team-implement

name	team-implement
description	Full feature development cycle with herdr-managed agent panes. Ensures an ai-workers tab exists with coder, researcher, and critic panes, then orchestrates implement-review loop via pi-link. Use when you want a persistent multi-agent workspace managed by herdr.
argument-hint	<what to implement>

Task

$ARGUMENTS

Phase 0: Self-Connect to pi-link

Call link_list.

Case A — "Not connected": Tell the user:

"Please type /link-connect then /link-name <project>@lead in this terminal, then re-run."

Stop here and wait.

Case B — Connected, but name has no @ (e.g. t-a1b2): Tell the user:

"Please type /link-name <project>@lead to identify yourself, then re-run."

Stop here and wait.

Case C — Connected with a proper name (contains @, marked (you)): Extract scope: kaizen@lead → scope = kaizen. Continue.

Rule: scope = the part before @ in YOUR OWN name. Never use workers from a different scope, even if they appear idle in link_list. study@coder is NOT your worker if your scope is tmp4.

Phase 1: Environment Check

echo $HERDR_ENV

If HERDR_ENV=1 → herdr available. Otherwise note it and continue — Phase 2 will handle the fallback.

Phase 2: Ensure YOUR Workers Are Ready

Your workers are: <scope>@coder, <scope>@researcher, <scope>@critic.

This step is mandatory. Do not skip it even if other scopes' workers appear idle in link_list.

ai-workers-setup "<scope>" "$PWD"

If not on PATH:

python3 ~/.agents/skills/team-implement/scripts/ai-workers-setup "<scope>" "$PWD"

Reading output:

Line	Meaning
all agents already idle — nothing to do	workers ready, continue
missing agents: <scope>@coder, ...	starting them now
reusing stored panes	correct panes reused, no new ones created
<name> ready	agent reached idle

On error (exit non-zero):

Error	Action
No workspace found matching cwd	open this project directory in herdr first
Timeout waiting for <name>	check the pane manually
nested herdr is disabled	add nested_herdr = true to ~/.config/herdr/config.toml, reload
No supported multiplexer detected	run pi from inside herdr/zellij/tmux

Stop and show the error to the user if script exits non-zero.

Phase 3: Clarify the Task

Evaluate $ARGUMENTS. Identify ambiguities. Ask clarifying questions before writing any code.

Phase 4: Research

Delegate to <scope>@researcher via link_prompt. Ask for:

• Relevant codebase structure, patterns, conventions
• Any external references needed

Then wait for the response — link_prompt is synchronous, you receive the result directly.

Phase 5: Plan

Draft a minimal implementation plan with clear acceptance criteria.

Check jj revision matches the task scope. If not, create/describe a new one.

Phase 6: Implement → Review Loop

Maximum 3 iterations. You must complete this loop fully — do not stop early to tell the user "check the tab".

Each iteration:

Step 1. Send plan (or fix list) to <scope>@coder via link_prompt. link_prompt is synchronous — wait for [<scope>@coder] response before continuing.

Step 2. After receiving coder's response, additionally confirm idle via herdr:

herdr agent wait "<scope>@coder" --status idle --timeout 300000

Step 3. Read full coder output:

herdr agent read "<scope>@coder" --source recent-unwrapped --lines 80

Step 4. Send to <scope>@critic via link_prompt for review. Include: task context, acceptance criteria, list of changes, any skipped items with reasons. Wait for [<scope>@critic] response.

Step 5. Confirm idle:

herdr agent wait "<scope>@critic" --status idle --timeout 120000

Step 6. Read critic output:

herdr agent read "<scope>@critic" --source recent-unwrapped --lines 80

Step 7. Triage findings (colleague-comment rubric):

• Accept — valid, actionable, not contradicting requirements
• Clarify — ask critic before acting
• Decline — subjective, out of scope, contradicts architecture

All findings resolved → exit loop. Accepted findings remain → send fix list to coder, repeat from Step 1.

After 3 iterations with unresolved items: make the final call yourself, document reasoning, move on.

Phase 7: Summary

Deliver to the user:

• What was implemented
• Key decisions
• Declined items and why
• Open questions