Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

diagnosing-superpowers

Examine superpowers session records to document repeated work, departures from plans, delays, and token usage. Produce an evidence-based report with file and line references, and prepare bug-report material when requested.

OriginalShow the original description

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.

AI rating90/ 100See how to install

Good for

  • Investigating repeated work or departures from a plan
  • Checking session duration and token usage
  • Tracing whether a skill was invoked
  • Preparing evidence for a superpowers bug report

Overview

What it does

diagnosing-superpowers reads records from sessions using superpowers and reports what happened with supporting evidence. It compares your expected outcome with the actual behavior, examining skill usage, adherence to plans, repeated work, difficulties, quality, conflicts with your requests, elapsed time, and token usage. Each finding includes the record file’s path and line number.

When it helps

Use it to review a session that repeated work, ignored a plan, failed to use a skill, or took a long time. It can examine the current session or past records identified by an ID or path. It also helps organize evidence for a bug report.

Example requests

  • “Use the records to report how this session ended up repeating the same work.”
  • “Check the duration and token usage of the specified session.”
  • “Draft a GitHub issue based on the report.”

Notes

It reads session records on disk without changing the originals and uses multiple separate agents for analysis. Declaring defects in the skills themselves or proposing changes is outside its scope. It prepares data for sharing only when requested. Posting an issue or creating an archive requires content review and approval.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Objective evaluation

AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.

Clear instructionsIs it clear when to use it and what it does?
AGoodIt explicitly investigates problematic sessions and reports events with path:line evidence.
Concrete stepsAre steps, inputs, outputs, and examples spelled out?
AGoodIt specifies intake, record discovery, seven analysis dimensions, reporting, conditional sharing steps, and templates.
SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodIt prohibits source-record changes and requires redaction, auditing, and approval before posting or archiving shared material.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
BPartly lackingIt references record-discovery documentation but provides no environment setup instructions for multiple agents or gh.

The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Files included (20)

  • SKILL.md6.7 KB
  • prompts/analyst-common.md1.5 KB
  • prompts/cost-and-time.md1.6 KB
  • prompts/plan-adherence.md1.6 KB
  • prompts/quality-evidence.md1.4 KB
  • prompts/repeated-work.md1.4 KB
  • prompts/request-conflicts.md1011 B
  • prompts/scrub-audit.md1.3 KB
  • prompts/scrub.md1.4 KB
  • prompts/similar-session.md1.7 KB
  • prompts/skill-timeline.md1.6 KB
  • prompts/stumbles.md1.3 KB
  • references/context-safety.md990 B
  • references/github-issues.md1.6 KB
  • references/redaction-policy.md2.2 KB
  • references/session-discovery.md1.8 KB
  • templates/bundle-README.md3.6 KB
  • templates/case.md2.9 KB
  • templates/issue.md1.8 KB
  • templates/report.md2.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

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.

ComplaintRead 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

ThoughtReality
"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.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

brainstorming

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Clarifies the purpose, preferences, and constraints of a new feature or project through conversation. When useful, it offers mockups or temporary prototypes, then captures an agreed description or written design before implementation begins.

  • Clarifying the purpose of a new feature
  • Organizing ideas for a talk or business
  • Comparing screen or room layouts visually
obra/superpowers301.7KUpdated Oct 10, 2026

dispatching-parallel-agents

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Assign independent bugs or test failures to separate agents that work at the same time. Define each agent’s scope and expected report, then check for conflicting changes and run the full test suite before integrating fixes.

  • Investigating test failures with unrelated causes
  • Fixing independent problems in separate subsystems
  • Defining focused tasks for multiple agents
obra/superpowers301.7KUpdated Oct 10, 2026

executing-plans

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Carry out an existing implementation plan in one session, task by task. Verify each step with tests, record progress and decisions in a file, and finish with a review of all changes on the branch.

  • Implementing a prepared development plan
  • Executing tasks without implementer subagents
  • Resuming work from a progress record
obra/superpowers301.7KUpdated Oct 10, 2026

finishing-a-development-branch

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Finish completed development work by checking the full test suite and presenting integration choices: merge locally, create a Pull Request, or keep the branch. It carries out the selected path and handles workspace cleanup accordingly.

  • Merging a completed feature locally
  • Pushing a branch and creating a Pull Request
  • Keeping completed work for later integration
obra/superpowers301.7KUpdated Oct 10, 2026

receiving-code-review

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Evaluate code review feedback against the actual code, supported environments, and existing behavior. Clarify uncertain requests, respond with technical evidence, and implement valid changes one at a time with tests for each fix.

  • Clarifying ambiguous code review comments
  • Checking whether suggested changes preserve compatibility
  • Assessing whether a requested feature is actually used
obra/superpowers301.7KUpdated Oct 10, 2026

requesting-code-review

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Requests a code review from a separate agent after implementation or before merging. It provides the change summary, requirements, and commit range, then guides follow-up work according to the severity of the findings.

  • Reviewing a major feature after implementation
  • Checking changes before merging
  • Getting another perspective on a complex bug fix
obra/superpowers301.7KUpdated Oct 10, 2026

See all skills by obra

Report a problem with this skill