diagnosing-superpowers

diagnosing-superpowers

热门

Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

29万Star
2.6万Fork
更新于 2026/9/20
请求的译文尚未完成,当前显示原始英文。
SKILL.md
只读
名称
diagnosing-superpowers
描述

Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

Diagnosing Superpowers

Overview

Pin down with your human partner what went wrong in a session, read the
transcripts on disk, and report what happened with evidence. You report;
you do not diagnose superpowers. Whoever triages the bundle or the issue
decides whether superpowers changes.

Core principle: Every finding cites path:line. No citation, no
finding. Every number comes from the transcript or from a command you ran,
never from memory.

Workflow

Create a todo per step. Steps 5–7 run only on their stated condition.

  1. Problem intake. Ask one question at a time until you can write a
    statement naming the session(s), the turn range if known, what your
    partner expected, what happened, and the observable they care about
    (wall-clock, tokens, repeated actions, one specific action). "It took
    too long" is a complaint, not a problem statement. Note whether the
    goal is a superpowers bug report.
  2. Locate. Resolve each session to verified absolute filesystem paths using
    references/session-discovery.md. Confirm a past session by quoting its
    first prompt and timestamp, and list every candidate you rejected with the
    reason, or "none". Enumerate subagent transcripts. Create
    ~/.superpowers/diagnosing-superpowers/<session-id>/, tell your
    partner the path, and fill templates/case.md there, following its
    provenance rules for environment and skill observations.
  3. Triage. Read the region around the reported problem yourself. Then
    dispatch one analyst subagent per dimension in parallel, each given the
    case file path, prompts/analyst-common.md, and one dimension file from
    prompts/: skill-timeline.md,
    plan-adherence.md, repeated-work.md, stumbles.md,
    quality-evidence.md, request-conflicts.md, cost-and-time.md.
    Split a dimension by turn range when the transcript is long. Discard
    any returned finding without path:line.
  4. Report. Fill every section of templates/report.md in order, write
    it to the workspace, show it, and give the path. Check what cited content
    actually proves and preserve the supporting case; a symlink alias is not a
    redundant copy.
  5. GitHub issues — when report §7 says possible or likely, or your
    partner asks. Search open and closed issues for the symptoms per
    references/github-issues.md. Show matches and suggest adding the
    report to the closest. If none match, fill templates/issue.md, write
    it to the workspace, show the exact text, and create the issue only
    after approval. gh cannot attach files; if a bundle exists, give
    your partner its path to attach in the browser.
  6. Export — only when your partner asks for a bundle; never build one
    unprompted. If the intake goal was a bug report, say once that a
    scrubbed bundle is available on request, then wait. Ask the redaction
    level, stating what each includes: skeleton (no tool-result bodies),
    evidence (bodies only for cited events), full. Build the bundle per
    templates/bundle-README.md, dispatch prompts/scrub.md, then
    prompts/scrub-audit.md, repeating both until the audit returns CLEAN.
    Complete the bundle template's evidence check and reconciliation before
    showing the final scrub log, file list, and privacy and evidence outcomes.
    Archive (zip -r or tar -czf) only after approval. With the archive
    path, state what it contains, point at the scrub log for replacements, and
    say scrubbing can miss things: they must review every file before sharing.
  7. Similar sessions — when asked. Turn confirmed findings into a
    signature, list candidates by mtime and size, find marker line numbers,
    dispatch prompts/similar-session.md per candidate in parallel, and
    append report §9.

Quick reference

All seven analysts always run. This table says which region to read
yourself in step 3 and which findings to lead with in the verdict.

Complaint Read first, lead with
"It took too long" cost-and-time, stumbles
"Why did it do this extra work?" repeated-work, plan-adherence
"Why is it so expensive?" cost-and-time
"What the hell is it doing?" (still running) skill-timeline; note in-progress in coverage
"It ignored the plan" plan-adherence, compaction lines first
"Skill X never fired" skill-timeline

Hard rules

  • Context safety. One transcript line can be a megabyte. Follow
    references/context-safety.md on every session file, every time.
  • Read-only. Never modify, move, or delete a session file.
  • Exact paths to subagents. A subagent's "current session" is its
    own. Pass absolute paths and ids.
  • Human prompts only. Hook output, system reminders, and tool results
    are not your partner's words. In a subagent transcript, "user" is the
    parent agent.
  • No superpowers diagnosis. Report §7 states involvement and stops.
    Never name a defect in a skill or propose a change. Your partner
    pressing for a fix does not waive this; point at the issue step and
    mention that a bundle is available on request. No advice to your
    partner either.
  • Approval gates. No archive before your partner has seen the scrub
    log and file list. No issue or comment before they approve the exact
    text.
  • Intake before analysis. Nothing in steps 2–7 starts until your
    partner has answered. If they are away, write the questions and stop.
    A statement you reconstructed for them is not an answer. An
    already-scoped request — one specific event, what is running now, or
    the analysis to run — is itself the statement: answer it, then ask.
    A whole-session "why" is a complaint.

Red Flags

Thought Reality
"The problem is obvious, skip intake" The problem statement scopes everything. Ask.
"They're away, so I'll reconstruct the statement" You cannot reconstruct what they wanted. Write the questions and stop.
"I'll sweep everything now and ask at the end" An unscoped sweep spends their budget on the wrong question. Ask first.
"They want a bug report, so I'll build the bundle now" The bundle is their session data, packaged. Build it only when they ask for it.
"Small, targeted edit, no restructuring needed" Not your call, however small. Report the evidence; the triager decides.
"The price per token is well known" Numbers you did not compute from the transcript are invented. Cite or drop.