Just wanted to share a rule in my global claude.md that I implemented that has saved me a lot of headaches and redesign after beginning implementing a plan/spec. With this in place, the reviews happen BEFORE any code is written. " Three-pass review for any plan or spec that a build will run from (a docs/superpowers/specs/… file, implementation plan, substantial design memo) — not casual planning or 30-min one-off task plans. (1) First draft via the brainstorming workflow. (2) Self-critique for holes, gotchas, contradictions, ambiguity, missed cases, better architecture — present findings to dev with severity (mandatory/should-do/nice-to-have); rewrite on agreement. (3) Dispatch a general-purpose agent (no prior context) for an independent pass — brief it with the spec path, grounding substrate, and issues already caught; ask for ranked findings under 600 words. Triage (verify code claims, push back where wrong, incorporate the real ones), rewrite, then proceed to writing-plans/build. Why: 2026-05-28 a CF spec had each of the three passes catch distinct real issues, including an architectural layering error that survived two of my own reads. " Every time a plan or spec is created using superpowers or that is “substantial” this fires, and every time it catches something fairly significant in BOTH of the second reviews. I end up with a much cleaner and well thought out plan in the end. Anyway, just thought I’d share in case anyone wanted to try it, or chime in. It isn’t a shiny new skill or anything fancy, but it works, and works well. submitted by /u/ka-tet
Originally posted by u/ka-tet on r/ClaudeCode