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

Keep winner's worktree until merged

Write result.md:

Cookoff Results: <feature>

Design

docs/plans/<feature>/design.md

Implementations

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]

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/