S

Subagent Driven Development Engine

Boost productivity using this executing, implementation, plans, independent. Includes structured workflows, validation checks, and reusable patterns for ai research.

SkillClipticsai researchv1.0.0MIT
0 views0 copies

Subagent-Driven Development Engine

Execute implementation plans by dispatching fresh subagents per task with two-stage review — spec compliance first, then code quality — ensuring high-quality, fast iteration on complex projects.

When to Use

Use subagent-driven development when:

  • Executing multi-task implementation plans where each task is independent
  • Need parallel development across multiple files or features
  • Want consistent quality through systematic two-stage review
  • Working on complex refactors or feature builds with 5+ tasks

Use direct development when:

  • Single-file changes or quick fixes
  • Tasks with heavy interdependencies requiring sequential execution
  • Simple modifications that don't warrant the orchestration overhead

Quick Start

Basic Workflow

1. Plan → Break work into independent tasks
2. Dispatch → Fresh subagent per task (clean context)
3. Review Stage 1 → Spec compliance check
4. Review Stage 2 → Code quality review
5. Integrate → Merge all task outputs

Task Dispatch Template

## Task: {task_name} ### Context - Project: {project_description} - Architecture: {relevant_architecture} - File(s): {target_files} ### Specification {detailed_requirements} ### Acceptance Criteria - [ ] {criterion_1} - [ ] {criterion_2} - [ ] {criterion_3} ### Constraints - Follow existing patterns in {reference_file} - Use {framework/library} for {specific_concern} - Do not modify {protected_files}

Two-Stage Review

## Stage 1: Spec Compliance Review - Does the implementation match all acceptance criteria? - Are all edge cases from the spec handled? - Does it integrate correctly with existing code? - Are there any missing requirements? ## Stage 2: Code Quality Review - Is the code clean, readable, and maintainable? - Are there any bugs or logic errors? - Does it follow project conventions? - Are there performance concerns? - Is error handling appropriate?

Core Concepts

Why Fresh Subagents?

Each subagent starts with a clean context, which provides:

  • No context pollution — previous task decisions don't leak into current task
  • Full context budget — entire context window available for the current task
  • Parallel execution — independent tasks can run simultaneously
  • Consistent quality — no degradation from accumulated context

Task Decomposition

Task TypeScopeSubagent Context
FeatureSingle feature, 1-3 filesFeature spec + affected files
RefactorOne concern, multiple filesRefactoring goal + all affected files
TestTest suite for one moduleModule code + test patterns
FixSingle bugBug report + relevant code
ConfigInfrastructure/config changeConfig docs + current config

Review Cycle

Subagent Output
      |
  Stage 1: Spec
  /          \
Pass        Fail → Send feedback → Subagent revises
  |
  Stage 2: Quality
  /          \
Pass        Fail → Send feedback → Subagent revises
  |
  Accept

Configuration

ParameterDefaultDescription
max_tasks_parallel3Concurrent subagents
review_stages2Number of review stages
max_revisions2Revision attempts before escalation
context_strategy"minimal"How much context to provide (minimal/full)
task_timeout300sMaximum time per task

Best Practices

  1. Keep tasks independent — if task B depends on task A's output, execute sequentially
  2. Provide minimal but complete context — include only files the subagent needs to touch
  3. Write specific acceptance criteria — vague criteria lead to interpretation differences
  4. Include reference patterns — point subagents to existing code that demonstrates the desired style
  5. Review spec compliance first — catching spec mismatches early prevents wasted quality review
  6. Limit parallel tasks — too many concurrent subagents makes review overwhelming

Common Issues

Subagent interprets spec differently than intended: Add concrete examples to the spec. Reference existing code that demonstrates the pattern. Be explicit about edge cases.

Review catches issues that should have been in the spec: Improve your spec template. Add a "non-obvious requirements" section. Include architecture constraints upfront.

Tasks turn out to be interdependent: Re-plan with explicit dependencies. Execute dependent tasks sequentially, passing the output of each to the next.

Community

Reviews

Write a review

No reviews yet. Be the first to review this template!

Similar Templates