# Bgrober Indie Stack Subagent Driven Development > Subagent-Driven Development - Skill: `tomevault-io/bgrober-indie-stack-subagent-driven-development` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/bgrober-indie-stack-subagent-driven-development` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/bgrober-indie-stack-subagent-driven-development/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/bgrober-indie-stack-subagent-driven-development --- # Subagent-Driven Development Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with **three-stage review** after each: 1. Spec compliance review 2. Code quality review (ios-reviewer or backend-reviewer) 3. UX review **Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + three-stage review = high quality with great UX ## When to Use - Have an implementation plan with defined tasks - Tasks are mostly independent (can be done in any order) - Want to stay in the current session (no parallel sessions) ## The 3-Stage Review Process ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ PER-TASK WORKFLOW │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. IMPLEMENT Implementer subagent builds the feature │ │ ↓ │ │ 2. SPEC REVIEW Does code match requirements? │ │ ↓ (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md) │ │ 3. CODE REVIEW Is code quality good? │ │ ↓ (ios-reviewer or backend-reviewer) │ │ 4. UX REVIEW Is user experience good? │ │ ↓ (ux-reviewer) │ │ 5. COMPLETE Task marked done │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ### Stage Details **Stage 1: Implementation** - Dispatch implementer subagent with full task text - Implementer asks questions if unclear - Implementer implements, tests, self-reviews, commits **Stage 2: Spec Compliance Review** - Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less) - If issues found → implementer fixes → re-review - Only proceed when ✅ spec compliant **Stage 3: Code Quality Review** - Use `ios-reviewer` for Swift/SwiftUI code - Use `backend-reviewer` for Supabase/TypeScript code - Check patterns, performance, security - If issues found → implementer fixes → re-review - Only proceed when ✅ code approved **Stage 4: UX Review** - Use `ux-reviewer` for all user-facing code - Check flow clarity, feedback states, accessibility - If issues found → implementer fixes → re-review - Only proceed when ✅ UX approved ## Prompt Templates - `./implementer-prompt.md` - Dispatch implementer subagent - `./spec-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer - `./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch code quality reviewer (uses ios-reviewer or backend-reviewer agent) - `./ux-reviewer-prompt.md` - Dispatch UX reviewer ## Choosing the Right Code Reviewer | Code Type | Agent | |-----------|-------| | Swift, SwiftUI, SwiftData, iOS | `ios-reviewer` | | TypeScript, Supabase, Edge Functions, RLS | `backend-reviewer` | | Mixed (full-stack feature) | Both in sequence | ## Example Workflow ``` You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan. [Read plan file: docs/plans/feature-plan.md] [Extract all tasks, create TodoWrite] Task 1: Add pour deletion with confirmation [Dispatch implementer with full task text] Implementer: - Added delete button to PourDetailView - Confirmation dialog implemented - SwiftData deletion with sync - 3 tests passing - Committed [Dispatch spec reviewer] Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met [Dispatch ios-reviewer for code quality] iOS reviewer: Strengths: Good SwiftData usage, proper @MainActor Issues (Important): Missing haptic feedback on delete [Implementer fixes] Implementer: Added haptic feedback [Re-dispatch ios-reviewer] iOS reviewer: ✅ Approved [Dispatch ux-reviewer] UX reviewer: Strengths: Clear confirmation dialog, good error message Issues (Important): No undo option after deletion Suggestions: Add "Deleted" toast with undo button [Implementer fixes] Implementer: Added undo toast with 5-second window [Re-dispatch ux-reviewer] UX reviewer: ✅ UX approved - excellent recovery flow [Mark Task 1 complete] Task 2: ... ``` ## Advantages **Quality gates:** - Self-review catches obvious issues - Spec review prevents over/under-building - Code review ensures technical quality - **UX review ensures user success** (often missed by technical reviews) **Fresh context:** - Each subagent starts clean (no accumulated confusion) - Implementer can ask questions before starting - Reviewers evaluate objectively **Fast iteration:** - No human-in-loop between tasks - Issues caught early (cheaper than debugging later) - Review loops ensure fixes actually work ## Red Flags **Never:** - Skip any of the three review stages - Proceed with unfixed issues from any reviewer - Start code quality review before spec compliance passes - Start UX review before code quality passes - Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel - Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead) - Accept "close enough" on any review stage **If reviewer finds issues:** - Same implementer subagent fixes them - Same reviewer re-reviews - Repeat until approved - Don't skip re-reviews ## Integration **Required skills:** - `indie-stack:writing-plans` - Creates the plan this skill executes - `indie-stack:requesting-code-review` - Code review guidance **Reviewers use:** - `indie-stack:ios-reviewer` - Swift/SwiftUI code quality - `indie-stack:backend-reviewer` - Supabase/TypeScript quality - `indie-stack:ux-reviewer` - User experience quality **Implementers should use:** - `indie-stack:testing-flexible` - Testing guidance (encouraged, not blocking) --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/bgrober) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.