2 worktrees removed
Plans preserved: docs/plans/<feature>/cookoff/
