# Subagent Driven Development

> Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session

- Skill: `wukongnotnull/subagent-driven-development` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 13 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add wukongnotnull/subagent-driven-development`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/wukongnotnull/subagent-driven-development/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: wukongnotnull (https://skillmd.com/u/wukongnotnull)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/wukongnotnull/subagent-driven-development

---


# Subagent-Driven Development

Execute plan by dispatching a fresh implementer subagent per task, a task review (spec compliance + code quality) after each, and a broad whole-branch review at the end.

**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 — you construct exactly what they need. This also preserves your own context for coordination work.

**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + task review (spec + quality) + broad final review = high quality, fast iteration

**Narration:** between tool calls, narrate at most one short line — the
ledger and the tool results carry the record.

**Continuous execution:** Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping. The only reasons to stop are: BLOCKED status you cannot resolve, ambiguity that genuinely prevents progress, or all tasks complete. "Should I continue?" prompts and progress summaries waste their time — they asked you to execute the plan, so execute it.

## When to Use

Decision graph (have plan? independent tasks? same session?):
`skills/subagent-driven-development/references/when-to-use.md`

- Skip SDD for single mechanical tasks already in-session with no multi-task plan — prefer direct execution or executing-plans for a tiny plan.

**vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):**
- Same session (no context switch)
- Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
- Review after each task (spec compliance + code quality), broad review at the end
- Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)

## The Process

```dot
digraph process {
    rankdir=TB;

    subgraph cluster_per_task {
        label="Per Task";
        "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
        "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" [shape=diamond];
        "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [shape=box];
        "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [shape=box];
    }

    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" [shape=box];
    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [shape=box];
    "Use wukong-code:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];

    "Read plan, note context and global constraints, create todos" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)";
    "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?";
    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" [label="no"];
    "Dispatch fix subagent for Critical/Important findings" -> "Write diff file, dispatch task reviewer subagent (./task-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Task reviewer reports spec ✅ and quality approved?" -> "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" [label="yes"];
    "Mark task complete in todo list and progress ledger" -> "More tasks remain?";
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" [label="no"];
    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent (../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)" -> "Use wukong-code:finishing-a-development-branch";
}
```

## Pre-Flight Plan Review

Before dispatching Task 1, scan the plan once for conflicts:

- tasks that contradict each other or the plan's Global Constraints
- anything the plan explicitly mandates that the review rubric treats as a
  defect (a test that asserts nothing, verbatim duplication of a logic block)

Present everything you find to your human partner as one batched question —
each finding beside the plan text that mandates it, asking which governs —
before execution begins, not one interrupt per discovery mid-plan. If the
scan is clean, proceed without comment. The review loop remains the net for
conflicts that only emerge from implementation.

## Model Selection

Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.

**Mechanical implementation tasks** (isolated functions, clear specs, 1-2 files): use a fast, cheap model. Most implementation tasks are mechanical when the plan is well-specified.

**Integration and judgment tasks** (multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging): use a standard model.

**Architecture and design tasks**: use the most capable available model.
The final whole-branch review is one of these — dispatch it on the most
capable available model, not the session default.

**Review tasks**: choose the model with the same judgment, scaled to the
diff's size, complexity, and risk. A small mechanical diff does not need the
most capable model; a subtle concurrency change does.

**Always specify the model explicitly when dispatching a subagent.** An
omitted model inherits your session's model — often the most capable and
most expensive — which silently defeats this section.

**Task complexity signals (implementation tasks):**
- Touches 1-2 files with a complete spec → cheap model
- Touches multiple files with integration concerns → standard model
- Requires design judgment or broad codebase understanding → most capable model

For turn-count vs token-price tradeoffs and when transcription tasks can use the cheapest tier, Read `skills/subagent-driven-development/references/model-selection-depth.md`.

## Handling Implementer Status

Implementer subagents report one of four statuses. Handle each appropriately:

**DONE:** Generate the review package (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`, from this skill's directory — it prints the unique file path it wrote; BASE is the commit you recorded before dispatching the implementer — never `HEAD~1`, which silently drops all but the last commit of a multi-commit task), then dispatch the task reviewer with the printed path.

**DONE_WITH_CONCERNS:** The implementer completed the work but flagged doubts. Read the concerns before proceeding. If the concerns are about correctness or scope, address them before review. If they're observations (e.g., "this file is getting large"), note them and proceed to review.

**NEEDS_CONTEXT:** The implementer needs information that wasn't provided. Provide the missing context and re-dispatch.

**BLOCKED:** The implementer cannot complete the task. Assess the blocker:
1. If it's a context problem, provide more context and re-dispatch with the same model
2. If the task requires more reasoning, re-dispatch with a more capable model
3. If the task is too large, break it into smaller pieces
4. If the plan itself is wrong, escalate to the human

**Never** ignore an escalation or force the same model to retry without changes. If the implementer said it's stuck, something needs to change.

## Handling Reviewer ⚠️ Items

The task reviewer may report "⚠️ Cannot verify from diff" items — requirements
that live in unchanged code or span tasks. These do not block the rest of the
review, but you must resolve each one yourself before marking the task
complete: you hold the plan and cross-task context the reviewer
lacks. If you confirm an item is a real gap, treat it as a failed spec
review — send it back to the implementer and re-review.

## Constructing Reviewer Prompts

Per-task reviews are task-scoped gates; the broad review is once at end.
**Resident hard rules:** never pre-judge findings ("do not flag", "at most
Minor"); hand diffs as files via `scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` (never
`HEAD~1`); do not paste prior-task history into later dispatches; fix
Critical/Important, ledger Minors for final review; plan-mandated conflicts
go to your human partner.

Full bullet list (global-constraints lens, one final-fix subagent, etc.):
Read `skills/subagent-driven-development/references/constructing-reviewer-prompts.md`
before filling reviewer templates.

## File Handoffs

Everything you paste into a dispatch prompt — and everything a subagent
prints back — stays resident in your context for the rest of the session
and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files:

- **Task brief:** before dispatching an implementer, run this skill's
  `scripts/task-brief PLAN_FILE N` — it extracts the task's full text to a
  uniquely named file and prints the path. Compose the dispatch so the
  brief stays the single source of requirements. Your dispatch should
  contain: (1) one line on where this task fits in the project; (2) the
  brief path, introduced as "read this first — it is your requirements,
  with the exact values to use verbatim"; (3) interfaces and decisions
  from earlier tasks that the brief cannot know; (4) your resolution of
  any ambiguity you noticed in the brief; (5) the report-file path and
  report contract. Exact values (numbers, magic strings, signatures, test
  cases) appear only in the brief.
- **Report file:** name the implementer's report file after the brief
  (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
  the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
  returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
  constraints that bind the task.
- Fix dispatches append their fix report (with test results) to the same
  report file and return a short summary; re-reviews read the updated file.
- **Contracts:** do not paste `implementer-contract.md` / `task-reviewer-contract.md`
  into the dispatch prompt. Instruct the subagent to Read the path under
  `skills/subagent-driven-development/`. Controllers must not `Read` the
  full contract into their own context on every task — only fill the thin
  template placeholders.

## Durable Progress

Conversation memory does not survive compaction. In real sessions,
controllers that lost their place have re-dispatched entire completed task
sequences — the single most expensive failure observed. Track progress in
a ledger file, not only in todos.

- At skill start, check for a ledger:
  `cat "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.wukong-code/sdd/progress.md"`. Tasks listed there
  as complete are DONE — do not re-dispatch them; resume at the first task
  not marked complete.
- When a task's review comes back clean, append one line to the ledger in
  the same message as your other bookkeeping:
  `Task N: complete (commits <base7>..<head7>, review clean)`.
- The ledger is your recovery map: the commits it names exist in git even
  when your context no longer remembers creating them. After compaction,
  trust the ledger and `git log` over your own recollection.
- `git clean -fdx` will destroy the ledger (it's git-ignored scratch); if
  that happens, recover from `git log`.

## Prompt Templates

- [implementer-contract.md](implementer-contract.md) — stable implementer rules (subagent Reads once)
- [implementer-prompt.md](implementer-prompt.md) — thin dispatch shell (placeholders only)
- [task-reviewer-contract.md](task-reviewer-contract.md) — stable reviewer rubric
- [task-reviewer-prompt.md](task-reviewer-prompt.md) — thin dispatch shell
- Final whole-branch review: use wukong-code:requesting-code-review's [code-reviewer.md](../requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md)

## Example Workflow

On-demand narrative (do not load unless teaching/debugging SDD itself):
`skills/subagent-driven-development/references/example-workflow.md`

## Advantages

On-demand comparison vs manual/executing-plans:
`skills/subagent-driven-development/references/advantages.md`

## Red Flags

**Never:**
- Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
- Skip task review, or accept a report missing either verdict (spec compliance AND task quality are both required)
- Proceed with unfixed issues
- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
- Make a subagent read the whole plan file (hand it its task brief —
  `scripts/task-brief` — instead)
- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
- Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (reviewer found spec issues = not done)
- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
- Tell a reviewer what not to flag, or pre-rate a finding's severity in the
  dispatch prompt ("treat it as Minor at most") — the plan's example code is
  a starting point, not evidence that its weaknesses were chosen
- Dispatch a task reviewer without a diff file — generate it first
  (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD`) and name the printed path in the
  prompt
- Move to next task while the review has open Critical/Important issues
- Re-dispatch a task the progress ledger already marks complete — check
  the ledger (and `git log`) after any compaction or resume

**If subagent asks questions:**
- Answer clearly and completely
- Provide additional context if needed
- Don't rush them into implementation

**If reviewer finds issues:**
- Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
- Reviewer reviews again
- Repeat until approved
- Don't skip the re-review

**If subagent fails task:**
- Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
- Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

## Integration

**Required workflow skills:**
- **wukong-code:using-git-worktrees** - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
- **wukong-code:writing-plans** - Creates the plan this skill executes
- **wukong-code:requesting-code-review** - Code review template for the final whole-branch review
- **wukong-code:finishing-a-development-branch** - Complete development after all tasks

**TDD for subagents:**
- Default: follow the TDD steps already written in the task brief/plan and
  record RED/GREEN evidence in the report (see implementer-contract.md).
- Load **wukong-code:test-driven-development** only when: the brief omits TDD
  steps, the implementer skipped RED, or a reviewer requires TDD remediation.

**Alternative workflow:**
- **wukong-code:executing-plans** - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution