dev-delegate

Announce: "I'm using dev-delegate to dispatch implementation subagents."

Contents

• The Iron Law of Delegation
• Where This Fits
• The Process
• Drive-Aligned Framing
• Rationalization Prevention

## The Iron Law of Delegation

EVERY IMPLEMENTATION MUST GO THROUGH A TASK AGENT. This is not negotiable.

Main chat MUST NOT:

• Write code directly
• Make "quick fixes"
• Edit implementation files
• "Just do this one thing"

If you're about to write code in main chat, STOP. Spawn a Task agent instead.

Where This Fits

Main Chat                          Task Agent
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
dev-implement (orchestrates)
  → dev-ralph-loop (per-task loops)
    → dev-delegate (this skill)
      → spawns Task agent ──────→ follows dev-tdd
                                  uses dev-test tools

Main chat uses this skill to spawn Task agents. Task agents follow dev-tdd (TDD protocol) and use dev-test (testing tools).

Core Principle

Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review = high quality, fast iteration

• Implementer subagent does the work (following dev-tdd)
• Spec reviewer confirms it matches requirements
• Quality reviewer checks code quality
• Loop until both approve

When to Use

Called by dev-implement inside each ralph loop iteration. Don't invoke directly.

The Process

For each task:
    1. Dispatch implementer subagent
       - If questions → answer, re-dispatch
       - Implements, tests, commits
    2. Dispatch spec reviewer subagent
       - If issues → implementer fixes → re-review
    3. Dispatch quality reviewer subagent
       - If issues → implementer fixes → re-review
    4. Mark task complete

Step 1: Dispatch Implementer

Pattern: Use structured delegation template from references/delegation-template.md

Every delegation MUST include:

1. TASK - What to do
2. EXPECTED OUTCOME - Success criteria
3. REQUIRED SKILLS - Why this agent
4. REQUIRED TOOLS - What they'll need
5. MUST DO - Non-negotiable constraints
6. MUST NOT DO - Hard blocks
7. CONTEXT - Parent session state
8. VERIFICATION - How to confirm completion

Use this Task invocation (fill in brackets):

Task(subagent_type="workflows:dev-implementer", prompt="""
# TASK

Implement: [TASK NAME]

## EXPECTED OUTCOME

You will have successfully completed this task when:
- [ ] [Success criterion 1]
- [ ] [Success criterion 2]
- [ ] Tests pass (TDD enforced)
- [ ] No regressions in existing tests

## REQUIRED SKILLS

This task requires:
- [Language/framework]: [Why]
- Testing: TDD (test-first mandatory)
- [Other skills as needed]

## REQUIRED TOOLS

You will need:
- Read: Examine existing code
- Write: Create new files
- Edit: Modify existing files
- Bash: Run tests and verify

**Tools denied:** None (full implementation access)

## MUST DO

- [ ] Write test FIRST (TDD RED-GREEN-REFACTOR)
- [ ] Run test suite after each change
- [ ] Follow existing code patterns in [file]
- [ ] [Other non-negotiable requirements]

## MUST NOT DO

- ❌ Write code before test
- ❌ Skip test execution
- ❌ Use `any` / `@ts-ignore` / type suppression
- ❌ Commit broken code

## DEVIATION RULES

You WILL discover unplanned work. Apply these rules and track all deviations:

| Rule | Trigger | Action |
|------|---------|--------|
| **R1: Bug** | Broken behavior, errors, type errors, security vulns | Auto-fix → test → track `[Rule 1 - Bug]` |
| **R2: Missing Critical** | Missing error handling, validation, auth, logging | Auto-fix → test → track `[Rule 2 - Missing Critical]` |
| **R3: Blocking** | Missing deps, wrong types, broken imports | Auto-fix → test → track `[Rule 3 - Blocking]` |
| **R4: Architectural** | New DB table, schema change, switching libs, breaking API | **STOP → escalate to delegator** |

**Rules 1-3:** Fix automatically, test, document what you did.
**Rule 4:** Do NOT proceed. Report the architectural decision needed back to the delegator with: what you found, proposed change, why needed, impact, and alternatives.

**Unsure which rule?** Default to Rule 4 (STOP and escalate).

In your output, include: **Deviations:** N auto-fixed (R1: X, R2: Y, R3: Z), N escalated (R4: W).

## CONTEXT

### Task Description
[PASTE FULL TASK TEXT FROM PLAN.md - don't make subagent read file]

### Project Context
- Project: [brief description]
- Related files: [list from exploration]
- Test command: [from SPEC.md]

## TDD Protocol (MANDATORY)

<EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>
**LOAD THIS SKILL FIRST:**

Before writing any code, you MUST load the TDD skill:

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/dev-tdd/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.

This loads:
- Task reframing (your job is writing tests, not features)
- The Execution Gate (6 mandatory gates before E2E testing)
- GATE 5: READ LOGS (mandatory - cannot skip)
- The Iron Law of TDD (test-first approach)

**Load dev-tdd now before proceeding.**
</EXTREMELY-IMPORTANT>

Follow the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle from dev-tdd:

1. **RED**: Write a failing test FIRST
   - Run it, SEE IT FAIL
   - Document: "RED: [test] fails with [error]"

2. **GREEN**: Write MINIMAL code to pass
   - Run test, SEE IT PASS
   - Document: "GREEN: [test] passes"

3. **REFACTOR**: Clean up while staying green

**If you write code before seeing RED, you're not doing TDD. Stop and restart.**

## Testing Tools

For test options (pytest, Playwright, ydotool), load dev-test skill after dev-tdd.

Tests must EXECUTE code and VERIFY behavior. Grepping is NOT testing.

## If Unclear
Ask questions BEFORE implementing. Don't guess.

## Output
Report:
- RED: What test failed and how
- GREEN: What made it pass
- Test command and output
- Commit SHA
- Any concerns
""")

If implementer asks questions: Answer clearly, then re-dispatch with answers included.

If implementer finishes: Proceed to spec review.

Step 2: Dispatch Spec Reviewer

Use this Task invocation:

Task(subagent_type="general-purpose",
     allowed_tools=["Read", "Glob", "Grep", "Bash(read-only)"],
     prompt="""
Review spec compliance for: [TASK NAME]

## Original Requirements
[PASTE TASK TEXT FROM PLAN.md]

## Success Criteria (from SPEC.md)
[PASTE RELEVANT CRITERIA]

## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report

The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.

**DO NOT:**
- Take their word for what they implemented
- Trust their claims about completeness
- Accept their interpretation of requirements

**DO:**
- Read the actual code they wrote
- Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
- Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
- Look for extra features they didn't mention

## Review Checklist
1. Does implementation meet ALL requirements?
2. Is anything MISSING from the spec?
3. Is anything EXTRA not in the spec?

## Output Format
- COMPLIANT: All requirements met, nothing extra (after verifying code yourself)
- ISSUES: List what's missing or extra with file:line references

Be strict. "Close enough" is not compliant. Verify by reading code.
""")

If COMPLIANT: Proceed to quality review.

If ISSUES: Have implementer fix, then re-run spec review.

Step 3: Dispatch Quality Reviewer

Use this Task invocation:

Task(subagent_type="general-purpose",
     allowed_tools=["Read", "Glob", "Grep", "Bash(read-only)"],
     prompt="""
Review code quality for: [TASK NAME]

## Changes to Review
Files modified: [list files]
Commit range: [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]

## Review Focus
1. Code correctness (logic errors, edge cases)
2. Test coverage (are tests meaningful?)
3. Code style (matches project conventions?)
4. No regressions introduced

## Confidence Scoring
Rate each issue 0-100. Only report issues >= 80 confidence.

## Output Format
### Strengths
- [what's good]

### Issues (Confidence >= 80)
#### [Issue Title] (Confidence: XX)
- Location: [file:line]
- Problem: [description]
- Fix: [suggestion]

### Verdict
APPROVED or CHANGES REQUIRED
""")

If APPROVED: Mark task complete, move to next task.

If CHANGES REQUIRED: Have implementer fix, then re-run quality review.

Drive-Aligned Framing

**Claiming "done" without subagent verification is NOT HELPFUL — you're shipping unreviewed code the user will have to debug.**

When you say "Task complete", you are asserting:

• A Task agent implemented the change
• Spec reviewer confirmed compliance
• Quality reviewer approved

If ANY of these didn't happen, you are not "summarizing" or "moving on" - you are creating rework for the user.

Skipping verification destroys the user's time. "Still working" protects it.

Rationalization Prevention

These thoughts mean STOP—you're about to skip delegation:

Thought	Reality
"I'll just fix this quickly"	Quick = sloppy = bugs. Delegate.
"The subagent will be slower"	Subagent time is cheap. Your context is expensive.
"I already know what to do"	Knowing ≠ doing correctly. Delegate.
"It's just one line"	One line can break everything. Delegate.
"I'm already looking at the code"	Looking ≠ editing. Delegate.
"User is waiting"	User wants CORRECT, not fast. Delegate.
"Skip review, it's obviously right"	"Obviously" is how bugs ship. Review.
"Spec review passed, skip quality"	Both reviews exist for a reason. Do both.
"Quality review found nothing, done"	Did spec review pass first? Check.

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip either review (spec OR quality)
• Proceed with unfixed issues
• Let implementer self-review replace actual review
• Start quality review before spec compliance passes
• Make subagent read plan file (provide full text)
• Rush past subagent questions

If subagent fails:

• Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
• Don't fix manually in main chat (context pollution)

Example Flow

Me: Implementing Task 1: Add user validation

[Dispatch implementer with full task text]

Implementer: "Should validation happen client-side or server-side?"

Me: "Server-side only, in the API layer"

[Re-dispatch implementer with answer]

Implementer:
- Added validateUser() in api/users.ts
- Tests: 5/5 passing
- Committed: abc123

[Dispatch spec reviewer]

Spec Reviewer: ISSUES
- Missing: Email format validation (spec line 12)

[Tell implementer to fix]

Implementer:
- Added email regex validation
- Tests: 6/6 passing
- Committed: def456

[Re-dispatch spec reviewer]

Spec Reviewer: COMPLIANT

[Dispatch quality reviewer with commit range]

Quality Reviewer: APPROVED
- Strengths: Good test coverage, clear naming
- No issues >= 80 confidence

[Mark Task 1 complete, move to Task 2]

Model Tier Hints

When dispatching subagents, match model capability to task complexity. This is advisory — Claude Code doesn't yet support model routing — but documents intent for cost-aware delegation.

Task Complexity	Model Tier	Signals	Example
Mechanical	Cheapest capable	Isolated function, 1-2 files, clear spec, boilerplate	"Add type definition file"
Integration	Standard	Multi-file coordination, pattern matching, debugging within scope	"Connect auth service to API route"
Architecture/Review	Most capable	Design judgment needed, broad codebase understanding, reviews	"Review entire implementation for spec compliance"

Complexity signals:

• Touches 1-2 files with complete spec → mechanical
• Touches 3+ files or requires cross-module understanding → integration
• Requires design judgment or codebase-wide impact assessment → architecture

When in doubt, use the standard tier. Over-allocating is wasteful; under-allocating produces poor results.

Integration

Main chat invokes:

• dev-implement → dev-ralph-loop → dev-delegate (this skill)

Task agents follow:

• dev-tdd - TDD protocol (RED-GREEN-REFACTOR)
• dev-test - Testing tools (pytest, Playwright, ydotool)

After all tasks complete with passing tests, dev-implement proceeds to dev-review.