fix(docs): correct inaccurate comparison claims against other plugins

README.md

@@ -43,24 +43,22 @@ Specwright closes the **entire loop** — design, plan, build, verify, ship, lea
 
 ### How It Compares
 
-| Capability | Specwright | [Spec Kit](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) | [Oh-My-ClaudeCode](https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode) | Manual workflows |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Structured spec writing | Yes | **Yes** — core strength | Partial | DIY |
-| Adversarial TDD (separate tester/executor) | **Yes** | No | No | No |
-| Wiring verification (orphaned code, layer violations) | **Yes** | No | No | No |
-| Evidence-based PRs (criterion → code + test) | **Yes** | No | No | No |
-| Quality gates with findings (not just badges) | **Yes** | No | Partial | DIY |
-| Compaction recovery | **Yes** | No | No | No |
-| Learning system (patterns promoted across sessions) | **Yes** | No | No | No |
-| Codebase knowledge persistence | **Yes** | No | No | No |
-| Configurability / extensibility | Moderate | Moderate | **High** — core strength | Full control |
-| Lightweight / low ceremony | No — opinionated by design | **Yes** | **Yes** | Varies |
+| Capability | Specwright | [Spec Kit](https://github.com/github/spec-kit) | [Oh-My-ClaudeCode](https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode) | [Superpowers](https://github.com/obra/superpowers) | Manual workflows |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Structured spec writing | Yes | **Yes** — core strength | Yes | Yes | DIY |
+| Adversarial TDD (separate tester/executor) | **Yes** | No | Yes | Yes | No |
+| Wiring verification (orphaned code, layer violations) | **Yes** | No | No | No | No |
+| Evidence-based PRs (criterion → code + test) | **Yes** | No | No | No | No |
+| Quality gates with findings (not just badges) | **Yes** | Partial | Yes | Partial | DIY |
+| Compaction recovery | **Yes** | No | Yes | No | No |
+| Learning system (patterns promoted across sessions) | **Yes** | No | Yes | Yes | No |
+| Codebase knowledge persistence | **Yes** | No | Yes | No | No |
 
 Every tool in this space pushes AI-assisted development forward. Specwright's focus is the **verification and evidence gap** — the part between "tests pass" and "it actually works."
 
 ## What Makes This Different
 
-Other tools in this space focus on the **specification phase** — they help you write a plan, then hand off to the AI. The hard part isn't planning. It's everything after: does the code actually do what was asked? Is it wired up? Is it secure? Can you prove it?
+Other tools in this space tend to focus on the **front half** of the loop — specification authoring, agent orchestration, or planning scaffolds — then hand off to the AI. The hard part isn't planning or delegation. It's everything after: does the code actually do what was asked? Is it wired up? Is it secure? Can you prove it?
 
 Specwright focuses on the **verification and evidence** side — the part where AI agents actually fail.
 
@@ -74,7 +72,7 @@ Specwright focuses on the **verification and evidence** side — the part where
 
 **Codebase Health Checks** — Run `/sw-audit` periodically to find systemic issues that per-change gates miss: architecture debt, complexity growth, convention drift, accumulated workarounds. Findings persist in `AUDIT.md` with stable IDs across re-runs. Design phases surface relevant findings. The learn phase resolves them when addressed.
 
-**Compaction Recovery** — All stateful skills support resume-from-crash. When Claude's context window compacts, Specwright reloads full state from disk. The only plugin in this space that handles context loss gracefully.
+**Compaction Recovery** — All stateful skills support resume-from-crash. When Claude's context window compacts, Specwright reloads full state from disk — including workflow stage, work unit queue, and gate progress — so no manual re-orientation is needed.
 
 ## How It Works