By KodingDev
Research-first workflows, ruthless code review, orchestrator-led reasoning, and opaque subagent isolation for the entire development lifecycle.
Verify external-API/library/protocol facts against live documentation. Returns facts and source URLs, never reasoning chains or hedging. Used by the research skill to isolate doc-fetching from orchestrator context.
Code review subagent. Receives a diff plus dimensions and returns classified findings (material-gap | prose-clarity | implementation-detail) with a verdict. Never edits.
Multi-source verification subagent. Reads candidate sources, returns a Ground Truth Audit with confidence label and a concrete falsifier. Used by the triangulate skill to isolate heavy verification reading from orchestrator context.
Modifier that runs the active task in autonomous mode — skip clarifying questions and approval gates, make reasonable defaults, produce reviewable artifacts before the user returns
Use before any new feature, significant change, or architectural decision
Use when ready to commit changes, or auto-triggered during execute
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior
Use when you have 2+ independent tasks, or when isolating heavy work preserves orchestrator context
Uses power tools
Uses Bash, Write, or Edit tools
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
Claude Code plugin for development workflows that don't fall apart in long sessions.
Superpowers is great. Skill-based workflows, iterative spec review, subagent-driven development — all genuinely good ideas that I used for a long time. But some patterns kept showing up that I wanted to fix:
Agents get confident in their own prior reasoning. If you review code, fix stuff, then review again — the second pass comes back suspiciously clean. The agent's own reasoning from the first review is right there in context, and it can't really fathom that it missed something when its own thoughts are telling it everything was fine. Meridian isolates review subagents so the orchestrator only ever sees defects and a verdict, not the reviewer's internal reasoning.
They trust their training data way too much. Confidently writing code against APIs that have changed, using library features that don't work the way they remember — then wasting ages debugging when a quick docs check would've caught it upfront. Meridian verifies external APIs against live documentation before writing code.
Skill systems can be too rigid. Not everything needs the full brainstorm -> plan -> execute pipeline. Changing a button color shouldn't require a design spec. Meridian uses judgment about what warrants ceremony and what just needs doing.
Agents commit stuff you didn't ask for. Spec files staged automatically, AI attribution in every message, design docs forced past your gitignore. Meridian doesn't commit anything without asking, doesn't stage spec files, and doesn't put "Co-Authored-By: Claude" in your commits.
They don't push back enough. If you ask for something that'll cause problems, the agent should say so — with evidence and actual alternatives, each with an honest case made for it. And once you've picked a direction, it should go all in, not half-ass it and relitigate in review.
Hard-won knowledge dies with the session. You debug something for two hours, nail the root cause, and next session the agent suggests the exact approach you already ruled out. Meridian has a documentation skill for capturing gotchas, debugging context, and "we already tried this" notes so future sessions don't start from scratch.
| Skill | Does |
|---|---|
research | Verify APIs/libs against live docs before implementing |
brainstorm | Design exploration -> spec through conversation |
execute | Implement from spec with verification gates |
delegate | Dispatch subagents with clean context isolation |
debug | Root-cause investigation, no fixes without understanding |
review | Code review via isolated subagent |
respond | Evaluate review feedback before acting on it |
commit | Clean git commits, no AI attribution |
document | Human-readable docs from resolved work |
Meridian output style applied automatically while the plugin is enabled (overrides any /output-style selection while loaded). It carries the durable principles — three pillars, voice, commit-attribution override, the challenge protocol — directly in the system prompt rather than relying on per-turn reminders./plugin marketplace add KodingDev/meridian
/plugin install meridian@meridian
Install from the Cursor plugin marketplace, or enable Third-party skills in Cursor Settings → Features if you use the Claude plugin bundle.
Hooks are Node scripts (node ./hooks/*.mjs) — no Git Bash or shell polyglot required. Session orientation injects via additional_context on sessionStart. If hooks fail silently, check View → Output → Hooks and restart Cursor after updating the plugin.
Copilot CLI installs the same plugin via its /plugin commands and loads the skills and subagents directly. Subagent tools are declared as YAML arrays of Claude tool names ([Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, …]); Copilot resolves these case-insensitively to its own primitives (read, search, execute, web), so the agents get full file/search/shell/web access rather than the bare baseline.
Hooks ship in Copilot's own format: Copilot's command schema treats command as a shell string and has no args array, so the Claude exec-form config would run a bare node. Copilot is pointed at hooks/hooks-copilot.json via .plugin/plugin.json (a manifest slot Copilot reads but Claude and Cursor don't). Session orientation injects via a flat additionalContext on sessionStart; prompt submission is state-only, because Copilot's userPromptSubmitted hook cannot inject context (same ceiling as Cursor).
npx claudepluginhub kodingdev/meridianResearch-first workflows, ruthless code review, orchestrator-led reasoning, and opaque subagent isolation for the entire development lifecycle.
Comprehensive feature development workflow with specialized agents for codebase exploration, architecture design, and quality review
Harness-native ECC operator layer - 67 agents, 271 skills, 92 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, selective install profiles, and production-ready workflows for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Cursor, and related agent harnesses
Comprehensive skill pack with 66 specialized skills for full-stack developers: 12 language experts (Python, TypeScript, Go, Rust, C++, Swift, Kotlin, C#, PHP, Java, SQL, JavaScript), 10 backend frameworks, 6 frontend/mobile, plus infrastructure, DevOps, security, and testing. Features progressive disclosure architecture for 50% faster loading.
Core skills library for Claude Code: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques
Tools to maintain and improve CLAUDE.md files - audit quality, capture session learnings, and keep project memory current.
Develop, test, build, and deploy Godot 4.x games with Claude Code. Includes GdUnit4 testing, web/desktop exports, CI/CD pipelines, and deployment to Vercel/GitHub Pages/itch.io.