---

name: subagent-driven-development description: 3-role pipeline (Implementer -> Spec Reviewer -> Quality Reviewer) for plan-driven multi-task implementation. Supports subagent dispatch (Agent tool) and Agent Teams (TeamCreate). Use when a plan file exists in docs/plans/ and work spans 3+ tasks. allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Bash metadata: triggers: subagent, SDD pipeline, multi-agent, agent teams, parallel agents, plan-driven implementation, TeamCreate related-skills: plan-mode-review, writing-skills, test-driven-development domain: workflow role: architect scope: design output-format: document last-reviewed: "2026-03-14"

Iron Law

NO AGENT DISPATCH WITHOUT A COMMITTED PLAN FILE IN docs/plans/ — agents without a written plan produce unreviewed, unverifiable output

Subagent-Driven Development (SDD)

Turns an approved plan into working, reviewed code using a 3-role pipeline: Implementer → Spec Reviewer → Quality Reviewer.

Works in two dispatch modes: subagent (Agent tool, sequential) and team (TeamCreate, concurrent).

---

When to Use

Prerequisites — both must be true:

• A plan file exists at docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature>.md (created via /plan-review)
• The plan has 3 or more distinct implementation tasks

Mode selection:

Condition	Use
≤5 tasks OR tech stack has no specialized implementer agent	Subagent mode
6+ tasks OR Java / NestJS / Flutter / Python with tech-specific implementer adds value	Team mode

Present to the developer at start:

Plan: [file]. [N] tasks detected.
1. Subagent mode — Agent tool, general-purpose agents, best for ≤5 tasks
2. Team mode    — TeamCreate with tech-specific agents, best for 6+ tasks

---

The Pipeline

This pipeline runs identically in both modes — only the dispatch mechanism differs.

Step -1 — Research Phase (optional)

Use when the feature touches an unfamiliar external API, a new compliance domain, or a third-party service the team hasn't integrated before.

Dispatch a general-purpose agent with:

• The feature name and the specific unknown (e.g., "Stripe Connect payouts API — we haven't used this before")
• Output target: docs/research/<feature>.md
• Mandatory constraint in prompt: "Your role is RESEARCH ONLY. Describe what exists — APIs, constraints, auth model, rate limits, SDK options, gotchas. Do NOT propose improvements, suggest refactors, or recommend implementation approaches. If you notice problems in the existing code, note them as observations only — not as suggestions. The Spec agent will decide what to build."

The research agent should produce: API capabilities, key constraints, auth model, rate limits, SDK options, and gotchas. Save to docs/research/<feature>.md and commit before starting Step 0.

The spec reviewer in Step 2 receives this file path inline — include it in the spec reviewer prompt so it can verify the implementer's API usage against the research findings.

Skip when: the tech stack is familiar, no external unknowns, or the plan was produced from a previous research session.

Context Isolation: After the Research agent completes and docs/research/<feature>.md is committed, issue /clear before dispatching the Spec/Implementer. Pass the research doc path as the only context carry-forward — do NOT carry the Research agent's conversation into Step 0.

Step 0-PRE — Plan Validation Gate

Before parsing tasks, validate the plan structure. This runs ONCE before any dispatch.

PR-Sizing Check: Every task in the plan must be bounded to ≤1 PR. Flag any task that:

• Touches more than 3 services simultaneously (e.g. NestJS + Flutter + Spring Boot in one task)
• Modifies more than 15 files
• Spans more than one tech-stack layer without a clear seam (split at the layer boundary)

If any task fails the PR-sizing check:

PLAN VALIDATION FAILED:
Task N: "[task title]" is too large for a single PR.
Touches: [list services/files]
Required split: [suggested sub-tasks A, B]
→ Update the plan file before continuing.

Context Brief Check: Every task must have a ## Context Brief section (see docs/plans/TEMPLATE.md). If missing:

PLAN VALIDATION FAILED:
Task N: "[task title]" is missing ## Context Brief section.
Required fields: affected_files, preconditions, verification_command
→ Add the context brief to the plan file before continuing.

Rollback Check: Every task must have a rollback_strategy field. If missing:

PLAN VALIDATION FAILED:
Task N: "[task title]" is missing rollback_strategy.
→ Add rollback strategy before continuing.

Skip validation only for plans with a single task (≤1 task = trivial, no gate needed).

Step 0 — Parse the Plan Once

Read the full plan file once. Extract every task as a structured object:

Task N:
  title: [task title from plan]
  full_text: [complete task description including acceptance criteria]
  tech_stack: [inferred from context — Java / NestJS / Python / Flutter / Angular / General]
  files_affected: [list if stated]

Create a TaskCreate entry for each task before starting any implementation.

Step 1 — Per-Task Implementer

Dispatch the implementer with:

• Full task text (do NOT tell implementer to read the plan — provide it inline)
• Tech-stack skill reference (e.g., "consult .claude/skills/java-spring-api/")
• The implementer-prompt.md template content

Implementer flow:

1. Implementer may ask clarifying questions → answer them → re-dispatch
2. Implementer implements, writes tests (TDD per leverage-patterns.md test-first), self-reviews
3. Implementer returns: what was built, tests, files changed, self-review findings
4. Implementer writes the implementer handoff tag at the end of its response — read reference/handoff-tags.md for the exact format
5. Orchestrator extracts the tag block verbatim for use in Step 2 — do NOT summarize it

Step 2 — Spec Compliance Review

Dispatch the spec reviewer with:

• The task's full_text from Step 0 (the spec)
• The implementer's full response from Step 1
• The implementer handoff tag block verbatim (from reference/handoff-tags.md format)
• The spec-reviewer-prompt.md template content

Spec reviewer flow:

• Issues found → implementer fixes → spec review re-runs (no cap on iterations)
• No issues → advance to Step 3
• Spec reviewer writes the spec-reviewer handoff tag at the end of its response — format in reference/handoff-tags.md
• CONDITIONAL PASS = implementer must fix open issues before Step 3 starts

Step 3 — Quality Review

Dispatch the quality reviewer (routed by tech stack — see routing table below) with:

• The files changed by the implementer (from implementer tag FILES_CHANGED)
• The implementer handoff tag block verbatim
• The spec-reviewer handoff tag block verbatim
• Tech-stack reviewer instructions

Quality reviewer flow:

• Issues found → implementer fixes → quality review re-runs (not spec review — only quality)
• No issues → mark TaskUpdate: completed → advance to next task
• Quality reviewer writes the quality-reviewer handoff tag at the end of its response — format in reference/handoff-tags.md
• After all tasks: collect all DEFERRED: entries from implementer tags → add to PR body as Known Gaps / Deferred

Step 4 — Final Pass and PR

After all tasks complete:

1. Dispatch code-reviewer agent on all changed files for a final cross-task consistency check
2. Create PR per CLAUDE.md git workflow (conventional commits, branch naming, squash merge target)

---

Tech-Stack Routing Table (Quality Reviewer)

Tech Stack	Agent
Java / Spring Boot	spring-reactive-reviewer
NestJS	nestjs-reviewer
Python / FastAPI	code-reviewer
Flutter	riverpod-reviewer
Agentic AI	agentic-ai-reviewer
Angular / General	code-reviewer

---

Subagent Mode Dispatch

All agents dispatched via the Agent tool.

Implementer:

Agent tool:
  subagent_type: general-purpose
  prompt: [implementer-prompt.md content] + [task full_text] + [tech-stack skill reference]

Spec Reviewer:

Agent tool:
  subagent_type: general-purpose
  prompt: [spec-reviewer-prompt.md content] + [task spec] + [implementer output]

Quality Reviewer:

Agent tool:
  subagent_type: [from routing table above]
  prompt: "Review the following files for [tech stack] quality, patterns, and standards.
           Files changed: [list]. Focus on: correctness, error handling, test coverage,
           naming, and adherence to project conventions in .claude/rules/."

Do NOT dispatch implementer and spec reviewer in parallel — spec review depends on implementer output. Do NOT dispatch multiple implementers in parallel — file conflicts are guaranteed.

---

Team Mode Dispatch

Use when 6+ tasks or when a tech-specific implementer agent provides meaningful leverage.

Setup

1. TeamCreate — name the team after the feature (e.g., "auth-service")
2. Spawn agents:
   - implementer: subagent_type = tech-specific developer agent
     (java-spring-api | nestjs-api | python-dev | agentic-ai-dev | angular-spa | flutter-mobile)
   - spec-reviewer: subagent_type = general-purpose
   - quality-reviewer: subagent_type = from routing table above
3. Assign tasks via TaskUpdate (owner field) + SendMessage with full task context

Coordination

• Use TaskList to track progress across all tasks
• Assign tasks to implementer one at a time (pipeline is sequential per task)
• After implementer completes → SendMessage to spec-reviewer with task spec + output
• After spec-reviewer approves → SendMessage to quality-reviewer with changed files
• After quality-reviewer approves → mark TaskUpdate: completed → assign next task
• When all tasks complete → SendMessage shutdown_request to all agents → TeamDelete

Message format to teammates

Always send full task context in the message body — never tell teammates to "read the plan". Include: task title, acceptance criteria, files affected, and any prior reviewer findings.

---

Parallel Dispatch — Independence Check

Before dispatching agents in parallel, verify independence first.

Read reference/parallel-dispatch-checklist.md for the decision tree, pre-dispatch checklist, post-completion conflict check, and examples.

Rule: If tasks share files, config, or have ordering dependencies → sequential only.

---

Context Isolation Protocol

Context contamination is the #1 silent failure in multi-phase pipelines. A Research agent that mentions "the auth layer is messy" will cause a Spec agent to include auth cleanup in scope — work that was never requested.

Why It Matters

Without isolation:
  Research agent → analyzes codebase → notices auth is messy → mentions it
  → Spec agent absorbs the mention → adds auth refactor to spec
  → Implementer touches auth it was never asked to touch
  → Scope creep introduced silently, never caught

With isolation:
  Research agent → outputs ONLY facts to docs/research/<feature>.md
  /clear → Spec/Implementer starts fresh with only the research doc
  → Scope stays exactly what was planned

The Three Rules

1. Research mandate — "NO improvement suggestions" The Research agent prompt MUST include: "Describe what exists. Do NOT propose changes." Violations: suggesting refactors, flagging tech debt for fixing, recommending alternatives. Allowed: noting constraints, documenting gotchas, describing current behavior.

2. /clear between Research and Step 0 After docs/research/<feature>.md is committed:

• Issue /clear (or equivalent context reset between agent dispatches)
• The ONLY carry-forward is the research doc file path
• The Research agent's conversation, opinions, and analysis do NOT pass to Step 0

3. Per-phase context containment Each phase receives exactly what it needs — no more:

Phase	What to pass in	What NOT to pass in
Step -1 Research	Plan file path, specific unknowns	Nothing else
Step 0–1 Implementer	Task full_text + research doc path (if exists)	Research agent conversation
Step 2 Spec Reviewer	Task spec + implementer output + handoff tag	Research agent opinions
Step 3 Quality Reviewer	Files changed + handoff tags	Prior reviewer conversations

---

Red Flags — Never Do These

• Never carry Research agent conversation into Step 0 — /clear after research, pass only the doc path
• Never let Research agent propose improvements — Research describes what exists; Spec decides what to build
• Never dispatch parallel implementers — file conflicts are guaranteed
• Never skip the independence checklist before parallel dispatch — assumption of independence is not sufficient
• Never skip spec review — quality review does not check spec compliance
• Never reverse pipeline order — spec compliance before quality review, always
• Never skip a review loop — reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = re-review required
• Never let implementer self-review replace spec/quality review — both are required
• Never tell implementer or reviewer to read the plan file — provide full task text inline
• Never declare a task complete while a reviewer has open issues
• Never skip the post-completion conflict check after parallel agent dispatch

---

Integration References

When	Reference
Implementer hits a bug during implementation	systematic-debugging skill
Before marking any task complete	verification-before-completion skill
Creating the PR	CLAUDE.md git workflow (conventional commits, feature branch, squash merge)
Plan file must exist	docs/plans/ convention — /plan-review creates it
Writing a new plan	docs/plans/TEMPLATE.md — required format for context briefs, rollback, and mutations
Security findings during review	security-reviewer agent
Passing context between pipeline stages	reference/handoff-tags.md — structured tag format

---

Error Handling

No plan file found:

BLOCKED: No plan file found in docs/plans/.
Run /plan-review to generate and save a plan before invoking SDD.

Implementer asks questions before starting: Answer them directly. Do not dispatch another implementer — respond to the current one and let it proceed.

Review loop exceeds 3 iterations on same issue:

STOPPED: [reviewer] has flagged [issue] 3 times without resolution.
Options:
A) Escalate — bring in the human to resolve the design conflict
B) Waive — mark issue as known gap with explicit approval
C) Redesign — scrap this task's implementation and start fresh

Team mode: teammate goes unresponsive: Check TaskList for stuck in_progress tasks. Send a follow-up SendMessage. If still unresponsive after one retry, stop and notify the developer.