quest

name	quest
description	Use for any non-trivial task. Orchestrates the Research-Plan-Implement cycle with compaction between phases, integrating council, lembas, gather-lore, and warden. Enforces discipline and phase gates.

Quest — Research, Plan, Implement

Overview

Orchestrates the full Research → Plan → Implement cycle with intentional compaction between phases. This is the hub skill that enforces context engineering discipline by invoking satellite skills at the right moments and maintaining hard gates between phases.

When to Use

• Any task that involves more than a quick fix
• When you want structured, disciplined progress through a complex change
• When context management matters (large codebase, multi-file changes)

Phase Flow

Phase 0: Onboard ──→ EnterWorktree → /council
     │
     ▼
Phase 1: Research ──→ Explore agents / /gather-lore
     │                Goal: understand the system, identify files
     ▼
  /lembas
     │
     ▼
Phase 2: Plan ──────→ Plan mode / writing-plans
     │                Goal: explicit steps with file:line refs
     ▼
  /lembas
     │
     ▼
Phase 3: Implement ──→ TDD (test-driven-development) + execute plan
     │                 Goal: small verifiable changes via red-green-refactor
     ▼
  /lembas
     │
     ▼
Phase 3.5: Adversarial → balrog agent (edge cases, error paths, adversarial inputs)
     │                   Goal: find failure modes before review
     ▼
  /lembas
     │
     ▼
Phase 4: Review ─────→ /warden → /pr-review-toolkit:review-pr
     │                 → verification-before-completion
     │                 Goal: conventions + code quality + verified passing
     ▼
  /lembas
     │
     ▼
Phase 5: Complete ───→ finishing-a-development-branch
                       Goal: squash/merge, PR creation, cleanup

Process

Fellowship Integration

When running as a fellowship teammate (indicated by the spawn prompt), the gate prerequisite order at the end of each phase is:

1. Run /lembas to compress context (hooks verify this)
2. Update task metadata: TaskUpdate(taskId: "<your_task_id>", metadata: {"phase": "<current_phase>"}) (hooks verify this)
3. Send [GATE] message to the lead via SendMessage using this template:

[GATE] <phase> complete

## Summary
<2-3 sentences: what was done this phase, key decisions made>

## Artifacts
- <file:lines> — <what/why>

## Risks
<any concerns for the next phase, or "None">

## Next Phase Needs
<what the next phase should focus on>

Both steps 1 and 2 must complete before step 3 — the hooks will block gate submission otherwise. Valid phase names: Onboard, Research, Plan, Implement, Adversarial, Review, Complete.

Gate State Machine

Note: .fellowship/ is the default data directory. Users can override it via dataDir in ~/.claude/fellowship.json. All fellowship CLI commands resolve the correct directory automatically. When this document references .fellowship/, it means the configured data directory.

When running as a fellowship teammate, a state file at .fellowship/quest-state.json enforces gate discipline via plugin hooks. The hooks structurally prevent you from working after submitting a gate, skipping lembas, or skipping metadata updates. You do not need to manage this file — the hooks handle it automatically.

What the hooks enforce:

• Phase-aware file guard: During Onboard, Research, and Plan phases, Edit/Write to files outside .fellowship/ are blocked. You cannot modify production code until you reach the Implement phase by submitting gates. Bash, Agent, Skill, and reads are allowed in all phases.
• Gate messages must start with [GATE] to be detected (e.g., [GATE] Research complete\n- [x] ...)
• After you send a gate message, your Edit/Write/Bash/Agent/Skill tools are blocked until the lead approves
• Before you can send a gate message, you must have run /lembas and updated task metadata with your current phase
• You cannot send a second gate while one is pending
• You cannot mark your task as completed unless your phase is Complete

State file initialization happens at Phase 0 (see below). If you are resuming a failed quest and .fellowship/quest-state.json already exists, the file is preserved with gate_pending reset to false.

Phase 0: Onboard

Resume Mode

If the spawn prompt contains a RESUME CONTEXT: block, this is a recovered quest:

1. Skip worktree creation — your worktree already exists and you're already in it
2. Reset state file: Run fellowship init --dir $(pwd) (you're already in the worktree) to clear gate_pending while preserving the current phase
3. Update task metadata: TaskUpdate(taskId: "<task_id>", metadata: {"worktree_path": "<cwd>"}) with the new task ID from the recovery spawn
4. Load checkpoint: If .fellowship/checkpoint.md exists, read it as your initial context — this replaces /council orientation
5. Skip /council — the checkpoint provides equivalent context from the previous session
6. Jump to current phase: Begin executing from the phase recorded in the state file (e.g., if phase is "Implement", skip Research and Plan, go directly to Implement)

On respawn, your tome at .fellowship/quest-tome.json contains your full history — phases completed, gates passed/rejected, files touched. Use this to orient faster than the checkpoint alone.

If no checkpoint exists (stale classification), restart the current phase from scratch — run /council for orientation, then begin the phase normally.

After resume setup, proceed to the gate for Phase 0 as normal (run /lembas, update metadata, send [GATE] message).

Standard Onboard

1. Config: Read ~/.claude/fellowship.json (the user's personal Claude directory) if it exists. Merge with defaults (see fellowship skill for the full schema). If the file does not exist, all defaults apply.
2. Isolate: Detect whether you're resuming an existing worktree: check if task metadata contains worktree_path (via TaskGet) and the path exists on disk. If so, you're already isolated — skip worktree creation. Otherwise, if config.worktree.enabled is true (default), create an isolated worktree:
   • Resolve branch name: If the spawn prompt includes issue context from /missive with a suggested branch name, use that name directly (it already incorporates the issue number and title). Otherwise, determine the branch name using config:
     1. If branch.pattern is set: substitute {slug}, {ticket}, {author} placeholders (see below).
     2. Else: use fellowship/{slug}.
   • Placeholder resolution:
     • {slug}: slugify the task description (lowercase, hyphens for spaces, strip non-alphanumeric). If a ticket was extracted, derive slug from the remaining text after extraction.
     • {ticket}: match branch.ticketPattern (default: [A-Z]+-\d+) against the task description. If matched, use the match. If not matched and the pattern contains {ticket}, ask the user to provide a ticket ID.
     • {author}: use branch.author from config. If not set and the pattern contains {author}, ask the user to provide their name.
   • Create worktree (4-step sequence — all steps are REQUIRED):
     1. Determine the base ref: if the spawn prompt includes Base branch: in the CONTEXT section, use git rev-parse <base_branch> to get the SHA; otherwise run git rev-parse HEAD. Save the full SHA in your response text (not a shell variable — shell state does not persist between tool calls).
     2. Call EnterWorktree with the resolved branch name. If config.worktree.directory is set, create the worktree there instead of the default location.
     3. Immediately after entering the worktree — before ANY other action — run git reset --hard <sha> using the exact SHA from step 1. EnterWorktree bases off the default branch, not the current branch. This reset is what makes the worktree start from the correct point. Skip this and the worktree will be wrong.
     4. Verify CWD: Run pwd and confirm the output contains your branch name or expected worktree path. When multiple quests spawn in parallel, a race condition can place your CWD in another quest's worktree. If pwd shows a different quest's worktree, run cd <expected_worktree_path> to correct it before proceeding. The expected path is the one printed by EnterWorktree (typically .claude/worktrees/<branch_name>/).
3. State file (fellowship only): This MUST happen before any other tool calls (Skill, Bash, etc.) so that hooks can enforce gates from the start. Run fellowship init --dir <worktree_path> (using the path from EnterWorktree in step 2.2, verified correct in step 2.4) to ensure the state file is created in the correct worktree, regardless of CWD. If running as a fellowship teammate:
   • If .fellowship/quest-state.json already exists (respawn), reset gate_pending to false and preserve the existing phase.
   • Otherwise, create .fellowship/quest-state.json:

     {
       "version": 1,
       "quest_name": "<quest_name>",
       "task_id": "<task_id>",
       "team_name": "<team_name>",
       "phase": "Onboard",
       "gate_pending": false,
       "gate_id": null,
       "lembas_completed": false,
       "metadata_updated": false,
       "auto_approve_gates": [],
       "held": false,
       "held_reason": null
     }
     

     Populate auto_approve_gates from config.gates.autoApprove if set.
   • Store the worktree path in task metadata: TaskUpdate(taskId: "<task_id>", metadata: {"worktree_path": "<cwd>"})
   • The quest tome at .fellowship/quest-tome.json is automatically maintained by hooks — it records phases completed, gate events, and files touched. You do not need to manage it manually.
4. Orient: Invoke /council to load task-relevant context.

If the user has already described their task, pass the description directly. Otherwise, council will ask.

Gate: Isolation set up (worktree created or skipped per config) AND Session Context block must exist before proceeding.

Plan-Driven Mode

If the spawn prompt contains PRE-EXISTING PLAN: with a plan file path:

1. Create worktree as normal (follow the full 4-step sequence from Standard Onboard, including the immediate git reset --hard <sha> and CWD verification after EnterWorktree)
2. Copy plan file: Read the plan file from the specified path and write it to .fellowship/plan.md in the worktree
3. Initialize state at Implement: Run fellowship init --dir <worktree_path> --phase Implement --plan-skip --quest <quest_name> — this creates the state file starting at Implement and records Onboard/Research/Plan as skipped in the tome
4. Initialize errands: Run fellowship errand init to create the errand file, then add one errand per plan task with fellowship errand add
5. Skip /council — the plan provides sufficient context
6. Proceed directly to Phase 3 (Implement) — skip the Onboard gate, Research, and Plan entirely

The plan file at .fellowship/plan.md is your implementation blueprint for Phase 3. Use it exactly as you would use a plan created during Phase 2.

Phase 1: Research

Goal: Understand the system well enough to plan changes. Stay objective — gather information, don't propose solutions yet.

Validation Mode (Promoted Quests)

If the spawn prompt contains a PROMOTED FROM: block, this is a promoted quest with pre-existing scout findings:

1. Write findings to worktree: The spawn prompt includes SCOUT FINDINGS CONTENT: with the full scout findings. Write this content to .fellowship/scout-findings-{scout_name}.md in your worktree so it survives context compression.
2. Assess relevance: Read the scout findings. Compare them against your quest task description. Are these findings about the same system, files, or problem space?
   • Relevant: Findings directly inform this quest's task → proceed with validation (step 3)
   • Not relevant: Findings are tangential or stale → skip to Standard Research below
3. Validate findings: Spot-check key claims by reading the referenced files and line ranges. Are the findings still accurate? Flag any that are outdated or incorrect.
4. Supplement: Fill implementation-specific gaps the scout didn't cover:
   • File structure and write targets (where will changes go?)
   • Test locations and existing test patterns
   • Build/lint/test commands for verification
5. Produce output: Amended scout findings with validation notes and supplemental research

The same hard gate requirements apply — validation mode doesn't lower the bar, it changes the starting point.

Standard Research

Actions:

1. Scan autopsies: If running as a fellowship teammate, scan for prior failure records that may be relevant to this quest:

   fellowship autopsy scan --dir <main_repo> --files "<target_files>" --modules "<target_modules>"
   

   If matches are found, incorporate their warnings into your research findings — these are hard-won lessons from previous quests that failed in the same area.
2. Scan bulletin board: Run fellowship bulletin scan with whatever filters you already know:
   • --topics "<relevant_topics>" if you know the domain/problem area
   • --files "<target_files>" once likely files are known
   • both flags together when both are available Incorporate any relevant findings into your research.
3. If entering an unfamiliar area, invoke /gather-lore to extract conventions from reference files
4. Use Explore agents (Task tool, subagent_type=Explore) to scan relevant code paths
5. Read key files identified in the Session Context
6. Document findings: how the current system works, constraints, edge cases

Hard gate — Research must produce:

• Key files identified with specific line ranges
• Constraints and dependencies documented
• Current behavior understood (not just file locations)

If these aren't met, continue researching. Don't proceed to planning with incomplete understanding.

Transition: Invoke /lembas with phase "Research" before moving to Plan.

Phase 2: Plan

Goal: Outline explicit steps with file:line references and a test strategy.

Actions:

1. Enter plan mode (EnterPlanMode) or use the writing-plans skill for formal plans
2. Write steps that reference specific files and line ranges from research
3. Define test strategy: what to test, how to verify
4. Assess whether the plan has 2+ independent workstreams

Hard gate — Plan must include:

• Explicit file paths and line ranges for every change
• Test strategy (what tests to write or run)
• User approval of the plan

Transition: Invoke /lembas with phase "Plan" before moving to Implement.

Phase 3: Implement

Goal: Execute the plan with small, verifiable changes and tight feedback loops. Default to TDD.

Errand tracking: If .fellowship/quest-errands.json exists, use it as your errand checklist. The errand file is the source of truth for remaining work, not just the original prompt. Update errand status as you complete each one: fellowship errand update --dir . <id> done. Mark errands as active when you start them and done when finished. Check fellowship errand list --dir . to see what remains.

Execution mode — choose based on plan structure:

Single-stream (default): Tasks are sequential or tightly coupled.

1. Invoke superpowers:test-driven-development — red-green-refactor for each unit of work
2. Execute the plan step by step
3. Verify after each change (run tests, check build)
4. Commit each logical unit

Parallel subagents: Plan has 3+ independent tasks touching different files.

1. Dispatch multiple implementation subagents simultaneously (multiple Task tool calls in one message)
2. Each subagent gets the full task text, relevant context, and TDD instructions
3. No two subagents modify the same file — this is a planning constraint, not a runtime guard. If the plan has file conflicts between subtasks, fix the plan.
4. Collect results, review each, then commit

Guidelines:

• TDD by default. Write the failing test first, then the minimal implementation, then refactor.
• Follow the plan. If the plan is wrong, trigger recovery (see below) — don't silently deviate.
• Small changes. One function, one test, one commit. Not a big-bang change.
• Use conventional commits for all git commits (e.g., feat:, fix:, docs:, refactor:).
• Verify as you go. Don't batch all testing to the end.
• Post discoveries to the bulletin board when you find something likely relevant to sibling quests (during both Research and Implement). Run fellowship bulletin post --quest "<quest_name>" --topic "<topic>" --files "<affected_files>" --discovery "<description>". Post refactors, API changes, infrastructure shifts, gotchas, deprecations, and research findings about shared code. Do NOT post phase progress, gate submissions, or file edit intentions.

Recovery — when implementation hits a wall:

Trigger recovery when any of these occur:

• A plan step is impossible or wrong (missing API, incorrect assumption, dependency doesn't work as expected)
• TDD cycles aren't converging — 3+ failed attempts at making a test pass suggest a design problem, not a code problem
• Implementation reveals the plan was incomplete (unaccounted-for edge case, missing step)

Recovery procedure:

1. Stop implementing. Commit what works so far — don't discard partial progress.
2. Document what went wrong. Be specific: which step failed, what was discovered, why the plan doesn't hold.
3. Write autopsy: If running as a fellowship teammate, record the failure for future quests:

   echo '{"quest":"<quest_name>","task":"<task>","phase":"Implement","trigger":"recovery","files":["<affected_files>"],"modules":["<affected_modules>"],"what_failed":"<specific description>","resolution":"<what you learned or changed>","tags":["<relevant_tags>"]}' | fellowship autopsy create --dir <main_repo>
   

4. Return to Phase 2 (Plan). Invoke /lembas with phase "Implement (partial)" to compact, then re-enter plan mode with the new information. Revise only the affected steps — don't replan from scratch.
5. Get user approval on the revised plan before resuming implementation.
6. If running as a fellowship teammate, message the lead with the blocker before replanning.

Transition: Invoke /lembas with phase "Implement" before moving to Adversarial Review.

Phase 3.5: Adversarial Review

Goal: Find failure modes before conventions and code quality review. Spawn balrog to attack the implementation.

Actions:

1. Spawn the balrog agent via the Agent tool, passing:
   • The worktree path (from Session Context / task metadata)
   • The task description
   • Your task ID (so balrog can report back via SendMessage)
2. Wait for balrog's SendMessage report. If balrog does not respond within a reasonable time (or if you receive an error from the Agent tool), proceed to Phase 4 and note in your gate message that adversarial review was skipped due to agent failure.
3. Evaluate findings by severity:
   • Critical/High — must address before Review gate opens. Fix, re-run relevant tests, then confirm fixes with balrog's reproduction steps.
   • Medium — present to user for decision. Document outcome either way.
   • Low — log in your response, do not block on them.
4. If Critical/High findings were fixed, note what changed and confirm the fix is complete.

Hard gate — Adversarial Review must produce:

• Balrog report received (even if zero findings), or agent failure documented in gate message
• All Critical/High findings addressed or explicitly accepted by user
• Medium findings presented to user

Transition: Invoke /lembas with phase "Adversarial" before moving to Review.

Phase 4: Review

Goal: Convention compliance, code quality, and verified passing state before completion.

Actions — three sequential steps:

Step 1: Convention review

1. Invoke /warden to compare changes against reference files and conventions
2. Fix all BLOCKING issues identified
3. For ADVISORY issues, present to the user for decision

Step 2: Code quality review

1. Invoke /pr-review-toolkit:review-pr for comprehensive code quality analysis (silent failure hunting, type design, test coverage)
2. Address any critical or important issues identified
3. Re-run affected tests after fixes

Step 3: Verification gate

1. Invoke superpowers:verification-before-completion — run tests for affected package(s) only, confirm build passes, verify output matches expectations
2. Use the scope from Session Context to determine which test suites to run — in a monorepo, run only the affected package(s), not the entire suite
3. Do NOT claim work is complete until verification passes
4. If verification fails, fix and re-verify

Output: Summary of what was built, what was reviewed, verification results, and readiness for completion.

Transition: Invoke /lembas with phase "Review" before moving to Complete.

Phase 5: Complete

Goal: Integrate the work — squash/merge, PR creation, worktree cleanup. The quest tome is automatically marked "completed" by hooks when the task completes.

Actions:

1. Invoke superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch to present integration options
2. This skill handles: squash vs merge decision, PR creation, branch cleanup
3. If working in a worktree (from Phase 0), clean up the worktree after merge
4. PR config: If config.pr.draft is true, create the PR as a draft. If config.pr.template is set (a string), use it as the PR body template — the template can contain {task}, {summary}, and {changes} placeholders that get filled in with the actual values.
5. Issue closing keywords: If the spawn prompt includes issue context from /missive with PR keywords (e.g., Closes #42), include these in the PR body so the issue is automatically closed on merge.

Gate: Phase 4 verification must have passed. Do not complete without a green verification step.

Escape Hatch

Use the shortened cycle when ALL of these are true:

• Single file changed (or 2 files where one is a test)
• < 50 lines of new/modified code
• No new patterns introduced — you're following an existing pattern exactly
• Familiar area — you've seen the conventions (or CLAUDE.md documents them clearly)

If any condition is uncertain, run the full cycle.

Shortened cycle:

1. Quick research (read the relevant file)
2. Implement the change
3. /warden

Key Principles

1. Context is the bottleneck. Compact between every phase. Don't let research noise pollute planning, or planning noise pollute implementation.
2. Hard gates prevent drift. Don't plan without understanding. Don't implement without a plan. Don't PR without review.
3. Compose, don't rebuild. This skill orchestrates existing skills (council, gather-lore, lembas, warden, review-pr, writing-plans, TDD, verification-before-completion, finishing-a-development-branch). It doesn't replace them.
4. Human in the loop. Plan approval is non-negotiable. The user guides direction; the agent handles execution.
5. Frequent compaction. When in doubt, compact. The cost of re-reading a file is low; the cost of degraded reasoning is high.