Files
tsl-devkit/skills/thirdparty/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
T
csh 3d83740f88 Squashed 'docs/standards/playbook/' changes from c3f8137..25d895d
25d895d 🐛 fix(gitea_workflow): clean up temp repos after job steps
2bc3b11 🐛 fix(gitea_workflow): clean up temporary repo dirs in workflows
98c3f30 📝 docs(agent_rules): allow plan execution on current branch
16c7230 📝 docs(prompts): define custom verify layering
8efc4dd 🐛 fix(skills): quote commit-message description
bc8498f 🐛 fix(ci): install tomli for gitea tests
55cda3b 🐛 fix(tests): report missing toml parser clearly
c0729c7 🐛 fix(playbook): import Optional for cli compatibility
63e24bf 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills
d2f9356 🐛 fix(ci): isolate gitea workflow repos
588b81d 🐛 fix(ci): inline gitea workflow bootstrap
e0b1c3a ♻️ refactor(skills): standardize first-party skill contracts
2c5050d ♻️ refactor(skills): rename repo skills source dir
f049dfb 📦 deps(skills): drop duplicate first-party superpowers skills
234b335  feat(workflow): add superpowers planning and execution state tracking
c1702a6 📝 docs(markdown): format tracked markdown and drop stale templates
2325409 📝 docs(markdown): clarify optional markdownlint usage
214c44e 🔧 chore(markdown): add markdownlint baseline and lint fixes
a22b324 📝 docs(templates): add execution and memory-bank prompt templates
223a797 📝 docs(templates): update README for Claude Code and current features
4ac8672 📝 docs: simplify README + platform-agnostic tools + auto-create local rules
2431c9d 📝 docs: add claude_md config and use cross-platform paths
d64b248 📝 docs: fix README.md inaccuracies and add Claude Code info
c8d6bf2 🐛 fix(playbook): use relative paths in CLAUDE.md when not at project root
6518f0f  feat(playbook): auto-create CLAUDE.md with path discovery
6ec9a45  feat(skills): add skill_link symlink support + platform-agnostic prompt
9f8b6b5 📝 docs: update README and config example for Claude Code support
79cff6c 📝 docs(skills): add Claude Code platform support
452c6f5  feat(playbook): auto-inject AGENTS.md into CLAUDE.md
e1dbf3c 🐛 fix(skills): remove dual-path from commit-message skill
f3a7259 🔧 chore(ci): use prepare_repo.sh in both workflows
da08212 🔧 chore(ci): extract prepare_repo.sh and clean up workflows
7ade85e 🗑️ remove(tsl): drop syntax_book/, data/ source and build script
f94dba0 ♻️ refactor(skills): update playbook.py and tests for thirdparty/ layout
b3df412 ♻️ refactor(skills): separate thirdparty skills into thirdparty/ subdirectory
64950e7 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills
a2e3cb0  feat(playbook): add no_backup deploy controls
8609d59 🐛 fix(docs): repair reference catalog source links
956da11 🐛 fix(playbook): publish hidden ci test fixes
3f67754 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills
08ca87b 📦 deps(skills): add karpathy thirdparty sync
96b705b 📝 docs(tsl): rebuild canonical syntax and routing manual
3ed5052 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills
60108dd 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills
da85d4e 🐛 fix(thirdparty): prune nested project snapshots
a2a697e 📦 deps(skills): sync thirdparty skills
9df610a 🐛 fix(thirdparty): exclude duplicated superpowers skills
33dd5bb 🐛 fix(thirdparty): preserve optional manifest fields
91b0ea7 🐛 fix(thirdparty): preserve manifest during snapshot update
2e26f98 🔧 chore(thirdparty): generalize skills sync pipeline
5b9c1e3 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
2f2d34a 📝 docs(readme): normalize subtree command spacing
62db7db 🐛 fix(ci): serialize superpowers update and sync
3463223 🐛 fix(ci): use literal superpowers sync paths
48f6de8 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
4b23529 🔧 chore(ci): merge superpowers update and sync workflow
a56d75b 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
84bcefa 🔧 chore(ci): use ci[bot] commit author name
00a07e5 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
7b84daf 🐛 fix(templates): enforce main loop progress tracking
51373d7 🔧 chore(ci): automate superpowers sync workflow
eaaa39c 🐛 fix(ci): prevent stale superpowers sync from restoring skills block
79755c6 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
836d878 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
8216c9f 📦 deps(skills): sync superpowers
9439505 🐛 fix(playbook): address reported repo issues

git-subtree-dir: docs/standards/playbook
git-subtree-split: 25d895d8b3f56624ccfe99ad7289e9eb49e0f316
2026-05-24 13:04:14 +08:00

12 KiB

name, description
name description
subagent-driven-development Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session

Subagent-Driven Development

Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.

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 + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration

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: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.

When to Use

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)
  • Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
  • Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)

The Process

digraph process {
    rankdir=TB;

    subgraph cluster_per_task {
        label="Per Task";
        "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
        "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
        "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
        "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
        "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
        "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [shape=box];
    }

    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
    "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];

    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
    "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
    "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
}

Model Selection

Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.

Mechanical implementation tasks (isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files): use a fast, cheap model. Most implementation tasks are mechanical when the plan is well-specified.

Integration and judgment tasks (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.

Architecture, design, and review tasks: use the most capable available model.

Task complexity signals:

  • Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model
  • Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
  • Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model

Handling Implementer Status

Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:

DONE: Proceed to spec compliance review.

DONE_WITH_CONCERNS: The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.

NEEDS_CONTEXT: The implementer needs information that wasn't provided. Provide the missing context and re-dispatch.

BLOCKED: The implementer cannot complete the task. Assess the blocker:

  1. If it's a context problem, provide more context and re-dispatch with the same model
  2. If the task requires more reasoning, re-dispatch with a more capable model
  3. If the task is too large, break it into smaller pieces
  4. If the plan itself is wrong, escalate to the human

Never ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.

Prompt Templates

  • ./implementer-prompt.md - Dispatch implementer subagent
  • ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
  • ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent

Example Workflow

You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.

[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]

Task 1: Hook installation script

[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]

Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"

You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"

Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
[Later] Implementer:
  - Implemented install-hook command
  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
  - Committed

[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra

[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.

[Mark Task 1 complete]

Task 2: Recovery modes

[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]

Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
  - Added verify/repair modes
  - 8/8 tests passing
  - Self-review: All good
  - Committed

[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)

[Implementer fixes issues]
Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting

[Spec reviewer reviews again]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now

[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)

[Implementer fixes]
Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant

[Code reviewer reviews again]
Code reviewer: ✅ Approved

[Mark Task 2 complete]

...

[After all tasks]
[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge

Done!

Advantages

vs. Manual execution:

  • Subagents follow TDD naturally
  • Fresh context per task (no confusion)
  • Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
  • Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)

vs. Executing Plans:

  • Same session (no handoff)
  • Continuous progress (no waiting)
  • Review checkpoints automatic

Efficiency gains:

  • No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
  • Controller curates exactly what context is needed
  • Subagent gets complete information upfront
  • Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)

Quality gates:

  • Self-review catches issues before handoff
  • Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
  • Review loops ensure fixes actually work
  • Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
  • Code quality ensures implementation is well-built

Cost:

  • More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
  • Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
  • Review loops add iterations
  • But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)

Red Flags

Never:

  • Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
  • Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
  • Proceed with unfixed issues
  • Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
  • Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
  • Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
  • Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
  • Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
  • Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
  • Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
  • Start code quality review before spec compliance is (wrong order)
  • Move to next task while either review has open issues

If subagent asks questions:

  • Answer clearly and completely
  • Provide additional context if needed
  • Don't rush them into implementation

If reviewer finds issues:

  • Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
  • Reviewer reviews again
  • Repeat until approved
  • Don't skip the re-review

If subagent fails task:

  • Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
  • Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

Integration

Required workflow skills:

  • superpowers:using-git-worktrees - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
  • superpowers:writing-plans - Creates the plan this skill executes
  • superpowers:requesting-code-review - Code review template for reviewer subagents
  • superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch - Complete development after all tasks

Subagents should use:

  • superpowers:test-driven-development - Subagents follow TDD for each task

Alternative workflow:

  • superpowers:executing-plans - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution