hainamchung 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.
Core principle: Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration
When to Use
Have implementation plan?
↓
Tasks mostly independent?
↓
subagent-driven-development ← YES to both
vs. Manual execution:
- Subagents follow TDD naturally
- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
- Review checkpoints automatic
Model Selection
Use the least powerful model that can handle each role:
| Task Type | Model | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | Cheap/Fast | Isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files |
| Standard | Standard | Multi-file coordination, pattern matching |
| Architecture | Capable | Design judgment, broad codebase understanding |
Task complexity signals:
- Touches 1-2 files with complete spec → cheap model
- Touches multiple files with integration → standard model
- Requires design judgment → most capable model
The Process
Per Task:
1. Dispatch implementer subagent
2. Implementer asks questions? → Answer + re-dispatch
3. Implementer implements, tests, commits, self-reviews
4. Dispatch spec compliance reviewer
5. Spec reviewer approves? → NO → Implementer fixes → re-review
6. Dispatch code quality reviewer
7. Code reviewer approves? → NO → Implementer fixes → re-review
8. Mark task complete
After all tasks:
- Dispatch final code reviewer
- Use finishing-a-development-branch
Implementer Status
DONE: Proceed to spec compliance review.
DONE_WITH_CONCERNS: Read concerns. If correctness/scope issues, address before review.
NEEDS_CONTEXT: Provide missing context and re-dispatch.
BLOCKED: Assess blocker:
- Context problem → provide more context, re-dispatch
- Needs more reasoning → re-dispatch with capable model
- Task too large → break into smaller pieces
- Plan wrong → escalate to human
Two-Stage Review
Stage 1: Spec Compliance Review
Verify implementation matches specification:
- All requirements met?
- Nothing extra added?
- Scope creep?
- Edge cases handled?
Stage 2: Code Quality Review
Verify implementation quality:
- Naming, structure, DRY?
- Security concerns?
- Performance issues?
- Error handling?
Status Reporting
After each subagent task, report:
## Status: [DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | NEEDS_CONTEXT | BLOCKED]
**Task:** {task ID}
**Summary:** {what was done}
**Concerns:** {if any}
**Blocked by:** {if blocked}
Red Flags
Never:
- Start implementation without design approval
- Skip spec compliance review
- Skip code quality review
- Proceed with unfixed issues
- Dispatch multiple implementers in parallel
- Start code quality review before spec compliance passes
- Ignore subagent questions
Integration
Use with:
/cook:team— For building features/plan:team— For creating plans to executebrainstormingskill — For design approval before implementation