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
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: Compare survivors

Input	Source	Weight
Fresh-eyes findings	Step 3	High - quality signal
Code complexity	Lines, dependencies	Medium - simpler is better
Test coverage	Test count, coverage %	Medium - confidence signal
Plan quality	Clarity, task breakdown	Medium - shows thinking
Speed	Who finished first	Low - tiebreaker

Present comparison:

All 3 implementations passed tests. Fresh-eyes results:

| Impl | Tests | Fresh-Eyes | Lines | Plan approach |
|------|-------|------------|-------|---------------|
| impl-1 | 24/24 | 1 minor | 680 | Component-first |
| impl-2 | 22/22 | 0 issues | 720 | Data-layer-first |
| impl-3 | 26/26 | 2 minor | 590 | TDD-strict |

Recommendation: impl-2 (clean fresh-eyes, solid architecture)

Pick winner: [1] [2] [3] or [show diffs]

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
| Impl | Plan Approach | Tests | Fresh-Eyes | Lines | Result |
|------|---------------|-------|------------|-------|--------|
| impl-1 | Component-first | 24/24 | 1 minor | 680 | eliminated |
| impl-2 | Data-layer-first | 22/22 | 0 issues | 720 | WINNER |
| impl-3 | TDD-strict | 26/26 | 2 minor | 590 | eliminated |

## 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
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]

| Impl | Plan Approach | Tests | Fresh-Eyes |
|------|---------------|-------|------------|
| impl-1 | Component-first | 24/24 | 1 minor |
| impl-2 | Data-layer-first | 22/22 | 0 issues |
| impl-3 | TDD-strict | 26/26 | 2 minor |

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/