subagent-driven-development
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xintaofei/codeg /tmp/subagent-driven-development && cp -r /tmp/subagent-driven-development/src-tauri/experts/skills/subagent-driven-development ~/.claude/skills/subagent-driven-developmentSKILL.md
# Subagent-Driven Development
Execute plan by dispatching a fresh implementer subagent per task, a task review (spec compliance + code quality) after each, and a broad whole-branch review at the end.
**Why subagents:** You delegate tasks to specialized agents with isolated context. By precisely crafting their instructions and context, you ensure they stay focused and succeed at their task. They should never inherit your session's context or history — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.
**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + task review (spec + quality) + broad final review = high quality, fast iteration
**Narration:** between tool calls, narrate at most one short line — the
ledger and the tool results carry the record.
**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are the four named below, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.
**Rulings, not stalls.** A running plan does not wait on a human. Conflicts,
ambiguities, plan defects, a cap you would have asked to exceed — decide
them. The spec is the binding authority, the plan is its argument, and your
judgment settles what neither answers. Record every decision in the ledger as
`Ruling: <what you decided> — <why> — <what it costs if wrong>`, and keep
going. A wrong ruling costs rework your human partner can see and undo; a
session parked on a question costs their whole day and buys nothing.
Four things stop you, and only these: an irreversible or destructive
operation; a security-sensitive action; a side effect outside this worktree
that norms say you ask about first (a merge, a push to a shared branch, a
publish); and a plan so broken that every path forward is a guess. For those,
stop and ask.
## When to Use
```dot
digraph when_to_use {
"Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
"Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
"Stay in this session?" [shape=diamond];
"subagent-driven-development" [shape=box];
"executing-plans" [shape=box];
"Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];
"Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
"Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
"Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Stay in this session?" [label="yes"];
"Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
"Stay in this session?" -> "subagent-driven-development" [label="yes"];
"Stay in this session?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - parallel session"];
}
```
**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
- Same session (no context switch)
- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
- Review after each task (spec compliance + code quality), broad review at the end
- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
## The Process
```dot
digraph process {
rankdir=TB;
subgraph cluster_per_task {
label="Per Task";
"Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Implementer asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
"Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"Spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
"Finding conflicts with plan text?" [shape=diamond];
"Rule on the conflict, ledger the ruling" [shape=box];
"Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capable model" [shape=box];
"Dispatch scoped re-review (./re-review-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
"All findings addressed?" [shape=diamond];
"R = 5?" [shape=diamond];
"Adjudicate each open finding" [shape=box];
"Any load-bearing finding?" [shape=diamond];
"Rule and continue; stop only if every path forward is a guess" [shape=box];
"Park findings in ledger with rulings" [shape=box];
"Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [shape=box];
}
"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" [shape=box];
"More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
"Dispatch final code reviewer (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
"Final findings? ONE fix dispatch, one scoped re-review, adjudicate residuals" [shape=box];
"Final review clean: delete this plan's workspace" [shape=box];
"Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
"Setup: worktree, ledger check, read plan, pre-flight review" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
"Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer asks questions?";
"Implementer asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
"Answer questions, provide context" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews";
"Implementer asks questions?" -> "Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
"Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
"Generate review package, dispatch task reviewer (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec ✅ and quality approved?";
"Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Append completion to ledger, mark todo complete" [label="yes"];
"Spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Finding conflicts with plan text?" [label="no"];
"Finding conflicts with plan text?" -> "Rule on the conflict, ledger the ruling" [label="yes"];
"Rule on the conflict, ledger the ruling" -> "Fix round R of 5: R≤3 resume implementer; R≥4 fresh implementer, more capYou MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code