subagents-discipline

name	subagents-discipline
description	Core engineering principles for implementation tasks

Implementation Principles

Foundational Axiom: Tasks are WHAT; Specs are HOW

Tasks define WHAT to do. Specs define HOW to do it.

• A task (bead) answers: Why does this work exist? What must be true when it's done?
• A spec answers: How should it be built? What patterns, interfaces, types, and architecture to use?

This separation is non-negotiable. Tasks contain verifiable acceptance criteria and pointers to specs — never implementation details. Specs contain the technical contract — never project management metadata. When both exist, the spec is the implementation authority; the task is the tracking authority.

---

Rule 0: Follow Instructions Exactly — No Unilateral Decisions

This is the highest-priority rule. It overrides any "good idea" you might have.

You MUST execute skill instructions exactly as written. You are NOT allowed to:

• Add parameters, flags, or options not specified in the instructions (e.g., adding isolation: "worktree" to an Agent() call when the skill doesn't mention it)
• Remove or modify parameters that are explicitly specified
• Change the execution strategy (e.g., switching from sequential to parallel, or vice-versa)
• Add "safety" measures the instructions didn't ask for
• Simplify, optimize, or "improve" the approach beyond what was requested

If you believe the instructions are wrong, incomplete, or could be improved — ASK THE USER FIRST. Do not act on your own judgement. The cost of asking is near zero. The cost of a unilateral decision can break the entire workflow.

This applies to:

• Tool calls (Agent, Bash, etc.)
• Git operations (branch naming, commit strategy)
• File operations (paths, naming conventions)
• Any deviation from what the skill/spec/design doc defines

Violations of this rule are treated as bugs, not as helpful initiative.

---

Rule 1: Read Before You Implement

Before writing any code, build your full picture by reading three layers — context, contract, and code — in order. Each layer may or may not exist. Use what's available.

Layer 1: Context (bead comments)

bd show {BEAD_ID}
bd comments {BEAD_ID}

Comments may contain investigation findings (INVESTIGATION:), dispatch context (DISPATCH:), root cause analysis, affected files, gotchas. Use this context — don't re-investigate what Sherlock already traced.

Important: The INVESTIGATION comment may include an Approach: field with tactical steps (which files to edit, in what order). This is navigation guidance — it tells you WHERE to start and WHAT order to follow. It does NOT replace the spec's HOW (patterns, interfaces, types). When both exist, the spec defines the architecture; the investigation guides the execution path.

If no comments exist, you have no prior investigation. Proceed to the next layers — they become more important.

Layer 2: Contract (spec / design doc)

The spec or design doc defines how to implement — field names, types, interfaces, architecture decisions. This is your implementation contract.

For epic children (BEAD_ID contains a dot, e.g., BD-001.2):

bd show {EPIC_ID} --json | jq -r '.[0].design // empty'

If a design doc path exists, read it. Match it exactly — same field names, same types, same shapes.

For any bead: check these fields in bd show {BEAD_ID} --json for spec references:

• design — one-line pointer to spec section (e.g., "See spec.md § Section 3")
• external-ref — pipe-separated doc references (e.g., "SPEC §7.4 | PLAN task 06.03")
• spec-id — PRD reference (e.g., "PRD 9.14")
• notes — may contain additional context

If a spec exists, it takes precedence over your own judgement. Follow it. If you believe the spec is wrong, log a DEVIATION: comment explaining why — don't silently diverge.

If no spec or design doc exists, proceed to Layer 3.

Layer 3: Code (confrontation)

When there is no spec defining the HOW, the existing code is your contract. Before implementing:

1. Read the files you will modify (already identified in Layer 1, or find them yourself)
2. Understand the patterns, conventions, and interfaces in the surrounding code
3. Implement following what you observed — same patterns, same style, same abstractions

This is not re-investigating. The investigation found WHERE and WHAT. Code confrontation tells you HOW the codebase expects you to work.

What you have determines your approach

Context (comments)	Contract (spec)	Code	Approach
Yes	Yes	—	Spec is the contract. Comments guide you to the right files.
Yes	No	Read	Follow existing code patterns. Log DECISION: for non-obvious choices.
No	Yes	—	Spec is the contract. Find entry points yourself.
No	No	Read	Read the bead description and acceptance criteria — that's your minimal spec. Confront the code. Log DECISION: for every choice.

---

Rule 2: Look Before You Code

Before writing code that touches external data (API, database, file, config):

1. Fetch/read the ACTUAL data - run the command, see the output
2. Note exact field names, types, formats - not what docs say, what you SEE
3. Code against what you observed - not what you assumed

WITHOUT looking first:
  Assumed: column is "reference_images"
  Reality: column is "reference_image_url"
  Result:  Query fails

WITH looking first:
  Ran: SELECT column_name FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name = 'assets';
  Saw: reference_image_url
  Coded against: reference_image_url
  Result: Works

Rule 3: Test Functionally (Close the Loop)

Principle: Optimize for the fastest way to verify your work actually works.

You built	Fast verification	Slower alternative
API endpoint	curl the endpoint, check response	Write integration test
Database change	Run migration, query the result	Write migration test
Frontend component	Load in browser, interact with it	Write component test
CLI tool	Run the command, check output	Write unit test
Config change	Restart service, verify behavior	N/A — just verify

Two strategies:

1. User Journey Tests — Test actual behavior as a user experiences it:

   # API: curl with real data
   curl -X POST localhost:3000/api/users -d '{"name":"test"}' -H "Content-Type: application/json"
   
   # CLI: run the command
   bd create "Test" -d "Testing" && bd list
   
   # Error case: curl with invalid auth
   curl -X POST localhost:3000/api/users -H "Authorization: Bearer invalid"
   

2. Component Tests — Supplement for regression prevention when fast verification isn't possible:

   • Complex logic with many edge cases
   • Code that runs in environments you can't easily replicate
   • Shared libraries used by multiple consumers

"Close the Loop" principle: Run the actual thing. Verify it works. Check error cases.

Good: "Curled endpoint with invalid auth, got 401 as expected" Bad: "Wrote tests, they compile"

Rule 4: Use Your Tools

Before claiming you can't fully test:

1. Check what MCP servers you have access to - list available tools
2. If any tool can help verify the feature works, use it
3. Be resourceful - browser automation, database inspection, API testing tools

Rule 5: Log Decisions and Deviations (Mandatory when applicable)

During implementation, log every non-trivial decision and any deviation from the spec/design doc as bead comments. This creates a traceable decision trail that the QA agent and humans can review.

Decisions

When you choose between alternatives, pick a pattern, or make a non-obvious choice:

bd comments add {BEAD_ID} "DECISION: [what you chose] instead of [alternative] because [reason]"

Examples:

• DECISION: Used Strategy pattern instead of switch/case because the spec lists 5+ payment providers and more will be added
• DECISION: Stored session in Redis instead of memory because the spec requires horizontal scaling
• DECISION: Used batch insert instead of individual inserts because the dataset exceeds 1000 rows

Deviations

When you implement something differently from what the spec/design doc defined — always log why:

bd comments add {BEAD_ID} "DEVIATION: Spec said [X], implemented [Y] because [reason]"

Examples:

• DEVIATION: Spec said use REST endpoint, implemented WebSocket because the data requires real-time push
• DEVIATION: Spec defined field as 'user_id: string', implemented as 'user_id: number' because the DB schema uses integer PKs
• DEVIATION: Spec included pagination, deferred to separate task because it requires a new dependency

When to log:

• DECISION: Always log when multiple valid approaches exist and you picked one
• DEVIATION: Always log when your implementation differs from the spec in any way
• Skip if the choice is trivially obvious and self-explanatory from the code

---

Rule 6: Log Completion Summary (Mandatory)

Before marking the bead as in-review, you MUST leave a structured completion comment summarizing what was done. This is consumed by the code-reviewer agent and the orchestrator to understand the scope of changes without reading every diff.

bd comments add {BEAD_ID} "COMPLETED:
Summary: [1-2 sentences describing what was implemented/fixed]
Files changed: [list of files modified, created, or deleted]
Decisions: [count of DECISION comments logged, or 'none']
Deviations: [count of DEVIATION comments logged, or 'none — implemented as spec']
Tests: [what was tested and how — functional verification, unit tests, etc.]"

Then record the canonical implementation state (enforced by the SubagentStop hook — skipping this blocks the workflow):

bd set-state {BEAD_ID} impl=done --reason "Implementation completed on branch {branch-name}"

Neither step is optional. Every implementation task must have both the COMPLETED comment and impl=done state before marking in-review.

---

Rule 7: Never Close Beads

Your job ends at in-review. After pushing and marking the bead in-review with needs-review label, stop. Do NOT run bd close.

Closing beads is the user's decision after review and QA gates pass. This is non-negotiable.

---

Red Flags - Stop and Verify

When you catch yourself thinking:

• "This should work..." → run it and see
• "I assume the field is..." → look at the actual data
• "I'll test it later..." → test it now
• "It's too simple to break..." → verify anyway

---