# Run Reviewable Subtask Loop > Explicit-opt-in delivery specialist for executing a large plan, migration, refactor, or roadmap as sequential reviewable commits on one integration branch. Use only when directly requested or explicitly accepted after a project-development-mindset proposal; never infer activation from size, an internal plan, or the word subtask. Subtasks are not subagents; delegation and Remote CI require separate approval. - Skill: `gabrielmoreira/run-reviewable-subtask-loop` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gabrielmoreira/run-reviewable-subtask-loop` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gabrielmoreira/run-reviewable-subtask-loop/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: gabrielmoreira (https://skillmd.com/u/gabrielmoreira) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gabrielmoreira/run-reviewable-subtask-loop --- # Run Reviewable Subtask Loop Deliver a large change as ordered, recoverable commits on a local integration branch. Review and verify every subtask before integration, then run focused aggregate checks and use one agreed aggregate publication path. After the work is complete, let the user decide whether to run a broader or full local suite. Use **task** for the user's complete requested outcome, **subtask** for one independently reviewable and recoverable delivery unit, and **phase** only for an optional group of related subtasks. Do not use these terms interchangeably. ## Enforce consent boundaries 1. Apply this workflow only after the explicit opt-in described in the frontmatter. A routine implementation plan, silence, or a general request to start coding is not acceptance. 2. Treat a subtask as a delivery and recovery boundary, not a delegated worker. Perform implementation, self-review, verification, and finalization sequentially in the main conversation by default. 3. Do not infer delegation approval from terms such as subtask, phase, review, reviewer, parallelizable, execute the plan, or use this skill. Before any delegation, explain why it helps, its usage impact, and the proposed agent count and scope, maximum concurrency, and roles. Obtain explicit approval and ask again before expanding the approved count, concurrency, roles, or scope. 4. Treat Remote CI as a separate consent boundary. Reading repository workflow files is always local discovery; triggering remote jobs requires explicit authorization for the current series and trigger. Read [references/remote-ci.md](references/remote-ci.md) when Remote CI is required, requested, or could start automatically. 5. Treat planning as read-only except for exact temporary plan artifacts the user requested or the durable-plan mode selected under the criteria below. Create branches, commits, merges, pushes, review requests, or branch deletions only when the user's execution request or repository workflow authorizes them. Never infer final-merge authorization from permission to implement or publish. ## Initialize the series Before the first edit: 1. Read repository instructions, the implementation plan, relevant architecture and progress docs, workflow files, branch protection, and current Git state. 2. Determine the intended base branch, integration branch, required branch prefix, local verification commands, review-request path, documentation rules, and merge behavior. 3. Fetch configured remotes and explicitly compare the intended base with its fetched counterpart. If a clean, non-diverged base is behind, update it only with the repository-approved fast-forward operation. If freshness cannot be verified, or the base is dirty or diverged, report the exact state and obtain direction before editing from that base or changing history. 4. Create or reuse the series integration branch only after its base is fresh enough under repository policy. Default to an ephemeral local branch from the intended protected base; use an established delivery branch only when required. 5. Record the initial base and integration commit SHAs. Confirm the integration branch is not used by another worktree and starts clean. 6. Agree on the subtask ledger, focused verification budget, publication path, Remote CI decision, and whether cleanup of this series' exact local branches is authorized. Use the lightweight plan mode unless the user requests durable artifacts or the work has a concrete multi-session recovery need. Disclose any push or review-request action that would automatically trigger Remote CI before taking it. Use this normal topology: ```text intended base └── series integration └── one current local subtask branch ``` Keep the integration branch local until aggregate verification passes unless the user explicitly requests remote backup or collaboration requires it. Do not push subtask branches or open per-subtask review requests. During normal execution, keep at most one live subtask branch and start every subtask from the current verified integration tip. ## Choose and maintain the plan artifacts Before the first source edit, choose the lightest execution mode that preserves the required recovery boundary: - **Continuous execution (default):** keep a compact ordered ledger in the conversation or an existing repository-owned progress surface and run the approved subtasks sequentially without creating temporary plan files. - **Durable subtask plans:** create the master and subtask plans only when the user requests persisted plans or the series is expected to cross sessions and cannot be reconstructed reliably from Git and the existing ledger. Do not issue a blocking question solely to resolve this choice. Treat `docs/plans` as a repository-relative path when durable plans are selected, but obey a higher-priority repository rule that requires another planning location or forbids temporary tracked plans. For durable subtask plans: 1. Choose one collision-free task slug and create only these series-owned paths: `docs/plans/-00-master.md` and `docs/plans/-NN-.md`, using zero-padded execution order for `NN`. Never overwrite an existing plan to reuse a name. 2. Put the agreed requirement baseline, initial base and integration SHAs, execution mode, subtask order, dependencies, status, branches, commits, verification, findings, and recovery tip in the master. Put one subtask's responsibility, acceptance criteria, scope, implementation notes, and focused checks only in that subtask's file. Record every exact owned path in the master. 3. Once execution and local commits are authorized, preserve the initial plan set as a dedicated setup checkpoint when repository policy permits. If the plans remain uncommitted, report that state and do not claim a clean branch. 4. Before implementing a subtask, read its exact plan plus the master and work only from that subtask's accepted scope. Do not preload later subtask plans unless a dependency or conflict requires them. 5. After the subtask is integrated and its integration check passes, update the master with the evidence and delete that exact subtask plan. Preserve the update and deletion as a progress checkpoint before starting the next subtask. Never delete plans by glob, prefix sweep, or directory-wide cleanup. 6. After the final subtask, verify that every subtask is complete and only the master remains. Keep the completed master while review is pending so another session can reconstruct progress. When resuming, treat the master as routing metadata, not proof. Reconcile it with Git, tests, and remaining exact subtask files before trusting its status. ## Plan coherent subtasks Create an ordered ledger before editing. For each planned subtask, record: - one responsibility and its acceptance criteria; - files, modules, generated artifacts, or contracts in scope; - prerequisite subtasks and affected dependents; - planned branch name and focused local checks; - documentation impact and the reason the boundary has distinct review, test, rollout, or recovery value. As work proceeds, add the actual branch, commit SHA, review findings and fixes, verification evidence, integration result, last-known-good tip, and cleanup state. Do not require runtime values before they exist. Split the work into fast, coherent subtasks at meaningful boundaries without creating mechanical micro-subtasks. A good subtask should normally fit one implementation pass, one focused verification pass, and one concise code-review pass. It: 1. implements one complete responsibility without a broken intermediate state; 2. tells one coherent review story; 3. has checks that can detect failure of that responsibility; and 4. would justify an independent keep, revert, or rebuild decision. If a proposed subtask needs several unrelated implementation passes, multiple unrelated test surfaces, or a diff that cannot be reviewed as one concise story, split it before coding. If it is only a mechanical fragment with no independent review or recovery value, merge it with an adjacent subtask. Do not inflate a subtask with optional cleanup, speculative hardening, or unrelated refactoring. Merge adjacent work when the boundary is only a file, route, rename, checklist row, mechanical edit, or shared verification command. Split work when it mixes materially different contracts, failure modes, owners, rollout needs, security or data scopes, migrations, public APIs, deployment boundaries, or unrelated test surfaces. Keep generated output with its source change and never leave the integration branch knowingly uncompilable. When the ledger reaches high single digits, compress it explicitly. More than roughly 12 subtasks requires a concrete justification for every remaining boundary. Obtain user approval before materially changing a user-approved plan. ## Set the verification budget Use three proportionate gates: - **Subtask gate:** focused tests and checks for the changed responsibility, plus a cheap integration smoke when shared boundaries changed. - **Phase gate:** an occasional focused cross-subtask contract check when several subtasks change the same boundary. - **Final gate:** focused aggregate checks that reliably cover the affected and contract-connected surfaces on the exact integration tip. At each Subtask gate, run only the focused commands recorded for that subtask and any applicable Phase gate. Do not run the Final gate or a repository-wide suite merely because the subtask changes source, generated files, plans or other documentation, is about to be committed, has been integrated, or must be marked last-known-good. Do not treat repository-wide verification commands described generically as automatically authorized by this workflow. After implementation and the focused Final gate are complete, report the available broader or full-suite commands, their expected value and cost, and ask the user whether to run them. Run them only after explicit approval, unless a higher-priority repository instruction already requires them. Do not infer per-subtask cadence from generic verification descriptions or use low runtime, general caution, or the bare label "required checks" as sufficient justification. This cadence rule applies only to verification. Run generators, schema or code generation, and synchronization commands at the subtask boundary when needed to keep source changes and their generated artifacts in the same delivery. Use a focused generated-output check when the repository provides one; offer broader verification to the user only after the completed implementation is ready. Do not use lint or formatting alone as evidence for a behavior change. Avoid repeatedly running a full matrix when focused checks give reliable intermediate evidence. Run local checks before Remote CI unless the user explicitly requests a remote- first exception. Remote checks may cover unavailable platforms, secrets, infrastructure, or required trusted attestations of checks already run locally. Do not intentionally trigger Remote CI per subtask. Bind aggregate evidence to the commit SHA and Git tree SHA. Record exact local commands and conclusions, unavailable checks and reasons, and authorized remote evidence when used. Any source, generated-file, conflict-resolution, or merge change that alters the final tree invalidates the aggregate evidence. For a series with material UI/UX work, defer the planned manual visual and screenshot pass until the Final gate. At that gate: 1. Use the built-in Browser when available and follow its instructions. Use Playwright MCP or another interactive browser surface only as a documented fallback. Keep source-controlled Playwright E2E distinct from manual browser verification. 2. Capture and inspect representative desktop and mobile viewports. Check the accepted layout, typography, spacing, imagery, interaction states, responsive behavior, overflow, text fit, and accessibility-relevant states. 3. Compare the rendered result directly with the agreed requirements and any approved screenshot, mockup, or concept. Record screenshot paths, mismatches, unavailable states, and the verification surface used. Do not claim visual equivalence when the application could not be rendered. Use an earlier interactive pass only when the user requests it or when it is necessary to diagnose a blocker; do not present that pass as the Final gate. ## Execute each subtask Repeat sequentially: 1. Switch to the clean integration tip and create the planned, series-unique subtask branch. Confirm the exact name is unused by another branch, worktree, session, or series, then record ownership in the ledger. 2. Implement the complete subtask with its focused tests, documentation, and generated artifacts. 3. Run its subtask gate and any justified phase gate. 4. Perform one focused code-review pass over the complete integration-to-subtask diff. Check correctness, regressions, affected contracts, authorization and data safety, validation, tests, documentation, accidental artifacts, and unrelated changes without expanding into a repository-wide audit. 5. Fix every actionable finding and rerun affected checks. Re-inspect the changed lines and affected contracts; repeat the full subtask review only when a fix materially changes the subtask's responsibility or review story. 6. Commit only when the recorded Subtask gate and any applicable Phase gate pass and no actionable finding remains. Do not substitute Final-gate commands for these checks unless the explicit exception above applies. Follow repository commit conventions and prefer one final commit per subtask; consolidate local checkpoints when policy permits. 7. Return to integration and merge the reviewed commit locally, preferring fast-forward-only when the branch contains the intended single commit. Do not start another subtask first. If execution resumed after review, confirm the exact commit/tree still matches the reviewed diff before integration. 8. Verify that the new integration tip contains the reviewed commit and run a cheap smoke check when shared contracts or build boundaries changed. Do not rerun the Final gate at this integration boundary unless the explicit exception above applies. Mark the tip last-known-good after these integration checks pass. 9. Record the commit, checks, findings, fixes, integration result, and recovery boundary. If cleanup was authorized, read [references/branch-cleanup.md](references/branch-cleanup.md) and delete only the exact merged local subtask branch after its ownership checks pass. If review reveals a material scope change, stop and request direction. If an integrated subtask becomes invalid, stop dependent work and read [references/recovery.md](references/recovery.md) before changing history or rebuilding the suffix. ## Complete the series 1. Confirm every ledger entry and owning plan item is complete. In durable-plan mode, confirm that only the exact master plan remains. Review the full base- to-integration diff, not only the final subtask. 2. Fix aggregate findings on a dedicated finalization branch and pass it through the same review, verification, integration, and cleanup loop. 3. Fetch the intended base again and compare it with the recorded base. If it advanced, use the repository-approved integration method; obtain direction before an unapproved merge, rebase, or history rewrite. Resolve conflicts and invalidate prior aggregate evidence before retesting the changed tree. 4. Identify the smallest aggregate checks that cover the changed responsibilities and contract connections on the exact integration tip. Do not inventory or run every available suite merely because it exists. 5. Run that focused final local gate. For material UI/UX work, perform the relevant desktop/mobile visual pass defined above and keep manual browser review distinct from automated E2E. After implementation, focused verification, and aggregate review are complete, list any broader or full-suite commands, their expected value and cost, and ask the user whether to run them. 6. Fix failures with affected checks, then repeat the exact final gate once the candidate is stable. Record the commit and tree SHAs with the final evidence. 7. Fetch again, then review the complete diff against the latest fetched intended base. When `origin/main` exists, also review `origin/main...integration` explicitly for bugs, regressions, missing requirements, accidental artifacts, and unsafe changes. Fix every actionable finding through the normal finalization loop, rerun affected checks, and repeat the focused Final gate because the candidate tree changed. 8. Re-read the agreed requirement baseline and map every criterion to delivered behavior and evidence. Report a **requirement-fit confidence** score from 0 to 100, with deductions and remaining mismatches. Use 100 only when every agreed criterion is satisfied and verified with no known gap. If a gap is actionable and in scope, fix it and reassess; otherwise explain why it is impossible, inadvisable, ambiguous, or too large, propose a bounded next decision, and do not claim full completion. 9. Use the agreed aggregate publication path: either open one integration-to- base review request or commit and push without opening one. Take either path only after the final local gate and aggregate review pass and the required commit, push, or review-request actions are authorized. Summarize subtasks and SHAs, review findings and fixes, recovery, verification, unavailable checks, the confidence score, warnings, and unresolved decisions. For a commit-and-push path without a review request, treat explicit final-push authorization as acceptance of the candidate. In durable-plan mode, delete the exact master plan before that final commit and push, verify that no series-owned plan remains, review the changed candidate, and rerun the required final evidence because its tree changed. Obtain separate Remote CI authorization first when the push can trigger it. 10. If Remote CI is authorized, follow [references/remote-ci.md](references/remote-ci.md) and verify that approved checks tested the current review head. Otherwise report required remote-only or branch-protection checks as blockers without triggering them. 11. Leave the review request open unless final merge is explicitly authorized. Immediately before an authorized merge, fetch and compare the base again. A changed candidate tree requires new aggregate evidence. 12. When the user explicitly authorizes merge or squash-merge and durable-plan mode was used, delete the exact master plan before merging. Preserve that deletion on the review branch, verify that no series-owned plan remains, review the changed candidate, and rerun the required final evidence because its tree changed. If updating the branch can trigger Remote CI, obtain that separate authorization first. Do not delete the master merely because the implementation is complete or review is open. 13. Follow repository merge policy, verify the merged tree matches the validated candidate, and clean up the integration branch only when authorized and after the exact ownership checks pass. ## Resume safely On continuation, always inspect the working tree, worktrees, branches, integration/base tips, and review-request state. In durable-plan mode, reconcile the master and remaining exact subtask plans with Git and verification evidence. In continuous-execution mode, reconstruct progress from the conversation or existing repository-owned ledger, Git, and verification evidence without expecting plan files. Identify the first incomplete loop step and reuse valid branches and commits. Never recreate work only because conversation context was lost. Before cleanup, rebuild ownership from the ledger. If ownership is missing or uncertain, treat every existing branch as belonging to someone else and ask the user which branches belong to this series. Re-fetch the intended base before reusing final evidence. ## Stop conditions Stop and request direction when: - overlapping user changes cannot be preserved safely; - base freshness, permissions, credentials, or branch protection block the loop; - required checks conflict with the agreed verification or Remote CI budget; - a finding materially expands scope; - repository delivery rules require unapproved promotion or history changes; - branch ownership or cleanup safety is uncertain; or - production, deployment, destructive data, DNS, or another separately authorized action becomes necessary. Report integrated commits, local verification, review fixes, current branch, review-request state, authorized Remote CI state when applicable, remaining subtasks, and the precise blocker. Never claim completion while required work remains.