use superpowers for this project i am just starting now. make a web app game called Humans vs LLMs: Humanity's Last Exam. The webpage asks "can you beat LLMs on Humanity's Last Exam? Take the quiz here!" The app

• pulls 10 Qs (of different subject matters) from https://agi.safe.ai/
• Make multiple choice questions the user can answer
• provide a social media link and graphic to share how they did. this can be copy-and-pasteable or use the X API and should link to this app (which will be deployed on Cloudflare Workers)
• after someone takes the quiz, they are added to the Human ranking durable leaderboard.
• visitors to the webapp can click a button to see the leaderboard regardless
• after someone submits their answers to the quiz, show the correct answers and what they submitted. Say something like: on average, {Fable 5/Opus 4.8/Muse Spark 1.1/GPT 5.5/models on the benchmark} out-performs humans on this question by x%. The x % changes each time someone takes the quiz. Do the math to calculate that number.
• whenever someone refreshes the page or revisits the page, they get different questions

Base directory for this skill: /Users/lizziesiegle/.claude/plugins/cache/claude-plugins-official/superpowers/6.1.1/skills/brainstorming

Brainstorming Ideas Into Designs

Help turn ideas into fully formed designs and specs through natural collaborative dialogue.

Start by understanding the current project context, then ask questions one at a time to refine the idea. Once you understand what you're building, present the design and get user approval.

Anti-Pattern: "This Is Too Simple To Need A Design"

Every project goes through this process. A todo list, a single-function utility, a config change — all of them. "Simple" projects are where unexamined assumptions cause the most wasted work. The design can be short (a few sentences for truly simple projects), but you MUST present it and get approval.

Checklist

You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:

1. Explore project context — check files, docs, recent commits
2. Offer the visual companion just-in-time — NOT upfront. The first time a question would genuinely be clearer shown than described, offer it then (its own message); on approval its browser tab opens for you. If no visual question ever arises, never offer it. See the Visual Companion section below.
3. Ask clarifying questions — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
4. Propose 2-3 approaches — with trade-offs and your recommendation
5. Present design — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
6. Write design doc — save to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md and commit
7. Spec self-review — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
8. User reviews written spec — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
9. Transition to implementation — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan

Process Flow

The terminal state is invoking writing-plans. Do NOT invoke frontend-design, mcp-builder, or any other implementation skill. The ONLY skill you invoke after brainstorming is writing-plans.

The Process

Understanding the idea:

• Check out the current project state first (files, docs, recent commits)
• Before asking detailed questions, assess scope: if the request describes multiple independent subsystems (e.g., "build a platform with chat, file storage, billing, and analytics"), flag this immediately. Don't spend questions refining details of a project that needs to be decomposed first.
• If the project is too large for a single spec, help the user decompose into sub-projects: what are the independent pieces, how do they relate, what order should they be built? Then brainstorm the first sub-project through the normal design flow. Each sub-project gets its own spec → plan → implementation cycle.
• For appropriately-scoped projects, ask questions one at a time to refine the idea
• Prefer multiple choice questions when possible, but open-ended is fine too
• Only one question per message - if a topic needs more exploration, break it into multiple questions
• Focus on understanding: purpose, constraints, success criteria

Exploring approaches:

• Propose 2-3 different approaches with trade-offs
• Present options conversationally with your recommendation and reasoning
• Lead with your recommended option and explain why

Presenting the design:

• Once you believe you understand what you're building, present the design
• Scale each section to its complexity: a few sentences if straightforward, up to 200-300 words if nuanced
• Ask after each section whether it looks right so far
• Cover: architecture, components, data flow, error handling, testing
• Be ready to go back and clarify if something doesn't make sense

Design for isolation and clarity:

• Break the system into smaller units that each have one clear purpose, communicate through well-defined interfaces, and can be understood and tested independently
• For each unit, you should be able to answer: what does it do, how do you use it, and what does it depend on?
• Can someone understand what a unit does without reading its internals? Can you change the internals without breaking consumers? If not, the boundaries need work.
• Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. When a file grows large, that's often a signal that it's doing too much.

Working in existing codebases:

• Explore the current structure before proposing changes. Follow existing patterns.
• Where existing code has problems that affect the work (e.g., a file that's grown too large, unclear boundaries, tangled responsibilities), include targeted improvements as part of the design - the way a good developer improves code they're working in.
• Don't propose unrelated refactoring. Stay focused on what serves the current goal.

After the Design

Documentation:

• Write the validated design (spec) to docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md
  • (User preferences for spec location override this default)
• Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
• Commit the design document to git

Spec Self-Review: After writing the spec document, look at it with fresh eyes:

1. Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", incomplete sections, or vague requirements? Fix them.
2. Internal consistency: Do any sections contradict each other? Does the architecture match the feature descriptions?
3. Scope check: Is this focused enough for a single implementation plan, or does it need decomposition?
4. Ambiguity check: Could any requirement be interpreted two different ways? If so, pick one and make it explicit.

Fix any issues inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on.

User Review Gate: After the spec review loop passes, ask the user to review the written spec before proceeding:

"Spec written and committed to <path>. Please review it and let me know if you want to make any changes before we start writing out the implementation plan."

Wait for the user's response. If they request changes, make them and re-run the spec review loop. Only proceed once the user approves.

Implementation:

• Invoke the writing-plans skill to create a detailed implementation plan
• Do NOT invoke any other skill. writing-plans is the next step.

Key Principles

• One question at a time - Don't overwhelm with multiple questions
• Multiple choice preferred - Easier to answer than open-ended when possible
• YAGNI ruthlessly - Remove unnecessary features from all designs
• Explore alternatives - Always propose 2-3 approaches before settling
• Incremental validation - Present design, get approval before moving on
• Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense

Visual Companion

A browser-based companion for showing mockups, diagrams, and visual options during brainstorming. Available as a tool — not a mode. Accepting the companion means it's available for questions that benefit from visual treatment; it does NOT mean every question goes through the browser.

Offering the companion (just-in-time): Do NOT offer it upfront. Wait until a question would genuinely be clearer shown than told — a real mockup / layout / diagram question, not merely a UI topic. The first time that happens, offer it then, as its own message:

"This next part might be easier if I show you — I can put together mockups, diagrams, and comparisons in a browser tab as we go. It's still new and can be token-intensive. Want me to? I'll open it for you."

This offer MUST be its own message. Only the offer — no clarifying question, summary, or other content. Wait for the user's response. If they accept, start the server with --open so their browser opens to the first screen automatically. If they decline, continue text-only and don't offer again unless they raise it.

Per-question decision: Even after the user accepts, decide FOR EACH QUESTION whether to use the browser or the terminal. The test: would the user understand this better by seeing it than reading it?

• Use the browser for content that IS visual — mockups, wireframes, layout comparisons, architecture diagrams, side-by-side visual designs
• Use the terminal for content that is text — requirements questions, conceptual choices, tradeoff lists, A/B/C/D text options, scope decisions

A question about a UI topic is not automatically a visual question. "What does personality mean in this context?" is a conceptual question — use the terminal. "Which wizard layout works better?" is a visual question — use the browser.

If they agree to the companion, read the detailed guide before proceeding: skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md

can you load the dataset with from datasets import load_dataset

dataset = load_dataset("cais/hle", split="test")

looks good

looks good

Base directory for this skill: /Users/lizziesiegle/.claude/plugins/cache/claude-plugins-official/superpowers/6.1.1/skills/writing-plans

Writing Plans

Overview

Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.

Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."

Context: If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the superpowers:using-git-worktrees skill at execution time.

Save plans to: docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md

• (User preferences for plan location override this default)

Scope Check

If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.

File Structure

Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.

• Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
• You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
• Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
• In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.

This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.

Task Right-Sizing

A task is the smallest unit that carries its own test cycle and is worth a fresh reviewer's gate. When drawing task boundaries: fold setup, configuration, scaffolding, and documentation steps into the task whose deliverable needs them; split only where a reviewer could meaningfully reject one task while approving its neighbor. Each task ends with an independently testable deliverable.

Bite-Sized Task Granularity

Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):

• "Write the failing test" - step
• "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
• "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
• "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
• "Commit" - step

Plan Document Header

Every plan MUST start with this header:

Task Structure

No Placeholders

Every step must contain the actual content an engineer needs. These are plan failures — never write them:

• "TBD", "TODO", "implement later", "fill in details"
• "Add appropriate error handling" / "add validation" / "handle edge cases"
• "Write tests for the above" (without actual test code)
• "Similar to Task N" (repeat the code — the engineer may be reading tasks out of order)
• Steps that describe what to do without showing how (code blocks required for code steps)
• References to types, functions, or methods not defined in any task

Remember

• Exact file paths always
• Complete code in every step — if a step changes code, show the code
• Exact commands with expected output
• DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits

Self-Review

After writing the complete plan, look at the spec with fresh eyes and check the plan against it. This is a checklist you run yourself — not a subagent dispatch.

1. Spec coverage: Skim each section/requirement in the spec. Can you point to a task that implements it? List any gaps.

2. Placeholder scan: Search your plan for red flags — any of the patterns from the "No Placeholders" section above. Fix them.

3. Type consistency: Do the types, method signatures, and property names you used in later tasks match what you defined in earlier tasks? A function called clearLayers() in Task 3 but clearFullLayers() in Task 7 is a bug.

If you find issues, fix them inline. No need to re-review — just fix and move on. If you find a spec requirement with no task, add the task.

Execution Handoff

After saving the plan, offer execution choice:

"Plan complete and saved to docs/superpowers/plans/<filename>.md. Two execution options:

1. Subagent-Driven (recommended) - I dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration

2. Inline Execution - Execute tasks in this session using executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints

Which approach?"

If Subagent-Driven chosen:

• REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development
• Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review

If Inline Execution chosen:

• REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans
• Batch execution with checkpoints for review

Base directory for this skill: /Users/lizziesiegle/.claude/skills/durable-objects

Durable Objects

Build stateful, coordinated applications on Cloudflare's edge using Durable Objects.

Retrieval Sources

Your knowledge of Durable Objects APIs and configuration may be outdated. Prefer retrieval over pre-training for any Durable Objects task.

Fetch the relevant doc page when implementing features.

When to Use

• Creating new Durable Object classes for stateful coordination
• Implementing RPC methods, alarms, or WebSocket handlers
• Reviewing existing DO code for best practices
• Configuring wrangler.jsonc/toml for DO bindings and migrations
• Writing tests with @cloudflare/vitest-pool-workers
• Designing sharding strategies and parent-child relationships

Reference Documentation

• ./references/rules.md - Core rules, storage, concurrency, RPC, alarms
• ./references/testing.md - Vitest setup, unit/integration tests, alarm testing
• ./references/workers.md - Workers handlers, types, wrangler config, observability

Search: blockConcurrencyWhile, idFromName, getByName, setAlarm, sql.exec

Core Principles

Use Durable Objects For

Do NOT Use For

• Stateless request handling (use plain Workers)
• Maximum global distribution needs
• High fan-out independent requests

Quick Reference

Wrangler Configuration

Basic Durable Object Pattern

Critical Rules

1. Model around coordination atoms - One DO per chat room/game/user, not one global DO
2. Use getByName() for deterministic routing - Same input = same DO instance
3. Use SQLite storage - Configure new_sqlite_classes in migrations
4. Initialize in constructor - Use blockConcurrencyWhile() for schema setup only
5. Use RPC methods - Not fetch() handler (compatibility date >= 2024-04-03)
6. Persist first, cache second - Always write to storage before updating in-memory state
7. One alarm per DO - setAlarm() replaces any existing alarm

Anti-Patterns (NEVER)

• Single global DO handling all requests (bottleneck)
• Using blockConcurrencyWhile() on every request (kills throughput)
• Storing critical state only in memory (lost on eviction/crash)
• Using await between related storage writes (breaks atomicity)
• Holding blockConcurrencyWhile() across fetch() or external I/O

Stub Creation

Storage Operations

Alarms

Testing Quick Start

Base directory for this skill: /Users/lizziesiegle/.claude/skills/wrangler

Wrangler CLI

Your knowledge of Wrangler CLI flags, config fields, and subcommands may be outdated. Prefer retrieval over pre-training for any Wrangler task.

Retrieval Sources

Fetch the latest information before writing or reviewing Wrangler commands and config. Do not rely on baked-in knowledge for CLI flags, config fields, or binding shapes.

FIRST: Check if Wrangler is installed, and if not, install it

Check if Wrangler is installed by running:

If Wrangler is not installed, you should install it by running:

Wherever possible, you should use Wrangler instead of manually constructing API requests.

Key Guidelines

• Use wrangler.jsonc: Prefer JSON config over TOML. Newer features are JSON-only.
• Set compatibility_date: Use a recent date (within 30 days). Check https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/configuration/compatibility-dates/
• Generate types after config changes: Run wrangler types to update TypeScript bindings.
• Local dev defaults to local storage: Bindings use local simulation unless remote: true.
• Profile Worker startup: Run wrangler check startup to measure startup time and detect scripts that exceed the startup time limit.
• Use environments for staging/prod: Define env.staging and env.production in config.

Quick Start: New Worker

Quick Reference: Core Commands

Configuration (wrangler.jsonc)

Minimal Config

Full Config with Bindings

Generate Types from Config

Local Development

Start Dev Server

Remote Bindings for Local Dev

Use remote: true in binding config to connect to real resources while running locally:

Recommended remote bindings: AI (required), Vectorize, Browser Rendering, mTLS, Images.

Local Secrets

Create .dev.vars for local development secrets:

Deployment

Deploy Worker

Manage Secrets

Security: Never pass secret values as command arguments or pipe them via echo. Use the interactive prompt (preferred), pipe from a file, or use secret bulk. Never output, log, or hardcode secret values in commands.

Versions and Rollback

KV (Key-Value Store)

Manage Namespaces

Manage Keys

Config Binding

R2 (Object Storage)

Manage Buckets

Manage Objects

Config Binding

D1 (SQL Database)

Manage Databases

Execute SQL

Migrations

Export/Backup

Config Binding

Vectorize (Vector Database)

Manage Indexes

Manage Vectors

Config Binding

Hyperdrive (Database Accelerator)

Manage Configs

Config Binding

Workers AI

List Models

Config Binding

Note: Workers AI always runs remotely and incurs usage charges even in local dev.

Queues

Manage Queues

Config Binding

Containers

Build and Push Images

Manage Containers

Manage Images

Manage External Registries

Security: Never hardcode registry credentials in commands. Use environment variables.

Workflows

Manage Workflows

Manage Workflow Instances

Config Binding

Pipelines

Manage Pipelines

Config Binding

Secrets Store

Manage Stores

Manage Secrets in Store

Config Binding

Pages (Frontend Deployment)

Observability

Tail Logs

Config Logging

Testing

Local Testing with Vitest

vitest.config.ts:

Test Scheduled Events

Troubleshooting

Common Issues

Debug Commands

Best Practices

1. Version control wrangler.jsonc: Treat as source of truth for Worker config.
2. Use automatic provisioning: Omit resource IDs for auto-creation on deploy.
3. Run wrangler types in CI: Add to build step to catch binding mismatches.
4. Use environments: Separate staging/production with env.staging, env.production.
5. Set compatibility_date: Update quarterly to get new runtime features.
6. Use .dev.vars for local secrets: Never commit secrets to config.
7. Test locally first: wrangler dev with local bindings before deploying.
8. Use --dry-run before major deploys: Validate changes without deployment.
9. Never embed secrets in commands: Use interactive prompts (wrangler secret put), file-based input (wrangler secret bulk), or secure CI environment variables. Never echo, log, or pass secret values as CLI arguments.