| name | subagent-driven-development |
| description | Use when executing implementation plans with mostly independent tasks in a fresh or same session after written plan approval |
Subagent-Driven Development
Required Input
Start only from an approved written implementation plan path. Read the plan, referenced spec, and codebase from disk. Do not rely on prior conversation context, even in same-session mode after plan approval.
Local Superpowers Docs Guard
Before each task commit, inspect staged files. If any path under docs/superpowers/ is staged, unstage it unless the user explicitly requested committing local Superpowers docs.
Use:
git diff --cached --name-only
git restore --staged docs/superpowers 2>/dev/null || true
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
digraph when_to_use {
"Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
"Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
"Subagents available?" [shape=diamond];
"subagent-driven-development" [shape=box];
"executing-plans" [shape=box];
"brainstorm first" [shape=box];
"Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
"Have implementation plan?" -> "brainstorm first" [label="no - no approved plan yet"];
"Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Subagents available?" [label="yes"];
"Tasks mostly independent?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - tightly coupled or linear"];
"Subagents available?" -> "subagent-driven-development" [label="yes"];
"Subagents available?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - subagents unavailable"];
}
vs. Executing Plans (linear or no-subagent fallback):
- Mostly tightly coupled tasks or plans that need sequential control
- Falls back here when subagents are unavailable
- 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
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 superpowers: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 superpowers: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.
Turn count beats token price. Wall-clock and context cost scale with how
many turns a subagent takes, and the cheapest models routinely take 2-3× the
turns on multi-step work — costing more overall. Use a mid-tier model as the
floor for reviewers and for implementers working from prose descriptions.
When the task's plan text contains the complete code to write, the
implementation is transcription plus testing: use the cheapest tier for
that implementer. Single-file mechanical fixes also take the cheapest tier.
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
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:
- If it's a context problem, provide more context and re-dispatch with the same model
- If the task requires more reasoning, re-dispatch with a more capable model
- If the task is too large, break it into smaller pieces
- 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 happens once, at the
final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
- Do not add open-ended directives like "check all uses" or "run race tests
if useful" without a concrete, task-specific reason
- Do not ask a reviewer to re-run tests the implementer already ran on the
same code — the implementer's report carries the test evidence
- Do not pre-judge findings for the reviewer — never instruct a reviewer to
ignore or not flag a specific issue. If you believe a finding would be a
false positive, let the reviewer raise it and adjudicate it in the review
loop. If the prompt you are writing contains "do not flag," "don't treat X
as a defect," "at most Minor," or "the plan chose" — stop: you are
pre-judging, usually to spare yourself a review loop.
- The global-constraints block you hand the reviewer is its attention
lens. Copy the binding requirements verbatim from the plan's Global
Constraints section or the spec: exact values, exact formats, and the
stated relationships between components ("same layout as X", "matches
Y"). The reviewer's template already carries the process rules (YAGNI,
test hygiene, review method) — the constraints block is for what THIS
project's spec demands.
- Hand the reviewer its diff as a file: run this skill's
scripts/review-package BASE HEAD and pass the reviewer the file path
it prints (or, without bash: git log --oneline, git diff --stat,
and git diff -U10 for the range, redirected to one uniquely named
file). The output never enters your own context, and the reviewer sees
the commit list, stat summary, and full diff with context in one Read
call. Use the BASE you recorded before dispatching the implementer —
never HEAD~1, which silently truncates multi-commit tasks.
- A dispatch prompt describes one task, not the session's history. Do not
paste accumulated prior-task summaries ("state after Tasks 1-3") into
later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
- Dispatch fix subagents for Critical and Important findings. Record Minor
findings in the progress ledger as you go, and point the final
whole-branch review at that list so it can triage which must be fixed
before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard.
- A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with
what the plan's text requires — is the human's decision, like any plan
contradiction: present the finding and the plan text, ask which governs.
Do not dismiss the finding because the plan mandates it, and do not
dispatch a fix that contradicts the plan without asking.
- The final whole-branch review gets a package too: run
scripts/review-package MERGE_BASE HEAD (MERGE_BASE = the commit the
branch started from, e.g. git merge-base main HEAD) and include the
printed path in the final review dispatch, so the final reviewer reads
one file instead of re-deriving the branch diff with git commands.
- Every fix dispatch carries the implementer contract: the fix subagent
re-runs the tests covering its change and reports the results. Name the
covering test files in the dispatch — a one-line fix does not need the
whole suite. Before re-dispatching the reviewer, confirm the fix report
contains the covering tests, the command run, and the output; dispatch
the re-review once all three are present.
- If the final whole-branch review returns findings, dispatch ONE fix
subagent with the complete findings list — not one fixer per finding.
Per-finding fixers each rebuild context and re-run suites; a real
session's final-review fix wave cost more than all its tasks combined.
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.
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)/.superpowers/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
Example Workflow
You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
[Read plan file once: docs/superpowers/plans/feature-plan.md]
[Create todos for all tasks]
Task 1: Hook installation script
[Run task-brief for Task 1; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"
You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"
Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
[Later] Implementer:
- Implemented install-hook command
- Added tests, 5/5 passing
- Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
- Committed
[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
[Mark Task 1 complete]
Task 2: Recovery modes
[Run task-brief for Task 2; dispatch implementer with brief + report paths + context]
Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
- Added verify/repair modes
- 8/8 tests passing
- Self-review: All good
- Committed
[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
- Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
- Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
[Task reviewer reviews again]
Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Task quality: Approved.
[Mark Task 2 complete]
...
[After all tasks]
[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
Done!
Advantages
vs. Manual execution:
- Subagents follow TDD naturally
- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
- Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)
vs. Executing Plans:
- Same session (no handoff)
- Continuous progress (no waiting)
- Review checkpoints automatic
Efficiency gains:
- Controller curates exactly what context is needed; bulk artifacts move
as files, not pasted text
- Subagent gets complete information upfront
- Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)
Quality gates:
- Self-review catches issues before handoff
- Task review carries two verdicts: spec compliance and code quality
- Review loops ensure fixes actually work
- Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
- Code quality ensures implementation is well-built
Cost:
- More subagent invocations (implementer + reviewer per task)
- Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
- Review loops add iterations
- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
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:
- superpowers:using-git-worktrees - Ensures isolated workspace (creates one or verifies existing)
- superpowers:writing-plans - Creates the plan this skill executes
- superpowers:requesting-code-review - Code review template for the final whole-branch review
- superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch - Complete development after all tasks
Subagents should use:
- superpowers:test-driven-development - Subagents follow TDD for each task
Alternative workflow:
- superpowers:executing-plans - Use for linear implementation plans or when subagents are unavailable.
