Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
356
skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
Normal file
356
skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: subagent-driven-development
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Autonomous plan execution - fresh subagent per task with automated code review
|
||||
between tasks. No human-in-loop, high throughput with quality gates.
|
||||
|
||||
trigger: |
|
||||
- Staying in current session (no worktree switch)
|
||||
- Tasks are independent (can be executed in isolation)
|
||||
- Want continuous progress without human pause points
|
||||
|
||||
skip_when: |
|
||||
- Need human review between tasks → use executing-plans
|
||||
- Tasks are tightly coupled → execute manually
|
||||
- Plan needs revision → use brainstorming first
|
||||
|
||||
sequence:
|
||||
after: [writing-plans, pre-dev-task-breakdown]
|
||||
|
||||
related:
|
||||
similar: [executing-plans]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Subagent-Driven Development
|
||||
|
||||
Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with code review after each.
|
||||
|
||||
**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + review between tasks = high quality, fast iteration
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
|
||||
- Same session (no context switch)
|
||||
- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
|
||||
- Code review after each task (catch issues early)
|
||||
- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use:**
|
||||
- Staying in this session
|
||||
- Tasks are mostly independent
|
||||
- Want continuous progress with quality gates
|
||||
|
||||
**When NOT to use:**
|
||||
- Need to review plan first (use executing-plans)
|
||||
- Tasks are tightly coupled (manual execution better)
|
||||
- Plan needs revision (brainstorm first)
|
||||
|
||||
## The Process
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Load Plan
|
||||
|
||||
Read plan file, create TodoWrite with all tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Execute Task with Subagent
|
||||
|
||||
For each task:
|
||||
|
||||
**Dispatch fresh subagent:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Task tool (general-purpose):
|
||||
description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
You are implementing Task N from [plan-file].
|
||||
|
||||
Read that task carefully. Your job is to:
|
||||
1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
|
||||
2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
|
||||
3. Verify implementation works
|
||||
4. Commit your work
|
||||
5. Report back
|
||||
|
||||
Work from: [directory]
|
||||
|
||||
Report: What you implemented, what you tested, test results, files changed, any issues
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Subagent reports back** with summary of work.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Review Subagent's Work (Parallel Execution)
|
||||
|
||||
**Dispatch all three reviewer subagents in parallel using a single message:**
|
||||
|
||||
**CRITICAL: Use one message with 3 Task tool calls to launch all reviewers simultaneously.**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
# Single message with 3 parallel Task calls:
|
||||
|
||||
Task tool #1 (ring-default:code-reviewer):
|
||||
model: "opus"
|
||||
description: "Review code quality for Task N"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: [from subagent's report]
|
||||
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
|
||||
BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
|
||||
HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
|
||||
DESCRIPTION: [task summary]
|
||||
|
||||
Task tool #2 (ring-default:business-logic-reviewer):
|
||||
model: "opus"
|
||||
description: "Review business logic for Task N"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
[Same parameters as above]
|
||||
|
||||
Task tool #3 (ring-default:security-reviewer):
|
||||
model: "opus"
|
||||
description: "Review security for Task N"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
[Same parameters as above]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**All three reviewers execute simultaneously. Wait for all to complete.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Each reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical/High/Medium/Low/Cosmetic), Assessment (PASS/FAIL)
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Aggregate and Handle Review Feedback
|
||||
|
||||
**After all three reviewers complete:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Aggregate all issues by severity across all reviewers:**
|
||||
- **Critical issues:** [List from code/business/security reviewers]
|
||||
- **High issues:** [List from code/business/security reviewers]
|
||||
- **Medium issues:** [List from code/business/security reviewers]
|
||||
- **Low issues:** [List from code/business/security reviewers]
|
||||
- **Cosmetic/Nitpick issues:** [List from code/business/security reviewers]
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Handle by severity:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical/High/Medium → Fix immediately:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Dispatch fix subagent:
|
||||
"Fix the following issues from parallel code review:
|
||||
|
||||
Critical Issues:
|
||||
- [Issue 1 from reviewer X] - file:line
|
||||
- [Issue 2 from reviewer Y] - file:line
|
||||
|
||||
High Issues:
|
||||
- [Issue 3 from reviewer Z] - file:line
|
||||
|
||||
Medium Issues:
|
||||
- [Issue 4 from reviewer X] - file:line"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After fixes complete, **re-run all 3 reviewers in parallel** to verify fixes.
|
||||
Repeat until no Critical/High/Medium issues remain.
|
||||
|
||||
**Low issues → Add TODO comments in code:**
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# TODO(review): Extract this validation logic into separate function
|
||||
# Reported by: code-reviewer on 2025-11-06
|
||||
# Severity: Low
|
||||
def process_data(data):
|
||||
...
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Cosmetic/Nitpick → Add FIXME comments in code:**
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# FIXME(nitpick): Consider more descriptive variable name than 'x'
|
||||
# Reported by: code-reviewer on 2025-11-06
|
||||
# Severity: Cosmetic
|
||||
x = calculate_total()
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Commit TODO/FIXME comments with fixes.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Mark Complete, Next Task
|
||||
|
||||
After all Critical/High/Medium issues resolved for current task:
|
||||
- Mark task as completed in TodoWrite
|
||||
- Commit all changes (including TODO/FIXME comments)
|
||||
- Move to next task
|
||||
- Repeat steps 2-5
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Final Review (After All Tasks)
|
||||
|
||||
After all tasks complete, run parallel final validation across entire implementation:
|
||||
|
||||
**Dispatch all three reviewers in parallel for full implementation review:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
# Single message with 3 parallel Task calls:
|
||||
|
||||
Task tool #1 (ring-default:code-reviewer):
|
||||
model: "opus"
|
||||
description: "Final code review for complete implementation"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: All tasks from [plan]
|
||||
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Complete plan from [plan-file]
|
||||
BASE_SHA: [start of development]
|
||||
HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
|
||||
DESCRIPTION: Full implementation review
|
||||
|
||||
Task tool #2 (ring-default:business-logic-reviewer):
|
||||
model: "opus"
|
||||
description: "Final business logic review"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
[Same parameters as above]
|
||||
|
||||
Task tool #3 (ring-default:security-reviewer):
|
||||
model: "opus"
|
||||
description: "Final security review"
|
||||
prompt: |
|
||||
[Same parameters as above]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Wait for all three final reviews to complete, then:**
|
||||
- Aggregate findings by severity
|
||||
- Fix any remaining Critical/High/Medium issues
|
||||
- Add TODO/FIXME for Low/Cosmetic issues
|
||||
- Re-run parallel review if fixes were needed
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Complete Development
|
||||
|
||||
After final review passes:
|
||||
- Announce: "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
|
||||
- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use ring-default:finishing-a-development-branch
|
||||
- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
|
||||
|
||||
[Load plan, create TodoWrite]
|
||||
|
||||
Task 1: Hook installation script
|
||||
|
||||
[Dispatch implementation subagent]
|
||||
Subagent: Implemented install-hook with tests, 5/5 passing
|
||||
|
||||
[Parallel review - dispatch all 3 reviewers in single message]
|
||||
Code reviewer: PASS. Strengths: Good test coverage. Issues: None.
|
||||
Business reviewer: PASS. Strengths: Meets requirements. Issues: None.
|
||||
Security reviewer: PASS. Strengths: No security concerns. Issues: None.
|
||||
|
||||
[All pass - mark Task 1 complete]
|
||||
|
||||
Task 2: User authentication endpoint
|
||||
|
||||
[Dispatch implementation subagent]
|
||||
Subagent: Added auth endpoint with JWT, 8/8 tests passing
|
||||
|
||||
[Parallel review - all 3 reviewers run simultaneously]
|
||||
Code reviewer:
|
||||
Strengths: Clean architecture
|
||||
Issues (Low): Consider extracting token logic
|
||||
Assessment: PASS
|
||||
|
||||
Business reviewer:
|
||||
Strengths: Workflow correct
|
||||
Issues (High): Missing password reset flow (required per PRD)
|
||||
Assessment: FAIL
|
||||
|
||||
Security reviewer:
|
||||
Strengths: Good validation
|
||||
Issues (Critical): JWT secret hardcoded, (High): No rate limiting
|
||||
Assessment: FAIL
|
||||
|
||||
[Aggregate issues by severity]
|
||||
Critical: JWT secret hardcoded
|
||||
High: Missing password reset, No rate limiting
|
||||
Low: Extract token logic
|
||||
|
||||
[Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/High issues]
|
||||
Fix subagent: Added password reset, moved secret to env var, added rate limiting
|
||||
|
||||
[Re-run all 3 reviewers in parallel after fixes]
|
||||
Code reviewer: PASS
|
||||
Business reviewer: PASS. All requirements met.
|
||||
Security reviewer: PASS. Issues resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
[Add TODO comment for Low issue]
|
||||
# TODO(review): Extract token generation logic into TokenService
|
||||
# Reported by: code-reviewer on 2025-11-06
|
||||
# Severity: Low
|
||||
|
||||
[Commit and mark Task 2 complete]
|
||||
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
[After all tasks]
|
||||
[Parallel final review - all 3 reviewers simultaneously]
|
||||
|
||||
Code reviewer:
|
||||
All implementation solid, architecture consistent
|
||||
Assessment: PASS
|
||||
|
||||
Business reviewer:
|
||||
All requirements met, workflows complete
|
||||
Assessment: PASS
|
||||
|
||||
Security reviewer:
|
||||
No remaining security concerns, ready for production
|
||||
Assessment: PASS
|
||||
|
||||
Done!
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why parallel works well:**
|
||||
- 3x faster than sequential (reviewers run simultaneously)
|
||||
- Get all feedback at once (easier to prioritize fixes)
|
||||
- Re-review after fixes is fast (parallel execution)
|
||||
- TODO/FIXME comments track tech debt in code
|
||||
|
||||
## Advantages
|
||||
|
||||
**vs. Manual execution:**
|
||||
- Subagents follow TDD naturally
|
||||
- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
|
||||
- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
|
||||
|
||||
**vs. Executing Plans:**
|
||||
- Same session (no handoff)
|
||||
- Continuous progress (no waiting)
|
||||
- Review checkpoints automatic
|
||||
|
||||
**Cost:**
|
||||
- More subagent invocations
|
||||
- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
|
||||
|
||||
## Red Flags
|
||||
|
||||
**Never:**
|
||||
- Skip code review between tasks
|
||||
- Proceed with unfixed Critical/High/Medium issues
|
||||
- Dispatch reviewers sequentially (use parallel - 3x faster!)
|
||||
- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
|
||||
- Implement without reading plan task
|
||||
- Forget to add TODO/FIXME comments for Low/Cosmetic issues
|
||||
|
||||
**Always:**
|
||||
- Launch all 3 reviewers in single message with 3 Task calls
|
||||
- Specify `model: "opus"` for each reviewer
|
||||
- Wait for all reviewers before aggregating findings
|
||||
- Fix Critical/High/Medium immediately
|
||||
- Add TODO for Low, FIXME for Cosmetic
|
||||
- Re-run all 3 reviewers after fixes
|
||||
|
||||
**If subagent fails task:**
|
||||
- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
|
||||
- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration
|
||||
|
||||
**Required workflow skills:**
|
||||
- **writing-plans** - REQUIRED: Creates the plan that this skill executes
|
||||
- **requesting-code-review** - REQUIRED: Review after each task (see Step 3)
|
||||
- **finishing-a-development-branch** - REQUIRED: Complete development after all tasks (see Step 7)
|
||||
|
||||
**Subagents must use:**
|
||||
- **test-driven-development** - Subagents follow TDD for each task
|
||||
|
||||
**Alternative workflow:**
|
||||
- **executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution
|
||||
|
||||
See reviewer agent definitions: agents/code-reviewer.md, agents/security-reviewer.md, agents/business-logic-reviewer.md
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user