# Kyletabor Claude Plugins Dev Process > Structured Development Process - Skill: `tomevault-io/kyletabor-claude-plugins-dev-process` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/kyletabor-claude-plugins-dev-process` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/kyletabor-claude-plugins-dev-process/raw - Safety review: pending - 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/kyletabor-claude-plugins-dev-process --- # Structured Development Process Spec-driven, gate-reviewed development pipeline for rigorous implementation. ## When to Use - Multi-file features or fixes - Work that needs architecture before coding - Changes requiring security or compliance review - Any work where "just code it" leads to rework ## When NOT to Use - Single-file bug fixes - Quick config changes - Pure research/exploration tasks ## The Pipeline ``` Phase 1: Spec → Phase 2: Spec Review → Phase 3: Implement → Phase 4: Code Review → Phase 5: Test → Phase 6: Verdict ``` ## Phase 1: Architecture Spec Write a detailed spec BEFORE any code. This phase uses parallel codebase exploration to inform the design. ### Step 0a: Design Exploration (When Starting From Scratch) If the feature is greenfield or the approach is unclear, invoke the `brainstorming` skill first for design exploration. Let brainstorming run its full cycle (diverge → converge → decide), then carry the chosen approach into the spec below. Skip this if you already have a clear PRD or plan to execute. ### Step 0b: Verify Current State (MANDATORY) Before writing ANY spec, you MUST verify the current state of the system you're targeting. Specs written from memory are specs written against fiction. This step has been skipped in 5 out of 5 recent incidents, causing features to target dead code paths every time. Run these checks and include the OUTPUT in your spec: 1. **Trace the actual data flow** — open the app, check browser DevTools / network requests, or grep the codebase to find which endpoints and code paths are ACTUALLY used 2. **Verify the target files exist and are active** — `grep -r` for imports, route registrations, or function calls that prove the code you're targeting is live (not legacy) 3. **Check for recent changes** — `git log --oneline -10 [target files]` to see if the area was recently refactored (your mental model may be stale) Include a `## Current State Verification` section in every spec with actual command output. If you cannot produce this evidence, you are not ready to write the spec. ### Step 1: Understand the Requirements Read and extract requirements from the source (PRD, epic, issue, or user request): - Goal and acceptance criteria - Scope boundaries (in/out) - Constraints and requirements ### Step 2: Explore Codebase (Parallel Subagents) Launch 3 Explore subagents in parallel using the Task tool: ``` Task 1 - Pattern Discovery: "Find existing features similar to [feature type]. Look for patterns, file structures, and conventions to follow. Output: Reference files to use as templates." Task 2 - Integration Points: "Find where [feature] would integrate with existing code. Look for APIs, data models, entry points. Output: Files to modify, connection points." Task 3 - Test Patterns: "Find how tests are structured in this codebase. Look for unit, integration, e2e patterns. Output: Test file locations, testing conventions." ``` Wait for all 3 to complete, then synthesize findings. ### Step 3: Design Architecture Launch a Plan subagent with the requirements and exploration findings. The subagent outputs: - Technical approach (how to solve it) - Patterns to follow (reference files) - Implementation legs (each sized for one agent session) ### Step 4: Write the Spec The spec MUST include: ```markdown # [Feature/Fix Name] — Architecture Spec ## Goal [1-2 sentences: what we're building and why] ## Scope - **In scope**: [list] - **Out of scope**: [list] ## Reference Patterns | Purpose | File | Notes | |---------|------|-------| | Similar feature | src/path/to/file | Follow this structure | | Test pattern | tests/path/to/test | Use this testing approach | ## Files to Modify/Create | File | Action | Purpose | |------|--------|---------| | path/to/file | Create/Modify | What changes | ## Technical Design ### [Component 1] - **Goal**: [what this component does] - **Logic**: [how it works, pseudocode or description] - **Types**: [new types/interfaces needed] - **Edge cases**: [what could go wrong] ### [Component 2] [repeat pattern] ## Implementation Legs ### Leg 1: [Name] [Brief description of what this leg accomplishes] ### Leg 2: [Name] [Brief description] ## Dependencies & Parallelization ``` Leg 1 ──┬──> Leg 3 │ Leg 2 ──┘ ``` [Explain what can run in parallel and what's sequential] ## Current State Verification [MANDATORY — actual command output proving this spec targets live code paths] - Data flow trace: [which endpoints/functions are actually called] - Target file verification: [grep output showing files are imported/used] - Recent changes: [git log of target area] ## Dependency Verification [MANDATORY — for each external dependency referenced in the spec] | Dependency | Assumed Capability | Verified At Source? | Source Path | |---|---|---|---| | @pkg/name | method X exists | YES/NO | node_modules/@pkg/name/dist/file.js:L123 | [Phase 2 reviewer will REJECT specs without this section. The GATE beads issue cannot be closed without VERIFIED: evidence citing these source paths.] ## Acceptance Criteria (Executable) [MANDATORY — each criterion is a testable assertion, not prose] For each criterion, write it as: "When [action], then [observable result]" Example: - When user loads conversation view, DOM contains `.tool-group` elements (count > 0) - When user clicks tool group header, expanded content becomes visible These MUST be convertible to Playwright assertions. Prose-only criteria are rejected at review. ## Test Requirements For each component: - Unit tests: [count and description] - Integration tests: [if applicable] - E2E tests: [Playwright tests that verify acceptance criteria against REAL data, not mocks] ## Security Considerations [If applicable: bypass vectors, injection risks, access control] ``` Save the spec as a doc in the project's docs/ folder or as a task in your tracking system. See `references/architecture-template.md` for a lighter-weight template. ### Step 5: Create Beads Issues From Requirements After the spec is approved, create a beads issue for EACH requirement/acceptance criterion: ```bash bd create --title='R1: [requirement name]' --description='[acceptance criteria — testable assertion]' --type=feature bd create --title='R2: [requirement name]' --description='[acceptance criteria]' --type=feature # ... one per requirement # MANDATORY: Create the dependency verification gate bd create --title='GATE: Dependencies verified at source' \ --description='Verify all external dependency assumptions against actual library source (node_modules/), not wrapper code. Close with VERIFIED: evidence citing source file paths.' \ --type=task --priority=1 ``` This creates the tracking trail. Every requirement gets a beads issue that must be individually verified and closed before the feature can ship. The GATE issue enforces that dependency assumptions were checked against real library source — not just our wrapper code. Do NOT skip this step. The GATE issue is NOT optional. The verify-before-close hook will BLOCK closing any R-prefixed requirement issue unless a GATE: issue has been closed with VERIFIED: evidence. If you skip creating the GATE issue, you will be blocked at close time. Three separate agents read wrapper code instead of library source and missed a critical API — this gate prevents that (CAPA-8). ## Phase 2: Spec Review Gate **STOP.** Do not proceed to implementation without review. Launch a Plan subagent to review the spec: ``` "Review this architecture spec for completeness. Check: 1. Are all files identified? Any missing? 2. Are edge cases covered? 3. Is the test plan adequate? 4. Are dependencies correctly mapped? 5. Any security concerns missed? 6. Are dependency assumptions verified AT SOURCE? For each external dependency referenced in the spec, was the ACTUAL library source (node_modules/pkg/dist/*) inspected — not just our wrapper code? Are source file paths cited as evidence? If the spec references dependency capabilities without citing library source → REJECT. Output: APPROVE with notes, or REJECT with specific issues." ``` If REJECTED: fix the spec and re-review. If APPROVED: complete the dependency verification gate before proceeding to Phase 3. ### Dependency Verification (Close the GATE Issue) After spec approval, you MUST close the GATE issue before starting implementation. The verify-before-close hook will block closing ANY R-prefixed requirement issue until the GATE issue is closed. This is architectural enforcement, not a suggestion. For each external dependency referenced in the spec: 1. **Read the actual library source** — `node_modules/pkg/dist/*`, NOT your wrapper code. If the dependency is inside a container, exec in and read the source there. 2. **List the methods/APIs you found** — what does the library actually expose? 3. **Compare to spec assumptions** — does the library support what the spec assumes? 4. **Look for capabilities the spec missed** — are there better-suited APIs you didn't know about? Then close the GATE issue with evidence: ```bash bd update --notes='VERIFIED: [date] | Dependencies checked: [list] | Source paths: [node_modules/ paths where capabilities confirmed]' bd close ``` If the library does NOT support what the spec assumed → update the spec and re-review. ## Phase 3: Implementation Use agent teams for parallel work. Follow the dependency diagram from the spec. ### Sub-Skill Integration - **Use the `test-driven-development` skill** for each requirement. Write the test first, then the implementation. This is not optional — every requirement gets TDD treatment. - **Use the `subagent-driven-development` skill** to parallelize work across independent requirements. Each implementation leg runs as a subagent with isolated scope. ### Progress Tracking After each requirement is implemented (code + tests written): 1. Update its beads issue: `bd update --status=in_progress` 2. Git checkpoint: commit the requirement with a clear message (e.g., "Implement R3: [name]") 3. Do NOT batch commits — one commit per requirement keeps the trail clean ### Team Setup 1. Create a team (if not already in one) 2. Create tasks for each implementation leg 3. Set up dependencies between tasks 4. Spawn implementation agents for each independent leg ### Implementation Agent Instructions Template ``` Implement [Leg Name] per the architecture spec. Spec location: [path] Your scope: [specific section of the spec] Rules: - Follow the spec exactly — don't improvise - Write tests alongside code (TDD preferred) - Commit when your leg is complete - Report: what you built, test results, any deviations from spec ``` ### Parallelization Rules - Independent legs run simultaneously - Dependent legs wait for blockers to complete - Each agent gets isolated scope — no overlapping file edits - If two legs touch the same file, they must be sequential ## Phase 4: Code Review Gate **STOP.** All implementation must be reviewed before merging. Launch a code review agent: ``` "Review the implementation against the architecture spec. Spec: [path] Changes: [git diff or file list] Check per file: 1. Spec compliance — does it match the design? 2. Code quality — clean, readable, no dead code 3. Test coverage — are all spec'd tests present and passing? 4. Security — any bypass vectors or injection risks? Output format: ### [filename] | Requirement | Status | |-------------|--------| | [from spec] | PASS / FAIL | ### Security Review [explicit checks] ### Verdict APPROVE / REJECT Severity: [CRITICAL: X, HIGH: X, MEDIUM: X, LOW: X]" ``` If REJECTED: fix issues and re-review. If APPROVED: proceed to Phase 5. ## Phase 5: Testing + Independent Verification **Invoke the `verification-before-completion` skill** to enforce this entire phase. Do not skip it or claim verification happened without running through the skill's checklist. ### 5a: Run Tests (Builder) 1. **Unit tests**: Run the full test suite — report BEFORE and AFTER counts (e.g., "was 118, now 130" — if count didn't increase, new tests weren't added or aren't running) 2. **Integration tests**: If applicable 3. **Regression check**: Ensure existing functionality isn't broken ### 5b: Independent Verification (NOT the Builder) The agent who built it CANNOT verify it. This is non-negotiable. In 5 out of 5 recent incidents, self-certification led to shipping broken features. Spawn a **separate verification agent** (use the `independent-verifier` agent if available, or launch a fresh Agent with read-only + Playwright access): ``` "Verify this feature works from the USER's perspective. Spec: [path to spec with acceptance criteria] App URL: [the URL the user actually uses] For EACH acceptance criterion in the spec: 1. Load the app the way the user loads it (not a test harness) 2. Perform the user action described 3. Check the observable result matches the criterion 4. Take a screenshot as evidence Report: | Acceptance Criterion | Result | Evidence | |---------------------|--------|----------| | [criterion] | PASS/FAIL | [screenshot or DOM check] | You have NO access to edit code. You can only read, browse, and report. If ANY criterion fails, report FAIL — do not attempt to fix." ``` The independent verifier also updates beads as it verifies each requirement: ```bash # For each verified requirement: bd close --reason='Verified: [evidence description — screenshot path or DOM assertion result]' ``` If the verifier reports FAIL → return to Phase 3 with the failure details. If the verifier reports PASS → proceed to Phase 5c (if plugin work) or Phase 6. ### 5c: Plugin Verification (If Work Involves Plugins) Publishing a plugin to a marketplace and verifying files exist is NOT verification. The plugin must actually LOAD in a fresh Claude Code session. This step has been missed repeatedly — "pushed to GitHub" was treated as "done" when the plugin wasn't even installed. Skip this section if the work doesn't involve Claude Code plugins. For plugin work: **For NEW plugins (not yet installed):** 1. Launch a fresh Claude Code session (use the `tmux` skill if available): ```bash SESSION="agent-verify-plugin-$(openssl rand -hex 2)" tmux new-session -d -s "$SESSION" -c "claude --dangerously-skip-permissions" ``` 2. Install the plugin: send `/plugin install ` to the session 3. Reload: send `/reload-plugins` 4. Verify the skill appears: ask the session to list skills containing the plugin name 5. Clean up the tmux session **For UPDATED plugins (version bump):** 1. Launch a fresh Claude Code session (new sessions fetch updated marketplace) 2. Run `/doctor` — check for plugin errors 3. Run `/skills` — verify the skill is listed with the correct plugin name 4. Invoke the skill with a test prompt to confirm it activates correctly 5. Clean up the tmux session **Verification evidence must include:** - The `/skills` or skill list output showing the plugin loaded - Or the skill activation output showing it triggered correctly - Plugin version confirmed (cache shows correct version) Do NOT accept "marketplace.json updated" or "files pushed" as verification. The plugin must load. ## Phase 6: Verdict & Ship ### Beads Gate (MANDATORY) Before evaluating the pre-ship checklist, check beads: ```bash bd list --status=open ``` If ANY beads issues for this feature remain open, you are NOT done. Do NOT claim completion. Go back to the phase where the open requirement needs work. ### Pre-ship checklist (all must be YES): - [ ] Spec includes Current State Verification with command output? - [ ] Acceptance criteria are executable (not prose)? - [ ] Test count increased? (before: ___, after: ___) - [ ] Independent verifier (not builder) confirmed feature works? - [ ] Verifier evidence (screenshots/DOM checks) included in report? - [ ] All beads issues for this feature are closed? (`bd list --status=open` returns none) If all YES: 1. Final commit with clean message 2. Close/update completed tasks in your tracking system 3. Save learnings to claude-mem for future reference 4. **Present beads summary to user as proof of completion:** ```bash bd list # Show all issues — should all be closed with verification evidence ``` 5. Report summary to user WITH verifier evidence AND beads trail attached If any NO: 1. Document what failed and why 2. Create fix tasks 3. Loop back to the appropriate phase ## Quick Reference | Phase | Gate | Who | Output | |-------|------|-----|--------| | 1. Spec | Current state verified? | Lead + Explore agents | Architecture doc with evidence | | 2. Review | Spec complete? Criteria executable? | Plan agent | APPROVE/REJECT | | 3. Implement | — | Implementation agents | Code + tests | | 4. Review | Spec compliant? | Review agent | APPROVE/REJECT | | 5a. Test | Tests pass? Count increased? | Builder | Test results | | 5b. Verify | Feature works for user? | **Independent verifier** (NOT builder) | Evidence | | 6. Ship | All gates + verifier evidence? | Lead | Done or iterate | ## Tips - **Don't skip gates** even when it feels like overkill — the 10 minutes saved by skipping review costs hours of rework - **Spec changes during implementation** are OK but must be documented and re-reviewed - **Small scope** is better — break large features into multiple dev-process cycles - **Claude CLI for LLM calls**: Use `CLAUDECODE= claude --print` not Anthropic SDK ## Additional Resources ### Reference Files - **`references/architecture-template.md`** — Lighter-weight architecture spec template - **`references/task-template.md`** — Task description format with step-by-step instructions --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/kyletabor) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.