Full feature-development pipeline for this repo — isolated worktree, spec, implementation plan, TDD build, quality gates, then a review→fix loop that only stops when review passes. Each stage delegates to a named project subagent (spec-researcher, pattern-scout, pipeline-implementer, pipeline-simplifier, pipeline-reviewer) with a stage-appropriate model. Use when starting any new MCP tool, feature, or multi-file change from scratch; when the user says "new tool/feature" (any language), "run the pipeline", or asks to develop something "the same way as list_test_records". Triggers on `/dev-pipeline`. NOT for one-file tweaks, doc edits, or work already mid-flight — jump to the matching stage instead.
Instalación
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Full feature-development pipeline for this repo — isolated worktree, spec, implementation plan, TDD build, quality gates, then a review→fix loop that only stops when review passes. Each stage delegates to a named project subagent (spec-researcher, pattern-scout, pipeline-implementer, pipeline-simplifier, pipeline-reviewer) with a stage-appropriate model. Use when starting any new MCP tool, feature, or multi-file change from scratch; when the user says "new tool/feature" (any language), "run the pipeline", or asks to develop something "the same way as list_test_records". Triggers on `/dev-pipeline`. NOT for one-file tweaks, doc edits, or work already mid-flight — jump to the matching stage instead.
Dev Pipeline
Encode the sequence that shipped list_test_records (PR #170): worktree → spec →
plan → TDD implement → gates → simplify → review loop → ship. Main session is the
orchestrator: it sequences stages, holds user approvals, spawns the stage
agents, and merges their reports. Subagents never spawn other subagents
(hard rule here — every paraphrase hop loses information).
Subagents share no memory and no conversation history. Three channels only:
Prompt in — a subagent sees exactly what you put in its prompt plus its
own agent definition. Always pass the handoff-file paths and the task
excerpt; never assume it "knows" what was discussed.
Report out — its final message returns as the tool result. Each agent
definition fixes a report format; the report is the interface. Relay what
matters to the user — they don't see tool results.
Files — the durable channel. This pipeline writes its artifacts to
.pipeline/ in the worktree (gitignored, never committed):
File
Written by
Read by
.pipeline/spec.md
orchestrator (Stage 1, draft before approval; approved via file link — single copy; approval freezes it)
Escalation rule: move one model tier up (model param on the Agent call
overrides the definition) when a stage keeps failing or the domain is
unfamiliar; one tier down for mechanical work. Parallel spawns only for
independent research — implementation tasks with dependencies run
sequentially, in one Agent call each.
Stage 0 — Worktree (main thread)
git fetch origin first — EnterWorktree branches from origin/main
(default worktree.baseRef: fresh), a remote-tracking ref that moves only
on fetch; skip this and parallel sessions branch from a stale base, hitting
conflicts and strict-mode update-branch churn at merge time.
Rename the generated branch to <type>/<kebab-summary> — pre-push hook
accepts only feat|fix|refactor|test|docs|chore|ci prefixes (feat/, not
feature/).
Symlink untracked configs from the main checkout: .env, .mcp.json,
.claude/settings.local.json, .vscode/settings.json.
uv sync --dev --group evals, then baseline uv run pytest — must be green
before any change, else you can't tell new breakage from old.
mkdir -p .pipeline for the handoff files.
Stage 1 — Spec
Check the follow-up queue first: gh issue list --label follow-up --state open (plus a keyword search for the feature's domain). An open
issue touching the same domain can change spec decisions — fold it into
the spec's Related open issues section, absorbed or explicitly deferred
with a reason. If the pipeline resolves one, the PR body gets Fixes #N.
Invoke spec-researcher with: the feature ask, the vendor doc URL(s),
and which sibling tools to read for conventions. Expect its
CONTRACT FACTS / QUIRKS / UNVERIFIED report back.
Copy spec-template.md to .pipeline/spec.md
and fill its slots from the report. The template fixes the required
sections — don't invent a new shape; they are the standard
pipeline-reviewer judges the diff against.
If an UNVERIFIED item decides spec content — whether a field exists,
whether a guard is needed, which enum backs a value — and live
credentials work, burn it down before asking approval. Probe a
project-scoped endpoint first (global ones can 403 on a scoped token),
then settle the researcher's UNVERIFIED items with cheap reads and scratch
writes (create a disposable resource, probe, delete it — where the API
allows delete; documents are not REST-deletable). A failed probe on
one endpoint is not "access is dead" — probe the exact resource the tool
will touch before concluding. A fact settled at spec time is a design
decision made once; the same fact discovered after implementation is a
review-fix round. (update_test_records run, 2026-07-13: a pre-approval
probe found the real enum path and two silent-ghost writes — flipped a
guard from "deferred" to "shipped" before any code existed.)
Ask approval over the file, not a re-print. Post a clickable link to
.pipeline/spec.md — as an absolute path: the worktree sits outside the
editor's workspace root, so a workspace-relative link may not open — ask
the user to read it in the editor, and collect the decision via
AskUserQuestion. Never a summary or translation — approval
binds only the frozen file's own text — and never a bare "spec ready,
approve?" prompt without the link. The file was already written once;
quoting it in chat pays output tokens for a second copy. On a redo, quote
just the revised sections so the delta is visible in place. Fold feedback
back into .pipeline/spec.md; approval freezes it.
Spec changes are cheap here, expensive later.
Stage 2 — Plan
Invoke pattern-scout with: .pipeline/spec.md path and the areas to
sweep (helpers, sibling tool, test mechanics, eval coverage). Expect its
REUSE / MIRROR / GAPS report. One scout unless scope spans unrelated areas.
Draft the plan in the main thread (or a Plan agent for large scope) in the
shape of plan-template.md — one implementer task per
Changes entry, live-test items from the spec's UNVERIFIED list under
Verification. Copy the template to .pipeline/plan.md, fill it, and ask
approval the Stage 1 step 5 way: file link (absolute path) +
AskUserQuestion, no re-print, redo rounds quote only the revised sections.
Don't enter plan mode here — ExitPlanMode ships the full plan text as a
tool parameter, a second paid copy of a file that already exists. If the
session is already in plan mode (user-toggled), ExitPlanMode is the only
way out: keep its plan text to a short pointer at .pipeline/plan.md;
approval still binds the file.
Stage 3 — Implement (TDD)
Follow superpowers:test-driven-development — it is the law here, not a style.
For each plan task, in dependency order: invoke pipeline-implementer
with the .pipeline/spec.md + .pipeline/plan.md paths, the single task
excerpt, and its file:line references. Expect CHANGED / EVIDENCE (RED then
GREEN output) / DEVIATIONS back — a report without RED evidence means the task
was not done TDD; reject it and rerun. RED form depends on the task: a
brand-new symbol or module may show a collection-time ImportError as its RED;
changed behavior on existing code needs an assertion-level failure — an
ImportError there means the test never exercised the behavior.
Keep cross-task integration (imports, registration lists like
EXPECTED_TOOL_NAMES, eval coverage entry) in the main thread, where the
whole picture lives. The TDD law reaches here too: eval-harness handlers and
any other executable glue get their failing test before the code —
diff-cover gates evals/harness like src/, and a bounced gate is the
expensive way to rediscover that.
Stage 4 — Gates (main thread; all must pass before advancing)
uv run pytest --cov=src/mcp_server_polarion --cov=evals --cov-report=xml
uv run ruff check . && uv run ruff format --check . && uv run mypy src/
uv run diff-cover coverage.xml --compare-branch=origin/main --fail-under=90
Contract-boundary changes (include/fields/parse/auth or any new HTTP shape)
additionally need a live test against the real server — mocks encode your
assumptions, they cannot falsify them. Feed live findings back into fakes and
mocks so tests mirror reality (e.g. an endpoint that omits meta.totalCount).
Stage 5 — Simplify (first pass only)
Once, after gates first go green and before the first review round — never
repeated after Stage 7 fix rounds (those are bounded edits, not new
complexity):
Commit the work first, in the repo commit format (CLAUDE.md Repo
Conventions; full rules .github/CONTRIBUTING.md, commit-msg hook
enforces) — the simplifier diffs origin/main...HEAD, and uncommitted
work is invisible to that range; a new tool is mostly untracked files, so
skipping this turns the pass into a silent no-op.
Invoke pipeline-simplifier with the worktree path and the diff scope
(git diff origin/main...HEAD). It sweeps reuse/simplification/efficiency/
altitude/comment-density and applies the fixes itself — quality only, no
bug hunting; behavior stays pinned by the Stage 3 tests. Expect its
CHANGED / SKIPPED / TESTS report back.
Re-run Stage 4 gates in the main thread, then commit the simplify edits.
Gates red on a simplify edit (diff-cover counts its changed lines too):
SendMessage the simplifier to fix or revert that edit — it holds the
context; don't spawn an implementer for it.
Why before review, not after: reviewer rounds stop burning on quality
findings (those demote to LOW → followups and rarely get fixed), and the
simplify edits themselves still pass through Stage 6 — new code gets
reviewed. Placing it after PASS would ship unreviewed edits.
Stage 6 — Review (loop entry)
Commit anything still uncommitted — the reviewer diffs
origin/main...HEAD, and uncommitted changes are invisible to that range.
The first pass is already committed by Stage 5; fix rounds add their
commits here. Squash merge collapses them at the end.
Invoke pipeline-reviewer with: .pipeline/spec.md and
.pipeline/plan.md paths and the diff scope (git diff origin/main...HEAD).
Give it the spec and plan — never the implementer reports or your
implementation narrative (context bleed defeats the fresh eyes).
Save its report verbatim to .pipeline/review-round-N.md — full text, not
a paraphrase (Stage 7's implementer and any escalation read it); relay
findings to the user.
Append the round's FOLLOW-UPS and any LOW items you won't fix to
.pipeline/followups.md, deduped across rounds (drop an item a later
round fixed). NIT stays PR-notes-only. This file is the only thing that
survives worktree cleanup — via the Stage 8 export.
BREAKING items ride in the round file to Stage 8 for the PR notes. They
never block the verdict; a shipped-surface change the spec did not
sanction is a spec-fidelity finding instead, and does block.
Stop criterion — the only exit: verdict PASS (zero CRITICAL/MEDIUM
actionable findings). LOW/NIT don't block, but unfixed LOW must be in
.pipeline/followups.md by now. PASS → Stage 8. FAIL → Stage 7.
Stage 7 — Fix, then back to review
Invoke pipeline-implementer in fix mode with the
.pipeline/review-round-N.md path and the CRITICAL/MEDIUM items to address;
behavior changes go through RED→GREEN again, never patch-and-hope.
Re-run Stage 4 gates, then return to Stage 6 — a fresh
pipeline-reviewer spawn over the new diff, not a reply to the old one.
Loop cap: after 3 review rounds with open findings, stop and escalate to the
user with .pipeline/review-round-*.md — grinding further usually means the
spec or plan is wrong, not the code.
Stage 8 — Ship (main thread)
Work is already committed by review time (Stage 5.1, fix rounds 6.1);
commit here only what is still uncommitted. Commit format, PR checklist handling, squash-merge
rule: CLAUDE.md Repo Conventions / .github/CONTRIBUTING.md — restating
them here would be a third copy that drifts. .pipeline/ stays uncommitted.
Export follow-ups before cleanup — .pipeline/ dies with the worktree,
so each .pipeline/followups.md item becomes an issue:
gh issue create --label follow-up, title in scope: imperative summary
form (scope(subscope): … allowed, ≤72 chars), body with ### Origin /
### Finding / ### Suggested fix sections (validate_issue.py hook
enforces the title shape and checks the body against
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/follow_up.yml). One issue per item —
independently closeable. An item the user explicitly drops instead is noted
in PR notes, not filed.
PR Notes: record live-test evidence, NIT findings, and links to the filed
follow-up issues; add Fixes #N for any follow-up issue this PR resolved.
List every reviewer BREAKING item verbatim, plus the consequence once: a
release containing these must bump major and rerun the full eval suite —
the deploy skill reads version policy from here. (Deferring via a
deprecation alias is a spec decision; an aliased rename never breaks the
surface, so it produces no BREAKING item at all.)
CI: after opening the PR, gh pr checks <PR#> --watch --fail-fast until
every check is green — merge is blocked on red anyway, but an unwatched red
PR rots until a human notices; catch it while the session context is hot.
Right after gh pr create it can exit "no checks reported" before check
runs register — wait a few seconds and rerun, don't skip the watch.
A red check is a Stage 4 gate failure, not a review finding: fix, re-run
gates, and if code changed re-enter Stage 6. Protection is strict-mode, so
if main moved, update the branch and let checks re-run.
Worktree exit — final step: with CI green and follow-ups exported, ask
the user keep/remove and call ExitWorktree. PR still in review → keep
(fix rounds re-enter the same worktree); merged → remove. For remove,
first call without discard_changes and read the refusal list: expected
entries are .pipeline/ files and branch commits already on origin —
anything else is unsaved work, stop and confirm with the user before
re-invoking with discard_changes: true. Don't end the pipeline with the
session parked in the worktree — an open editor window holds the lock
indefinitely and the session-exit keep/remove prompt never fires. Scope
caveat: ExitWorktree only reaches worktrees its own session created; a
worktree kept past session end gets removed later by hand
(git worktree remove + git branch -D after merge).
Common Rationalizations
Excuse
Reality
"Small feature, skip the spec"
Spec took 10 min for list_test_records and caught a missing-Lucene-support surprise before any code existed.
"I'll run tests after implementing"
A test that never failed proves nothing. RED first is the whole point.
"Mocks cover it, skip the live test"
Live run found bare-GUID user ids and a missing meta.totalCount that no mock predicted.
"Review myself in-context, faster"
The implementer's context contains its own justifications. Fresh context finds what you rationalized.
"Give the reviewer my implementation summary for context"
That summary is the rationalization you need it to not have. Spec + plan + diff only.
"One more fix round, no re-review"
Fixes are new code; new code gets reviewed. That's why the loop exists.
"Subagent for the gate commands too"
Gates are deterministic bash. A subagent burns tokens to relay an exit code.
"Opus everywhere to be safe"
Model choice is a cost/judgment trade-off; sonnet ships code volume fine, opus earns its cost only on judgment stages.
"Main-thread glue is too small for TDD"
A fake-server handler shipped code-first once and diff-cover bounced the gate; the failing test first was the cheaper path.
"The user approved my summary of it"
A summary is your interpretation. Approval binds only the frozen file's text — link the file and have them read it, never summarize.
"Live checks belong in Stage 4"
When an UNVERIFIED item shapes the spec, a smoke probe before freeze beats re-planning after it — the create_test_records run flipped three guard decisions that way.
"The reviewer will catch the complexity"
Quality findings demote to LOW → followups and rarely get fixed. The Stage 5 simplify pass before review is the cheap path.
Red Flags
Production code written before its failing test exists.
Implementer report accepted without RED evidence.
Approval requested over a summary/translation instead of the frozen file —
link the file itself; redo rounds quote only the revised sections.
Spec or plan re-printed in full in chat — the file is the single paid copy;
approval goes through its link.
Simplifier invoked over uncommitted work — origin/main...HEAD is empty,
the pass silently no-ops; commit first (Stage 5.1).
Reviewer given implementer reports or conversation summaries (context bleed).
Review round 4+ still producing MEDIUM findings — escalate, don't grind.
.pipeline/ files committed, or a subagent prompted without the file paths
it needs (it cannot see the conversation).
git worktree add or bare git stash in a session that has native tools.
Branch named feature/… — pre-push hook rejects it, but only at push time;
rename at Stage 0.
Findings "fixed" without gates re-run before re-review.
Main-thread integration code (eval-harness handler, registration) written
before its failing test.
.pipeline/review-round-N.md holding a paraphrase instead of the
reviewer's full report.
Spec frozen with an UNVERIFIED item that decides tool shape while the
live server was reachable.
Worktree cleaned up while .pipeline/followups.md still holds unexported
items — they die with it.
Verification (pipeline exit checklist)
Worktree isolated, branch <type>/<kebab>, baseline was green at start
Spec and plan each approved via frozen-file link (never a summary or
full re-print), frozen in .pipeline/; reviewer reports stored verbatim
in .pipeline/review-round-*.md
Every implementer report carried RED-then-GREEN evidence
All five gate commands pass (pytest, ruff check, ruff format --check,
mypy, diff-cover); diff-cover ≥90% on changed lines
Stage 5 simplify pass ran once (pipeline-simplifier), gates re-run
green after
Live test done for contract-boundary changes, findings folded into mocks
Final pipeline-reviewer verdict is PASS (zero CRITICAL/MEDIUM)
Every .pipeline/followups.md item filed as a follow-up issue (or
explicitly dropped with the user) before worktree cleanup
Reviewer BREAKING items (if any) listed in PR notes with the deploy
consequence stated there
PR open with template filled, NIT + live evidence + follow-up issue
links recorded
PR CI checks all green (gh pr checks <PR#> --watch --fail-fast),
branch up to date with main
Session left the worktree via ExitWorktree (keep while PR in review,
remove once merged — refusal list checked before discard_changes) —
no lingering locked worktree
