docs: correct the follow-up tool call claimHEADmaster

The comments and README stated flatly that a second tool call always comes
back as literal <tool_call> XML. On llama.cpp b10208 that is no longer true:
forcing a follow-up by starving the first search gave 1/5 parsed as a
structured call, 1/5 leaking XML, 3/5 answered without searching again.
Earlier builds never parsed it.

Still not reliable enough to raise max_searches, since the failure mode is
a blank reply, but the wording should not read as permanent when it was
measured once against one build.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-31-web-search-design.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-31-web-search-design.md
index 46ebc91..36732f7 100644
--- a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-31-web-search-design.md
+++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-31-web-search-design.md
@@ -249,7 +249,17 @@ structured call for the loop to act on, so the turn ends with a blank reply.
 Reproduced 3/3 with Qwen3.5-9B through the router. A retry with the tool
 withdrawn was tried and rejected: it recovered an answer only some of the
 time and could surface the raw XML to the user, which is worse than the
-blank it replaces. The cap is 1 until the template parses follow-up calls.
+blank it replaces.
+
+Retested on llama.cpp b10208, forcing a follow-up by starving the first
+search: 1/5 parsed as a structured call, 1/5 still leaked XML, 3/5 answered
+without searching again. So newer builds do parse follow-up calls sometimes,
+where earlier ones never did. Not reliable enough to raise the cap: the
+failure mode is a blank reply, which is the worst available output.
+
+In practice this is rarer than those numbers suggest. With enough search
+engines enabled the first round returns plenty, so the model seldom needs a
+second call at all.
 
 ## Notes