Hyper Implement

hyper-implement

Plan execution gate. Reads a plan, dispatches a fresh subagent per task, runs two reviews (spec compliance, then code quality) before marking each task complete. The hyperclaude-native equivalent of superpowers' subagent-driven-development — but using our own agents (implementer, verifier) and our own gate skills.

When to use

• User typed /hyperclaude:hyper-implement [path].
• A multi-task plan exists (typically in .hyperclaude/plans/) and you're about to execute it.

Skip when:

• The plan is one step — just do it directly.
• Tasks are tightly coupled and benefit from shared context.
• You're prototyping; reviews are overhead at this stage.

How to invoke

Invocation argument: $ARGUMENTS

Step 1 — Resolve the plan path

In priority order:

1. If $ARGUMENTS is non-empty, treat it as a path and use it.

2. Else, find the most recent plan via the Bash tool:

   ls -1t .hyperclaude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1
   

3. If nothing found, tell the user: "No plan file found. Write your plan to .hyperclaude/plans/<slug>.md first." Stop.

Step 2 — Parse and track

Read the plan with the Read tool. Extract every ## Task N: <title> section with its full text — files-to-create/modify, step-by-step checkboxes, verification commands, commit message.

Use TodoWrite to create a todo per task. Mark the first as in_progress.

Step 3 — Per-task loop

For EACH task in order:

1. Implementer. Dispatch via the Agent tool. Prefer subagent_type: hyperclaude:implementer. Prompt MUST include:

   • The full task text (paste it; do not make the subagent re-read the plan file).
   • Project context: where this fits, recent commits, base SHA before this task.
   • Global constraints from the plan's preamble (zero deps, sandbox rules, no commands/ directory, etc.).
   • A self-review checklist before reporting back.
   • Expected report format: status (DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / BLOCKED / NEEDS_CONTEXT), files changed, test counts, commit SHA.

2. Spec compliance review. Once implementer reports DONE, dispatch a fresh general-purpose subagent (NOT the verifier — verifier runs tests, doesn't compare to spec). Prompt:

   • The full task text.
   • The implementer's report (verbatim).
   • The git SHA range (<base>..<head>).
   • Instruction: read the actual code; don't trust the report. Look for missing requirements AND unrequested extras.
   • Expected outcome: ✅ compliant, or ❌ with specific file:line issues.

   If issues found → re-dispatch the implementer with the fix list → re-review. Loop until ✅.

3. Code quality review. After spec ✅, dispatch another fresh general-purpose subagent. Focus on:

   • Clarity (names, decomposition, file responsibility).
   • Test quality (do tests verify behavior, not types?).
   • YAGNI (any unrequested abstractions or features?).
   • Consistency with existing codebase style.
   • Severity-tagged issues: Critical / Important / Minor.

   Loop until reviewer approves (Minor-only is acceptable; Critical/Important must be fixed).

4. Verifier (optional, when applicable). If the task added tests or build steps, dispatch subagent_type: hyperclaude:verifier. Verifier runs node --test, bash scripts/test/smoke.sh, lint, etc. and reports PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL with verbatim output. Verifier never modifies files.

5. Mark task complete in TodoWrite. Move on.

Step 4 — Final pass

After all tasks:

• Run bash scripts/test/smoke.sh (or whatever the plan defines as final acceptance) and confirm 0 failures.
• If /hyperclaude:hyper-code-review is available, run it for a Codex-side review of the entire diff. Useful catch for cross-task issues.
• If the plan's final task includes a tag step (git tag -a vX.Y.Z), do NOT push it; leave that to the user.

Rules

• Fresh subagent per task. Don't reuse implementer subagents across tasks — context pollution kills focus.
• Two reviews per task. Spec compliance FIRST (catches scope drift), then code quality (catches style/clarity). Skipping either means you'll ship bugs.
• Don't trust implementer self-reports. Reviewers must read the actual code.
• Fix loops are mandatory. Reviewer ❌ → implementer fixes → re-review. No "close enough."
• Continuous execution. Don't pause to ask the user between tasks — execute the whole plan. Stop only on BLOCKED, genuine ambiguity, or all tasks done.
• Never push. Tags and pushes are user actions. The skill creates them locally only if the plan says to.

Anti-patterns

• Using verifier agent for code review. Wrong role — verifier runs tests, doesn't critique code.
• Skipping spec compliance review because "the plan was clear." It never is.
• Single subagent handling multiple tasks (the whole reason we don't do manual orchestration).
• Marking a task complete with reviewer issues still open.
• Following the implementer's own model selection. Pick model per task complexity at dispatch time:
  • Mechanical (1-2 files, exact spec): haiku
  • Standard (multi-file, integration): sonnet
  • Architectural / judgment-heavy: opus

Reference

The v0.1 implementation history (d5754a2..461df61) was produced with this exact flow (under superpowers:subagent-driven-development at the time). 11 tasks, ~33 subagent dispatches, two real bugs caught by reviews before they hit main.