implement-task

name	implement-task
description	Implement a task with automated LLM-as-Judge verification per step
argument-hint	Task file [options] (e.g., "add-validation.feature.md --continue --human-in-the-loop")

Implement Task with Verification

Your job is to implement solution in best quality using task specification and sub-agents. You MUST NOT stop until it is critically necessary or you are done! Avoid asking questions until it is critically necessary! Launch the developer agent, then the sdd:code-reviewer, iterate till issues are fixed, then move to next step!

Execute task implementation steps with automated quality verification using sdd:code-reviewer agents for critical artifacts.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

---

Command Arguments

Parse the following arguments from $ARGUMENTS:

Argument Definitions

Argument	Format	Default	Description
task-file	Path or filename	Auto-detect	Task file name or path (e.g., add-validation.feature.md)
--continue	--continue	None	Continue implementation from last completed step. Launches sdd:code-reviewer first to verify state, then iterates with the developer agent.
--refine	--refine	false	Incremental refinement mode - detect changes against git and re-implement only affected steps (from modified step onwards).
--human-in-the-loop	--human-in-the-loop [step1,step2,...]	None	Steps after which to pause for human verification. If no steps specified, pauses after every step.
--target-quality	--target-quality X.X or --target-quality X.X,Y.Y	4.0 (standard) / 4.5 (critical)	Target threshold value (out of 5.0). Single value sets both. Two comma-separated values set standard,critical.
--max-iterations	--max-iterations N	3	Maximum fix→verify cycles per step. Default is 3 iterations. Set to unlimited for no limit.
--skip-reviews	--skip-reviews	false	Skip all per-step code-reviewer checks - steps proceed without quality gates.
--lenient-threshold	--lenient-threshold X.X	3.5	Lenient threshold (out of 5.0) used for steps with verification level explicitly marked lenient by qa-engineer.

Configuration Resolution

Parse $ARGUMENTS and resolve configuration as follows:

# Extract task file (first positional argument, optional - auto-detect if not provided)
TASK_FILE = first argument that is a file path or filename

# Parse --target-quality (supports single value or two comma-separated values)
if --target-quality has single value X.X:
    THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS = X.X
    THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS = X.X
elif --target-quality has two values X.X,Y.Y:
    THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS = X.X
    THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS = Y.Y
else:
    THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS = 4.0  # default
    THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS = 4.5  # default

# Initialize other defaults
MAX_ITERATIONS = --max-iterations || 3  # default is 3 iterations
HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS = --human-in-the-loop || [] (empty = none, "*" = all)
SKIP_REVIEWS = --skip-reviews || false
LENIENT_THRESHOLD = --lenient-threshold || 3.5
REFINE_MODE = --refine || false
CONTINUE_MODE = --continue || false

# Special handling for --human-in-the-loop without step list
if --human-in-the-loop present without step numbers:
    HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS = "*" (all steps)

Context Resolution for --continue

When --continue is used:

1. Step Resolution:

   • Parse the task file for [DONE] markers on step titles
   • Identify the last incompleted step
   • Launch the sdd:code-reviewer agent to verify the last INCOMPLETE step's artifacts (using the step's #### Verification specification embedded in the task file)
   • If combined_score >= threshold (or >= 3.0 with only Low-priority issues): Mark step as done and resume from the next step
   • Otherwise: Re-implement the step using the reviewer's issues as feedback and iterate until PASS

2. State Recovery:

   • Check task file location (in-progress/, todo/, done/)
   • If in todo/, move to in-progress/ before continuing
   • Pre-populate captured values from existing artifacts

Refine Mode Behavior (--refine)

When --refine is used, it detects changes to project files (not the task file) and maps them to implementation steps to determine what needs re-verification.

1. Detect Changed Project Files:

   First, determine what to compare against based on git state:

   # Check for staged changes
   STAGED=$(git diff --cached --name-only)
   
   # Check for unstaged changes
   UNSTAGED=$(git diff --name-only)
   

   Comparison logic:

   Staged	Unstaged	Compare Against	Command
   Yes	Yes	Staged (unstaged only)	git diff --name-only
   Yes	No	Last commit	git diff HEAD --name-only
   No	Yes	Last commit	git diff HEAD --name-only
   No	No	No changes	Exit with message

   • If both staged AND unstaged: Compare working directory vs staging area (unstaged changes only)
   • If only staged OR only unstaged: Compare against last commit
   • This ensures refine operates on the most recent work in progress

2. Map Changes to Implementation Steps:

   • Read the task file to get the list of implementation steps
   • For each changed file, determine which step created/modified it:
     • Check step's "Expected Output" section for file paths
     • Check step's subtasks for file references
     • Check step's artifacts in #### Verification section
   • Build a mapping: {changed_file → step_number}

3. Determine Affected Steps:

   • Find all steps that have associated changed files
   • The earliest affected step is the starting point
   • All steps from that point onwards need re-verification
   • Earlier steps (unaffected) are preserved as-is

4. Refine Execution:

   • For each affected step (in order):
     • Launch the sdd:code-reviewer agent to verify the step's artifacts (including user's changes), passing the 5 standard inputs
     • If combined_score >= threshold (or >= 3.0 with only Low-priority issues): Mark step done, proceed to next
     • Otherwise: Launch the developer agent with user's changes AND the reviewer's issues as feedback, then re-verify
   • User's manual fixes are preserved - the developer agent should build upon them, not overwrite

5. Example:

   # User manually fixed src/validation/validation.service.ts
   # (This file was created in Step 2)
   
   /implement my-task.feature.md --refine
   
   # Detects: src/validation/validation.service.ts modified
   # Maps to: Step 2 (Create ValidationService)
   # Action: Launch sdd:code-reviewer for Step 2
   #   - If PASS: User's fix is good, proceed to Step 3
   #   - If FAIL: Developer agent aligns rest of the code with user changes (using reviewer's issues feedback) without overwriting user's changes
   # Continues: Step 3, Step 4... (re-verify all subsequent steps)
   

6. Multiple Files Changed:

   # User edited files from Step 2 AND Step 4
   
   /implement my-task.feature.md --refine
   
   # Detects: Files from Step 2 and Step 4 modified
   # Earliest affected: Step 2
   # Re-verifies: Step 2, Step 3, Step 4, Step 5...
   # (Step 3 re-verified even though no direct changes, because it depends on Step 2)
   

7. Staged vs Unstaged Changes:

   # Scenario: User staged some changes, then made more edits
   # Staged: src/validation/validation.service.ts (git add done)
   # Unstaged: src/validation/validators/email.validator.ts (still editing)
   
   /implement my-task.feature.md --refine
   
   # Detects: Both staged AND unstaged changes exist
   # Mode: Compares unstaged only (working dir vs staging)
   # Only email.validator.ts is considered for refine
   # Staged changes are preserved, not re-verified
   
   # --
   
   # Scenario: User only has staged changes (ready to commit)
   # Staged: src/validation/validation.service.ts
   # Unstaged: none
   
   /implement my-task.feature.md --refine
   
   # Detects: Only staged changes
   # Mode: Compares against last commit
   # validation.service.ts changes are verified
   

Human-in-the-Loop Behavior

Human verification checkpoints occur:

1. Trigger Conditions:

   • After developer + sdd:code-reviewer orchestrator-level PASS for a step in HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS
   • After developer + reviewer + developer retry (before the next reviewer retry)
   • If HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS is "*", triggers after every step

2. At Checkpoint:

   • Display current step results summary
   • Display generated artifacts with paths
   • Display reviewer's combined_score and consolidated issues
   • Ask user: "Review step output. Continue? [Y/n/feedback]"
   • If user provides feedback, incorporate into next iteration or step
   • If user says "n", pause workflow

3. Checkpoint Message Format:

   ---
   ## 🔍 Human Review Checkpoint - Step X
   
   **Step:** {step title}
   **Verification Level:** {None / Single Judge / Panel of 2 Judges / Per-Item Judges}
   **Combined Score:** {combined_score}/5.0 (threshold: {threshold})
   **Status:** ✅ PASS / 🔄 ITERATING (attempt {n})
   
   **Artifacts Created/Modified:**
   - {artifact_path_1}
   - {artifact_path_2}
   
   **Reviewer Feedback (top issues):**
   {feedback summary — High/Medium issues from reviewer.issues}
   
   **Action Required:** Review the above artifacts and provide feedback or continue.
   
   > Continue? [Y/n/feedback]:
   ---
   

---

Task Selection and Status Management

Task Status Folders

Task status is managed by folder location:

• .specs/tasks/todo/ - Tasks waiting to be implemented
• .specs/tasks/in-progress/ - Tasks currently being worked on
• .specs/tasks/done/ - Completed tasks

Status Transitions

When	Action
Start implementation	Move task from todo/ to in-progress/
Final verification PASS	Move task from in-progress/ to done/
Implementation failure (user aborts)	Keep in in-progress/

---

CRITICAL: You Are an ORCHESTRATOR ONLY

Your role is DISPATCH and AGGREGATE. You do NOT do the work.

Properly build context of sub agents!

CRITICAL: For each sub-agent (implementation and evaluation), you need to provide:

• Task file path
• Step number
• Item number (if applicable)
• Artifact path (if applicable)
• Value of ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} so agents can resolve paths like @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/create-scratchpad.sh

What You DO

• Read the task file ONCE (Phase 1 only)
• Launch sub-agents via Task tool
• Receive reports from sub-agents
• Mark stages complete after orchestrator-level PASS rule on reviewer output
• Aggregate results and report to user

What You NEVER Do

Prohibited Action	Why	What To Do Instead
Read implementation outputs	Context bloat → command loss	Sub-agent reports what it created
Read reference files	Sub-agent's job to understand patterns	Include path in sub-agent prompt
Read artifacts to "check" them	Context bloat → forget verifications	Launch sdd:code-reviewer agent
Evaluate code quality yourself	Not your job, causes forgetting	Launch sdd:code-reviewer agent
Skip verification "because simple"	ALL non-None verifications are mandatory	Launch sdd:code-reviewer agent anyway

Anti-Rationalization Rules

If you think: "I should read this file to understand what was created" → STOP. The sub-agent's report tells you what was created. Use that information.

If you think: "I'll quickly verify this looks correct" → STOP. Launch a sdd:code-reviewer agent. That's not your job.

If you think: "This is too simple to need verification" → STOP. If the task specifies verification (Level is not None), launch the sdd:code-reviewer. No exceptions.

If you think: "I need to read the reference file to write a good prompt" → STOP. Put the reference file PATH in the sub-agent prompt. Sub-agent reads it.

Why This Matters

Orchestrators who read files themselves = context overflow = command loss = forgotten steps. Every time.

Orchestrators who "quickly verify" = skip sdd:code-reviewer agents = quality collapse = failed artifacts.

Your context window is precious. Protect it. Delegate everything.

---

CRITICAL

Configuration Rules

• Use THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS (default 4.0) for standard steps!
• Use THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS (default 4.5) for steps marked as critical in the task file.
• Use LENIENT_THRESHOLD (default 3.5) only when the step's verification specification explicitly marks it as lenient.
• The threshold is applied at THIS orchestrator layer against combined_score returned by code-reviewer. NEVER pass any threshold to the code-reviewer agent — or he will try to reach target score and as result become subjective.
• A step PASSES if combined_score >= threshold OR (combined_score >= 3.0 AND every issue in code-reviewer's report has priority Low).
• Default is 3 iterations - stop after 3 fix→verify cycles and proceed to next step (with warning)!
• If MAX_ITERATIONS is set to unlimited: Iterate until quality threshold is met (no limit)
• Trigger human-in-the-loop checkpoints ONLY after steps in HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS (or all steps if "*")!
• If SKIP_REVIEWS is true: Skip ALL code-reviewer dispatches - proceed directly to next step after each implementation completes!
• If CONTINUE_MODE is true: Skip to RESUME_FROM_STEP - do not re-implement already completed steps!
• If REFINE_MODE is true: Detect changed project files, map to steps, re-verify from REFINE_FROM_STEP - preserve user's fixes!

Execution & Evaluation Rules

• Use foreground agents only: Do not use background agents. Launch parallel agents when possible. Background agents constantly run in permissions issues and other errors.

Relaunch the code-reviewer till you get valid results, if following happens:

• Reject Long Reports: If the code-reviewer returns a very long report instead of using the scratchpad as requested, reject the result. This indicates the agent failed to follow the "use scratchpad" instruction.
• Combined Score 5.0 is a Hallucination: If the code-reviewer returns a combined_score of 5.0/5.0, treat it as a hallucination or lazy evaluation. Reject it and re-run the agent. Perfect scores are practically impossible in this rigorous framework.
• Reject Missing Scores: If the code-reviewer's report is missing the combined_score (or any sub-score: spec_compliance_score, builtin_score), reject it. This indicates the agent failed to follow the rubric instructions.
• Reject PASS/FAIL Verdicts in Report: If the code-reviewer's output contains a PASS/FAIL verdict or references a threshold, reject it. The orchestrator owns that decision; the agent must remain threshold-blind.

---

Overview

This command orchestrates multi-step task implementation with:

1. Sequential execution respecting step dependencies
2. Parallel execution where dependencies allow
3. Automated verification using sdd:code-reviewer agents per step
4. Panel of LLMs (PoLL) for high-stakes artifacts
5. Aggregated voting with position bias mitigation
6. Stage tracking with confirmation after each orchestrator-level PASS

---

Complete Workflow Overview

Phase 0: Select Task & Move to In-Progress
    │
    ├─── Use provided task file name or auto-select from todo/ (if only 1 task)
    ├─── Move task: todo/ → in-progress/
    │
    ▼
Phase 1: Load Task
    │
    ▼
Phase 2: Execute Steps
    │
    ├─── For each step in dependency order:
    │    │
    │    ▼
    │    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │    │ Launch sdd:developer agent                      │
    │    │ (implementation)                                │
    │    └─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘
    │                      │
    │                      ▼
    │    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │    │ Launch sdd:code-reviewer agent(s)               │
    │    │ Count depends on Verification Level:            │
    │    │  None → 0 reviewers (skip)                      │
    │    │  Single Judge → 1 reviewer                      │
    │    │  Panel of 2 Judges → 2 reviewers (median vote)  │
    │    │  Per-Item → 1 reviewer per item                 │
    │    └─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘
    │                      │
    │                      ▼
    │    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │    │ Orchestrator reads combined_score and applies   │
    │    │ threshold:                                      │
    │    │  PASS → Mark step complete in task file         │
    │    │  FAIL → Fix using reviewer's issues feedback    │
    │    │         and re-verify (max MAX_ITERATIONS)      │
    │    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
Phase 3: Definition of Done Verification
    │
    ├─── Verify all Definition of Done items
    │    │
    │    ▼
    │    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │    │ Launch sdd:core-reviewer agent                   │
    │    │ (verify all DoD items)                          │
    │    └─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘
    │                      │
    │                      ▼
    │    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │    │ All DoD PASS? → Proceed to Phase 4              │
    │    │ Any FAIL? → Fix and re-verify (iterate)         │
    │    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    │
    ▼
Phase 4: Move Task to Done
    │
    ├─── Move task: in-progress/ → done/
    │
    ▼
Phase 5: Final Report

---

Phase 0: Parse User Input and Select Task

Parse user input to get the task file path and arguments.

Step 0.1: Resolve Task File

If $ARGUMENTS is empty or only contains flags:

1. Check in-progress folder first:

   ls .specs/tasks/in-progress/*.md 2>/dev/null
   

   • If exactly 1 file → Set $TASK_FILE to that file, $TASK_FOLDER to in-progress
   • If multiple files → List them and ask user: "Multiple tasks in progress. Which one to continue?"
   • If no files → Continue to step 2

2. Check todo folder:

   ls .specs/tasks/todo/*.md 2>/dev/null
   

   • If exactly 1 file → Set $TASK_FILE to that file, $TASK_FOLDER to todo
   • If multiple files → List them and ask user: "Multiple tasks in todo. Which one to implement?"
   • If no files → Report "No tasks available. Create one with /add-task first." and STOP

If $ARGUMENTS contains a task file name:

1. Search for the file in order: in-progress/ → todo/ → done/
2. Set $TASK_FILE and $TASK_FOLDER accordingly
3. If not found, report error and STOP

Step 0.2: Move to In-Progress (if needed)

If task is in todo/ folder:

git mv .specs/tasks/todo/$TASK_FILE .specs/tasks/in-progress/
# Fallback if git not available: mv .specs/tasks/todo/$TASK_FILE .specs/tasks/in-progress/

Update $TASK_PATH to .specs/tasks/in-progress/$TASK_FILE

If task is already in in-progress/: Set $TASK_PATH to .specs/tasks/in-progress/$TASK_FILE

Step 0.3: Parse Flags and Initialize Configuration

Parse all flags from $ARGUMENTS and initialize configuration. Display resolved configuration:

### Configuration

| Setting | Value |
|---------|-------|
| **Task File** | {TASK_PATH} |
| **Standard Components Threshold** | {THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS}/5.0 |
| **Critical Components Threshold** | {THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS}/5.0 |
| **Lenient Components Threshold** | {LENIENT_THRESHOLD}/5.0 |
| **Max Iterations** | {MAX_ITERATIONS or "3"} |
| **Human Checkpoints** | {HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS as comma-separated or "All steps" or "None"} |
| **Skip Reviews** | {SKIP_REVIEWS} |
| **Continue Mode** | {CONTINUE_MODE} |
| **Refine Mode** | {REFINE_MODE} |

Step 0.4: Handle Continue Mode

If CONTINUE_MODE is true:

1. Identify Last Completed Step:

   • Parse task file for [DONE] markers on step titles
   • Find the highest step number marked [DONE]
   • Set LAST_COMPLETED_STEP to that number (or 0 if none)

2. Verify Last Completed Step (if any):

   • If LAST_COMPLETED_STEP > 0:
     • Launch the sdd:code-reviewer agent to verify the artifacts from that step (passing the 5 inputs documented in Phase 2)
     • If reviewer's combined_score >= threshold (or >= 3.0 with only Low-priority issues): Set RESUME_FROM_STEP = LAST_COMPLETED_STEP + 1
     • Otherwise: Set RESUME_FROM_STEP = LAST_COMPLETED_STEP (re-implement using reviewer feedback)

3. Skip to Resume Point:

   • In Phase 2, skip all steps before RESUME_FROM_STEP
   • Continue execution from RESUME_FROM_STEP

Step 0.5: Handle Refine Mode

If REFINE_MODE is true:

1. Detect Changed Project Files:

   # Check for staged and unstaged changes
   STAGED=$(git diff --cached --name-only)
   UNSTAGED=$(git diff --name-only)
   

   Determine comparison mode:

   if STAGED is not empty AND UNSTAGED is not empty:
       # Both staged and unstaged - use unstaged only
       CHANGED_FILES = git diff --name-only  # working dir vs staging
       COMPARISON_MODE = "unstaged_only"
   elif STAGED is not empty OR UNSTAGED is not empty:
       # Only one type - compare against last commit
       CHANGED_FILES = git diff HEAD --name-only
       COMPARISON_MODE = "vs_last_commit"
   else:
       # No changes
       Report: "No project changes detected. Make edits first, then run --refine."
       Exit
   

2. Load Task File and Extract Step→File Mapping:

   • Read the task file to get implementation steps
   • For each step, extract the files it creates/modifies from:
     • "Expected Output" sections
     • Subtask descriptions mentioning file paths
     • #### Verification artifact paths
   • Build mapping: STEP_FILE_MAP = {step_number → [file_paths]}

3. Map Changed Files to Steps:

   AFFECTED_STEPS = []
   for each changed_file:
       for step_number, file_list in STEP_FILE_MAP:
           if changed_file matches any path in file_list:
               AFFECTED_STEPS.append(step_number)
   

   • If no steps matched: "Changed files don't map to any implementation step. Verify manually."

4. Determine Refine Scope:

   • REFINE_FROM_STEP = min(AFFECTED_STEPS) # earliest affected step
   • All steps from REFINE_FROM_STEP onwards need re-verification
   • Steps before REFINE_FROM_STEP are preserved as-is

5. Store Changed Files Context:

   • CHANGED_FILES = list of changed file paths
   • USER_CHANGES_CONTEXT = git diff output for affected files
   • Pass this context to the code-reviewer and developer agents
   • Agents should build upon user's fixes, not overwrite them

Phase 1: Load and Analyze Task

This is the ONLY phase where you read a file.

Step 1.1: Load Task Details

Read the task file ONCE:

Read $TASK_PATH

After this read, you MUST NOT read any other files for the rest of execution.

Step 1.2: Identify Implementation Steps

Parse the ## Implementation Process section:

• List all steps with dependencies
• Identify which steps have Parallel with: annotations
• Classify each step's verification needs from #### Verification sections:

| Verification Level | Code-Reviewer Dispatch | Threshold | |-----------------------------------|-------------|------------------------|-----------| | None | Skip the code-reviewer entirely | N/A | | Single Judge | 1 sdd:code-reviewer agent | THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS (default 4.0) | | Panel of 2 Judges (a.k.a. Panel of 2) | 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel; aggregate by median voting on combined_score | THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS (default 4.5) | | Per-Item Judges (a.k.a. Per-Item) | 1 sdd:code-reviewer per item, all in parallel | Per-item threshold matches step's level (standard or critical as marked) |

Honor the labels exactly as they appear in the task file — Single Judge, Panel of 2 Judges, Per-Item Judges, None — these are the labels emitted by the qa-engineer's templates.

Step 1.3: Create Todo List

Create TodoWrite with all implementation steps, marking verification requirements:

{
  "todos": [
    {"content": "Step 1: [Title] - [Verification Level]", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Implementing Step 1"},
    {"content": "Step 2: [Title] - [Verification Level]", "status": "pending", "activeForm": "Implementing Step 2"}
  ]
}

---

Phase 2: Execute Implementation Steps

For each step in dependency order, select the dispatch pattern by reading the step's #### Verification Level:

Verification Level	Pattern
None	Pattern A — developer only, no code-reviewer
Single Judge	Pattern B — developer + 1 sdd:code-reviewer
Panel of 2 Judges	Pattern B-Panel — developer + 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel (median voting)
Per-Item Judges	Pattern C — 1 developer per item + 1 sdd:code-reviewer per item, all in parallel

Code-Reviewer Input Contract (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Every sdd:code-reviewer dispatch — regardless of pattern — MUST include exactly these 5 inputs and NOTHING else that resembles a threshold or pass/fail expectation:

1. Artifact Path(s): The file paths the developer reports as created or modified for this step (or item, in Pattern C)
2. Step number: The step number to review
3. Specification Path: Path to the specification file.
4. CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT: The plugin root path

You MUST NOT pass to the code-reviewer:

• Any score threshold, target quality, or passing-line value
• Any PASS/FAIL expectation
• Any rubric or checklist you wrote yourself (only the qa-engineer's per-step spec is authoritative)
• The task description and acceptance criteria, agent should read the task file itself

Threshold Application (Orchestrator-Level Only)

After receiving the code-reviewer's report, the orchestrator (this skill) applies the threshold:

threshold = THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS  if Verification Level is "Panel of 2 Judges"
          = THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS  if Verification Level is "Single Judge" or "Per-Item Judges"
          = LENIENT_THRESHOLD                  if the verification spec explicitly marks the step as lenient

# For Panel of 2: aggregate first
combined_score = median(reviewer1.combined_score, reviewer2.combined_score)
                  # for Single Judge / Per-Item: combined_score = reviewer.combined_score

all_issues = reviewer.issues  (or merged issues from both reviewers in Panel)

# PASS rule (orchestrator decides):
if combined_score >= threshold:
    PASS
elif combined_score >= 3.0 and every issue.priority == "Low":
    PASS  (acceptable: minor polish only, no high/medium issues)
else:
    FAIL → retry

The combined_score already incorporates spec_compliance + code_quality + Muda waste analysis (the reviewer aggregates them internally per its STAGE 8). The orchestrator does NOT need to re-aggregate sub-scores; only combined_score and issues matter for the gate decision.

Retry Feedback Construction

When a step FAILs the orchestrator-level threshold and MAX_ITERATIONS is not yet exhausted, dispatch the developer again with this feedback structure:

Re-implement Step [N]: [Step Title] — Iteration [K] of [MAX_ITERATIONS]

Task File: $TASK_PATH
Step Number: [N]

Previous attempt failed quality review. Reviewer combined_score: [X.XX] / threshold [Y.Y]

Issues to fix:
[paste reviewer.issues list verbatim, including source field, priority, description, evidence (file:line), impact, and suggestion]

Full reviewer report (for additional context, do NOT skim — use issues list as primary work list):
[path to reviewer's scratchpad report file under .specs/scratchpad/<hex>.md]

Your task:
- Address every High priority issue
- Address every Medium priority issue
- Do NOT introduce new functionality beyond the original step's Expected Output
- Re-run tests/lint/build to ensure no regressions

When complete, report:
1. Files changed (paths)
2. Per-issue resolution status (Fixed / Partially Fixed / Skipped with justification)
3. Any new concerns introduced by the fix

After the developer completes the retry, dispatch the code-reviewer again with the SAME 4 inputs (the spec hasn't changed). Iterate until PASS or MAX_ITERATIONS reached.

Pattern A: Simple Step (No Verification)

1. Launch Developer Agent:

Use Task tool with:

• Agent Type: sdd:developer
• Model: As specified in step or opus by default
• Description: "Implement Step [N]: [Title]"
• Prompt:

Implement Step [N]: [Step Title]

Task File: $TASK_PATH
Step Number: [N]

Your task:
- Execute ONLY Step [N]: [Step Title]
- Do NOT execute any other steps
- Follow the Expected Output and Success Criteria exactly

When complete, report:
1. What files were created/modified (paths)
2. Confirmation that success criteria are met
3. Any issues encountered

2. Use Agent's Report (No Verification)

• Agent reports what was created → Use this information
• DO NOT read the created files yourself
• This pattern has NO verification (simple operations)

3. Mark Step Complete

• Update task file:
  • Mark step title with [DONE] (e.g., ### Step 1: Setup [DONE])
  • Mark step's subtasks as [X] complete
• Update todo to completed

---

Pattern B: CriticalStep (Single Reviewer or Panel of 2)

Use this pattern for steps with Single Judge (1 reviewer) or Panel of 2 Judges (2 reviewers in parallel) verification levels.

1. Launch Developer Agent:

Use Task tool with:

• Agent Type: sdd:developer
• Model: As specified in step or opus by default
• Description: "Implement Step [N]: [Title]"
• Prompt:

Implement Step [N]: [Step Title]

Task File: $TASK_PATH
Step Number: [N]

Your task:
- Execute ONLY Step [N]: [Step Title]
- Do NOT execute any other steps
- Follow the Expected Output and Success Criteria exactly

When complete, report:
1. What files were created/modified (paths)
2. Confirmation of completion
3. Self-critique summary

2. Wait for Completion

• Receive the agent's report
• Note the artifact path(s) from the report
• DO NOT read the artifact yourself

3. Launch Code-Reviewer Agent(s) in Parallel (MANDATORY):

⚠️ MANDATORY: You MUST launch the reviewer(s). Do NOT skip. Do NOT verify yourself.

• For Single Judge: launch 1 sdd:code-reviewer agent.
• For Panel of 2 Judges: launch 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel with identical prompts.

Reviewer 1 & 2 (launch both in parallel with same prompt structure):

CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT=${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}

Apply your full evaluation process (Stages 0-11) and return a single combined report.

Inputs:

1. Artifact Path(s):
   [list of file paths from the developer's report]

2. Step number:
   [the step number to review]

3. Specification Path:
   [path to the specification file]

5. CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}

5. Aggregate Reviewer Results (orchestrator-side):

• For Single Judge:
  • combined_score = reviewer.combined_score
  • all_issues = reviewer.issues
• For Panel of 2 Judges:
  • combined_score = median(reviewer1.combined_score, reviewer2.combined_score)
  • all_issues = reviewer1.issues + reviewer2.issues (de-duplicate by description+evidence)
  • Flag high-variance criteria where |reviewer1.score − reviewer2.score| > 2.0 (per the Panel Voting Algorithm in Phase 5)

6. Determine Threshold and Apply Gate:

• Check if step is marked as critical in task file (in #### Verification section or step metadata)

• If critical: use THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS

• If standard: use THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS

• Apply the orchestrator-level PASS rule:

  • PASS if combined_score >= threshold
  • PASS if combined_score >= 3.0 AND every entry in all_issues has priority == "Low"
  • Otherwise FAIL → retry

On FAIL: Iterate Until PASS (max MAX_ITERATIONS, default 3)

• Build retry feedback per the Retry Feedback Construction section above
• Re-launch the developer agent with that feedback
• Re-launch the code-reviewer(s) with the SAME inputs after the developer reports completion
• Iterate until PASS or until MAX_ITERATIONS reached
• If MAX_ITERATIONS reached:
  • Log warning: "Step [N] did not pass after {MAX_ITERATIONS} iterations (final combined_score: X.XX, threshold: Y.Y)"
  • Proceed to next step (do not block indefinitely)

7. On PASS: Mark Step Complete

• Update task file:
  • Mark step title with [DONE] (e.g., ### Step 2: Create Service [DONE])
  • Mark step's subtasks as [X] complete
• Update todo to completed
• Record combined_score in tracking

8. Human-in-the-Loop Checkpoint (if applicable):

Only after step PASSES, if step number is in HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS (or HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS == "*"):

---
## 🔍 Human Review Checkpoint - Step [N]

**Step:** [Step Title]
**Combined Score:** [combined_score]/5.0 (threshold: [threshold])
**Status:** ✅ PASS

**Artifacts Created/Modified:**
- [artifact_path_1]
- [artifact_path_2]

**Reviewer Feedback (issues):**
[feedback summary — high/medium issues from reviewer.issues, even though step passed]

**Action Required:** Review the above artifacts and provide feedback or continue.

> Continue? [Y/n/feedback]:
---

• If user provides feedback: Store for next step or re-implement current step with feedback
• If user says "n": Pause workflow, report current progress
• If user says "Y" or continues: Proceed to next step

---

Pattern C: Multi-Item Step (Per-Item Evaluations)

For steps that create multiple similar items:

1. Launch Developer Agents in Parallel (one per item):

Use Task tool for EACH item (launch all in parallel):

• Agent Type: sdd:developer
• Model: As specified or opus by default
• Description: "Implement Step [N], Item: [Name]"
• Prompt:

Implement Step [N], Item: [Item Name]

Task File: $TASK_PATH
Step Number: [N]
Item: [Item Name]

Your task:
- Create ONLY [item_name] from Step [N]
- Do NOT create other items or steps
- Follow the Expected Output and Success Criteria exactly

When complete, report:
1. File path created
2. Confirmation of completion
3. Self-critique summary

2. Wait for All Completions

• Collect all agent reports
• Note all artifact paths
• DO NOT read any of the created files yourself

3. Launch Reviewer Agents in Parallel (one per item)

⚠️ MANDATORY: Launch code-reviewer agents. Do NOT skip. Do NOT verify yourself.

For each item:

CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT=${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}

Apply your full evaluation process (Stages 0-11) and return a single combined report.

Inputs:

1. Artifact Path(s):
   [list of file paths from the developer's report]

2. Step number:
   [the step number to review]

3. Specification Path:
   [path to the specification file]

5. CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}

5. Collect All Results and Apply the Gate per Item:

For each item's reviewer report, apply the orchestrator-level threshold (per the Threshold Application rules — Per-Item uses THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS unless the spec marks the step lenient or critical):

• PASS if combined_score >= threshold OR (combined_score >= 3.0 AND every issue is Low priority)
• Otherwise FAIL → that specific item needs retry

6. Report Aggregate:

• Items passed: X/Y
• Items needing revision: [list with combined_score and top 3 issues per failing item]

7. If Any FAIL: Iterate Until ALL PASS

• For each failing item, build retry feedback per Retry Feedback Construction
• Re-launch the developer agent for ONLY the failing items (preserve user's changes if in refine mode)
• Re-launch the code-reviewer for each re-implemented item with the SAME 5 inputs
• Iterate until ALL items PASS or until MAX_ITERATIONS reached
• If MAX_ITERATIONS reached:
  • Log warning: "Step [N] has {X} items that did not pass after {MAX_ITERATIONS} iterations"
  • Proceed to next step (do not block indefinitely)

8. On ALL PASS: Mark Step Complete

• Update task file:
  • Mark step title with [DONE] (e.g., ### Step 3: Create Items [DONE])
  • Mark step's subtasks as [X] complete
• Update todo to completed
• Record pass rate and per-item combined_score values in tracking

9. Human-in-the-Loop Checkpoint (if applicable):

Only after ALL items PASS, if step number is in HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS (or HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS == "*"):

---
## 🔍 Human Review Checkpoint - Step [N]

**Step:** [Step Title]
**Items Passed:** X/Y
**Status:** ✅ ALL PASS

**Artifacts Created:**
- [item_1_path] — combined_score: X.XX
- [item_2_path] — combined_score: X.XX
- ...

**Action Required:** Review the above artifacts and provide feedback or continue.

> Continue? [Y/n/feedback]:
---

• If user provides feedback: Store for next step or re-implement items with feedback
• If user says "n": Pause workflow, report current progress
• If user says "Y" or continues: Proceed to next step

---

⚠️ CHECKPOINT: Before Proceeding to Definition-of-Done Verification

Before moving to DoD verification, verify you followed the rules:

• Did you launch sdd:developer agents for ALL implementations?
• Did you launch sdd:code-reviewer agents for ALL non-None verification levels?
• Did you apply the threshold yourself against combined_score?
• Did you mark steps complete ONLY after the orchestrator-level PASS rule was satisfied?
• Did you avoid reading ANY artifact files yourself?

If you read files other than the task file, you are doing it wrong. STOP and restart.

---

Phase 3: Definition of Done Verification

After all implementation steps are complete, verify the task meets all Definition of Done criteria.

Step 3.1: Launch Definition of Done Verification

Use Task tool with:

• Agent Type: sdd:developer
• Model: opus
• Description: "Verify Definition of Done"
• Prompt:

CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT=${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}

Verify all Definition of Done items in the task file.

Task File: $TASK_PATH

Your task:
1. Read the task file and locate the "## Definition of Done (Task Level)" section
2. Go through each checkbox item one by one
3. For each item, verify if it passes by:
   - Running appropriate tests (unit tests, E2E tests)
   - Checking build/compilation status
   - Verifying file existence and correctness
   - Checking code patterns and linting
4. You MUST mark each item in task file that passed verification with `[X]`
5. Return a structured report:
- List ALL Definition of Done items
- Status for each:
   - ✅ PASS - if the item is complete and verified
   - ❌ FAIL - if the item fails verification, with specific reason why
   - ⚠️ BLOCKED - if the item cannot be verified due to a blocker
- Evidence for each status
- Specific issues for any failures
- Overall pass rate

Be thorough - check everything the task requires.

Step 3.2: Review Verification Results

• Receive the Definition of Done verification report
• Note which DoD items PASS and which FAIL
• If the verification agent reports that all DoD items PASS, you MUST confirm at the end of the task file that all DoD items are marked with [X]

Step 3.3: Fix Failing DoD Items (If Any)

If any Definition of Done items FAIL:

1. Launch Developer Agent for Each Failing Item:

Fix Definition of Done item: [Item Description]

Task File: $TASK_PATH

Current Status:
[paste failure details from verification report]

Your task:
1. Fix the specific issue identified
2. Verify the fix resolves the problem
3. Ensure no regressions (all tests still pass)

Return:
- What was fixed
- Confirmation the item now passes
- Any related changes made

2. Re-verify After Fixes:

Launch the verification agent again (Step 3.1) to confirm all items now PASS.

3. Iterate if Needed:

Repeat fix → verify cycle until all Definition of Done items PASS.

---

Phase 4: Move Task to Done

Once ALL Definition of Done items PASS, move the task to the done folder.

Step 4.1: Verify Completion

Confirm all Definition of Done items are marked complete in the task file.

Step 4.2: Move Task

# Extract just the filename from $TASK_PATH
TASK_FILENAME=$(basename $TASK_PATH)

# Move from in-progress to done
git mv .specs/tasks/in-progress/$TASK_FILENAME .specs/tasks/done/
# Fallback if git not available: mv .specs/tasks/in-progress/$TASK_FILENAME .specs/tasks/done/

---

Phase 5: Aggregation and Reporting

Panel Voting Algorithm (Panel of 2 Judges)

When dispatching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel, aggregate their reports as follows:

• Think in steps, output each step result separately
• Do not skip steps

Step 1: Collect combined_score and Per-Criterion Scores

The reviewers each return a full report (per Stage 11 of sdd:code-reviewer). Build two tables:

Top-level scores:

Score	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Median	Difference
combined_score	X.X	X.X	?	?
spec_compliance_score (sub-score)	X.X	X.X	?	?
builtin_score (sub-score)	X.X	X.X	?	?

Per-criterion scores (from both spec_compliance_report.rubric_scores and code_quality_report.rubric_scores):

Source	Criterion	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Median	Difference
spec_compliance	[Name 1]	X.X	X.X	?	?
code_quality	[Name 2]	X.X	X.X	?	?

Step 2: Calculate Median

For 2 reviewers: Median = (Score1 + Score2) / 2

The orchestrator's gate uses median(combined_score), NOT a re-aggregation of sub-scores. Each reviewer already should aggregate it internally.

Step 3: Check for High Variance

High variance = reviewers disagree significantly (difference > 2.0 points on any score).

Formula: |Reviewer1 - Reviewer2| > 2.0 → flag.

Step 4: Merge Issues Lists

Concatenate reviewer1.issues and reviewer2.issues, then de-duplicate by (description, evidence) pair. Keep the highest priority on duplicates. This merged list is what gets passed to the developer in retry feedback.

Step 5: Apply Orchestrator-Level Gate

• panel_combined_score = median(reviewer1.combined_score, reviewer2.combined_score)
• PASS if panel_combined_score >= threshold
• PASS if panel_combined_score >= 3.0 AND every entry in the merged issues list has priority == "Low"
• Otherwise FAIL → retry

---

Handling Disagreement

If reviewers significantly disagree (difference > 2.0 on combined_score or on any rubric criterion):

1. Flag the criterion (or the combined_score gap)
2. Present both reviewers' reasoning and issues with evidence
3. Ask user: "Reviewers disagree on [criterion]. Review manually?"
4. If yes: present evidence, get user decision
5. If no: use median (conservative approach)

Final Report

After all steps complete and DoD verification passes:

## Implementation Summary

### Task Status
- Task Status: `done` ✅
- All Definition of Done items: X/X PASS (100%)

### Configuration Used

| Setting | Value |
|---------|-------|
| **Standard Components Threshold** | {THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS}/5.0 |
| **Critical Components Threshold** | {THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS}/5.0 |
| **Lenient Threshold** | {LENIENT_THRESHOLD}/5.0 |
| **Max Iterations** | {MAX_ITERATIONS or "3"} |
| **Human Checkpoints** | {HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS or "None"} |
| **Skip Reviews** | {SKIP_REVIEWS} |
| **Continue Mode** | {CONTINUE_MODE} |
| **Refine Mode** | {REFINE_MODE} |

### Steps Completed

| Step | Title | Status | Verification | Combined Score | Iterations | Reviewer Confirmed |
|------|-------|--------|--------------|----------------|------------|--------------------|
| 1    | [Title] | ✅ | None | N/A | 1 | - |
| 2    | [Title] | ✅ | Panel of 2 | 4.5/5 | 1 | ✅ |
| 3    | [Title] | ✅ | Per-Item | 5/5 passed | 2 | ✅ |
| 4    | [Title] | ✅ | Single Judge | 4.2/5 | 3 | ✅ |

**Legend:**
- ✅ PASS - Score >= threshold for step type
- ⚠️ MAX_ITER - Did not pass but MAX_ITERATIONS reached, proceeded anyway
- ⏭️ SKIPPED - Step skipped (continue/refine mode)

### Verification Summary

- Total steps: X
- Steps with verification: Y
- Passed on first try: Z
- Required iteration: W
- Total iterations across all steps: V
- Final pass rate: 100%

### Definition of Done Verification

| Item | Status | Evidence |
|------|--------|----------|
| [DoD Item 1] | ✅ PASS | [Brief evidence] |
| [DoD Item 2] | ✅ PASS | [Brief evidence] |
| ... | ... | ... |

**Issues Fixed During Verification:**
1. [Issue]: [How it was fixed]
2. [Issue]: [How it was fixed]

### High-Variance Criteria (Reviewers Disagreed)

- [Criterion] in [Step]: Reviewer 1 scored X, Reviewer 2 scored Y

### Human Review Summary (if --human-in-the-loop used)

| Step | Checkpoint | User Action | Feedback Incorporated |
|------|------------|-------------|----------------------|
| 2    | After PASS | Continued | - |
| 4    | After iteration 2 | Feedback | "Improve error messages" |
| 6    | After PASS | Continued | - |

### Task File Updated

- Task moved from `in-progress/` to `done/` folder
- All step titles marked `[DONE]`
- All step subtasks marked `[X]`
- All Definition of Done items marked `[X]`

### Recommendations

1. [Any follow-up actions]
2. [Suggested improvements]

---

Execution Flow Diagram

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                IMPLEMENT TASK WITH VERIFICATION               │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                               │
│  Phase 0: Select Task                                         │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ Use provided name or auto-select from todo/ (if 1 task) │  │
│  │ → Move task from todo/ to in-progress/                  │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                           │                                   │
│                           ▼                                   │
│  Phase 1: Load Task                                           │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ Read $TASK_PATH → Parse steps                           │  │
│  │ → Extract #### Verification specs → Create TodoWrite    │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                           │                                   │
│                           ▼                                   │
│  Phase 2: Execute Steps (Respecting Dependencies)             │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │                                                          │  │
│  │  For each step:                                          │  │
│  │                                                          │  │
│  │  ┌──────────────┐    ┌───────────────┐    ┌───────────┐ │  │
│  │  │ developer    │───▶│ Reviewer Agent│───▶│ PASS?     │ │  │
│  │  │ Agent        │    │ (verify)      │    │           │ │  │
│  │  └──────────────┘    └───────────────┘    └───────────┘ │  │
│  │                                                │   │     │  │
│  │                                               PASS FAIL  │  │
│  │                                                │   │     │  │
│  │                                                ▼   ▼     │  │
│  │                                    ┌────────┐  Retry  │  │  │
│  │                                    │ Mark   │  with   │  │  │
│  │                                    │Complete│  issues │  │  │
│  │                                    └────────┘  ↺     │  │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                           │                                   │
│                           ▼                                   │
│  Phase 3: Definition of Done Verification                     │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │                                                         │  │
│  │  ┌──────────────┐    ┌───────────────┐    ┌───────────┐ │  │
│  │  │ DoD Reviewer │───▶│ All DoD       │───▶│ All PASS? │ │  │
│  │  │ Agent        │    │ items checked │    │           │ │  │
│  │  └──────────────┘    └───────────────┘    └───────────┘ │  │
│  │                                                │   │    │  │
│  │                                               Yes  No   │  │
│  │                                                │   │    │  │
│  │                                                ▼   ▼    │  │
│  │                                                Fix &    │  │
│  │                                                Retry    │  │
│  │                                                ↺        │  │
│  │                                                         │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                           │                                   │
│                           ▼                                   │
│  Phase 4: Move Task to Done                                   │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ mv in-progress/$TASK → done/$TASK                       │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                           │                                   │
│                           ▼                                   │
│  Phase 5: Aggregate & Report                                  │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ Collect all verification results                        │  │
│  │ → Calculate aggregate metrics                           │  │
│  │ → Generate final report                                 │  │
│  │ → Present to user                                       │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│                                                               │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

---

Usage Examples

Basic Usage

# Implement a specific task
/implement add-validation.feature.md

# Auto-select task from todo/ or in-progress/ (if only 1 task)
/implement

# Continue from last completed step
/implement add-validation.feature.md --continue

# Refine after user fixes project files (detects changes, re-verifies affected steps)
/implement add-validation.feature.md --refine

# Human review after every step
/implement add-validation.feature.md --human-in-the-loop

# Human review after specific steps only
/implement add-validation.feature.md --human-in-the-loop 2,4,6

# Higher quality threshold (stricter) - sets both standard and critical to 4.5
/implement add-validation.feature.md --target-quality 4.5

# Different thresholds for standard (3.5) and critical (4.5) components
/implement add-validation.feature.md --target-quality 3.5,4.5

# Lower quality threshold for both (faster convergence)
/implement add-validation.feature.md --target-quality 3.5

# Unlimited iterations (default is 3)
/implement add-validation.feature.md --max-iterations unlimited

# Skip all per-step code-reviewer checks (fast but no quality gates)
/implement add-validation.feature.md --skip-reviews

# Custom lenient threshold for steps marked lenient by qa-engineer
/implement add-validation.feature.md --lenient-threshold 3.0

# Combined: continue with human review
/implement add-validation.feature.md --continue --human-in-the-loop

Example 1: Implementing a Feature

User: /implement add-validation.feature.md

Phase 0: Task Selection...
Found task in: .specs/tasks/todo/add-validation.feature.md
Moving to in-progress: .specs/tasks/in-progress/add-validation.feature.md

Phase 1: Loading task...
Task: "Add form validation service"
Steps identified: 4 steps

Verification plan (from #### Verification sections):
- Step 1: No verification (directory creation)
- Step 2: Panel of 2 evaluations (ValidationService)
- Step 3: Per-item evaluations (3 validators)
- Step 4: Single evaluation (integration)

Phase 2: Executing...

Step 1: Launching sdd:developer agent...
  Agent: "Implement Step 1: Create Directory Structure..."
  Result: ✅ Directories created
  Verification: Skipped (simple operation)
  Status: ✅ COMPLETE

Step 2: Launching sdd:developer agent...
  Agent: "Implement Step 2: Create ValidationService..."
  Result: Files created, tests passing

  Launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel (Panel of 2)...
  Reviewer 1: combined_score 4.3/5.0
  Reviewer 2: combined_score 4.5/5.0
  Panel median: 4.4/5.0 (threshold 4.5) — issues all Low priority → PASS ✅
  Status: ✅ COMPLETE (Reviewer Confirmed)

[Continue for all steps...]

Phase 3: Definition of Done Verification...
Launching sdd:core-reviewer agent...
  Agent: "Verify all Definition of Done items..."
  Result: 4/4 items PASS ✅

Phase 4: Moving task to done...
  mv .specs/tasks/in-progress/add-validation.feature.md .specs/tasks/done/

Phase 5: Final Report
Implementation complete.
- 4/4 steps completed
- 6 artifacts verified
- All passed first try
- Definition of Done: 4/4 PASS
- Task location: .specs/tasks/done/add-validation.feature.md ✅

Example 2: Handling DoD Item Failure

[All steps complete...]

Phase 3: Definition of Done Verification...
Launching sdd:core-reviewer agent...
  Agent: "Verify all Definition of Done items..."
  Result: 3/4 items PASS, 1 FAIL ❌

Failing item:
- "Code follows ESLint rules": 356 errors found

Should I attempt to fix this issue? [Y/n]

User: Y

Launching sdd:developer agent...
  Agent: "Fix ESLint errors..."
  Result: Fixed 356 errors, 0 warnings ✅

Re-launching sdd:core-reviewer agent...
  Agent: "Re-verify all Definition of Done items..."
  Result: 4/4 items PASS ✅

Phase 4: Moving task to done...
All DoD checkboxes marked complete ✅

Phase 5: Final Report
Task verification complete.
- All DoD items now PASS
- 1 issue fixed (ESLint errors)
- Task location: .specs/tasks/done/ ✅

Example 3: Handling Verification Failure

Step 3 Implementation complete.
Launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel (Panel of 2)...

Reviewer 1: combined_score 3.5/5.0
Reviewer 2: combined_score 3.2/5.0
Panel median: 3.35/5.0 — below threshold 4.5 → FAIL

Issues found (consolidated from spec_compliance + code_quality + waste):
- [High] Spec compliance — Test Coverage criterion scored 2/5
  Evidence: src/decision/decision.service.spec.ts (no edge-case tests)
  Suggestion: Add empty-input and null-input tests
- [High] Code quality — Reuse: custom Result type duplicates existing one
  Evidence: src/decision/types.ts:12 vs src/types/result.ts:5
  Suggestion: Import and use the project-standard Result<T, E>
- [Medium] Waste — Inventory: 3 unused imports in decision.service.ts
  Suggestion: Remove unused imports

Launching sdd:developer agent with consolidated reviewer feedback...
Agent: "Fix Step 3: Address reviewer issues (High → Medium)..."
Result: Issues fixed, tests added, imports cleaned

Re-launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel...
Reviewer 1: combined_score 4.5/5.0
Reviewer 2: combined_score 4.6/5.0
Panel median: 4.55/5.0 ≥ threshold 4.5 → PASS ✅
Status: ✅ COMPLETE (Reviewer Confirmed)

Example 4: Continue from Interruption

User: /implement add-validation.feature.md --continue

Phase 0: Parsing flags...
Configuration:
- Continue Mode: true
- Target Quality: 4.0/5.0 (default)

Scanning task file for completed steps...
Found: Step 1 [DONE], Step 2 [DONE]
Last completed: Step 2

Verifying Step 2 artifacts...
Launching sdd:code-reviewer for Step 2...
Reviewer: combined_score 4.3/5.0 ≥ threshold 4.0 → PASS ✅
Marking step as complete in task file...

Resuming from Step 3...

Step 3: Launching sdd:developer agent...
[continues normally]

Example 5: Refine After User Fixes

# User manually fixed src/validation/validation.service.ts
# (This file was created in Step 2: Create ValidationService)

User: /implement add-validation.feature.md --refine

Phase 0: Parsing flags...
Configuration:
- Refine Mode: true

Detecting changed project files...
Changed files:
- src/validation/validation.service.ts (modified)

Mapping files to implementation steps...
- src/validation/validation.service.ts → Step 2 (Create ValidationService)

Earliest affected step: Step 2
Preserving: Step 1 (unchanged)
Re-verifying from: Step 2 onwards

Step 2: Launching sdd:code-reviewer to verify with user's changes...
Reviewer: combined_score 4.3/5.0 ≥ threshold 4.0 → PASS ✅
Rest of logic is not affected, proceeding...

Step 3: Launching sdd:code-reviewer to verify...
Reviewer: combined_score 2.8/5.0 — issues include "typescript error in file" (High priority) → FAIL
Launching sdd:developer agent with reviewer issues to fix the error and align logic with user's changes...

Re-launching sdd:code-reviewer to verify fixed logic...
Reviewer: combined_score 4.5/5.0 → PASS ✅

[continues verifying remaining steps...]

All steps verified with user's changes incorporated ✅

Example 6: Human-in-the-Loop Review

User: /implement add-validation.feature.md --human-in-the-loop

Configuration:
- Human Checkpoints: All steps

Step 1: Launching sdd:developer agent...
Result: Directories created ✅

---
## 🔍 Human Review Checkpoint - Step 1

**Step:** Create Directory Structure
**Combined Score:** N/A (verification level: None)
**Status:** ✅ COMPLETE

**Artifacts Created:**
- src/validation/
- src/validation/tests/

**Action Required:** Review the above artifacts and provide feedback or continue.

> Continue? [Y/n/feedback]: Y
---

Step 2: Launching sdd:developer agent...
Result: ValidationService created ✅

Launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel (Panel of 2)...
Reviewer 1: combined_score 4.5/5.0
Reviewer 2: combined_score 4.3/5.0
Panel median: 4.4/5.0 ≥ threshold (lenient mode in this example) → PASS ✅

---
## 🔍 Human Review Checkpoint - Step 2

**Step:** Create ValidationService
**Combined Score:** 4.4/5.0 (threshold: 4.0)
**Status:** ✅ PASS

**Artifacts Created:**
- src/validation/validation.service.ts
- src/validation/tests/validation.service.spec.ts

**Reviewer Feedback (issues):**
- [Low] Error messages could be more descriptive (Suggestion-level only)

**Action Required:** Review the above artifacts and provide feedback or continue.

> Continue? [Y/n/feedback]: The error messages could be more descriptive
---

Incorporating feedback: "error messages could be more descriptive"
Re-launching sdd:developer agent with feedback...
[iteration continues]

Example 7: Strict Quality Threshold

User: /implement critical-api.feature.md --target-quality 4.5

Configuration:
- Target Quality: 4.5/5.0

Step 2: Implementing critical API endpoint...
Result: Endpoint created

Launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents (Panel of 2)...
Reviewer 1: combined_score 4.2/5.0
Reviewer 2: combined_score 4.3/5.0
Panel median: 4.25/5.0 — below threshold 4.5 → FAIL

Iteration 1: Re-launching developer with consolidated reviewer issues...
[fixes applied]

Re-launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents...
Reviewer 1: combined_score 4.4/5.0
Reviewer 2: combined_score 4.5/5.0
Panel median: 4.45/5.0 — below threshold 4.5 → FAIL

Iteration 2: Re-launching developer with reviewer issues...
[more fixes applied]

Re-launching 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents...
Reviewer 1: combined_score 4.6/5.0
Reviewer 2: combined_score 4.5/5.0
Panel median: 4.55/5.0 ≥ threshold 4.5 → PASS ✅

Status: ✅ COMPLETE (passed on iteration 2)

---

Error Handling

Implementation Failure

If sdd:developer agent reports failure:

1. Present the failure details to user
2. Ask clarification questions that could help resolve
3. Launch sdd:developer agent again with clarifications

Reviewer Disagreement (Panel of 2)

If the two sdd:code-reviewer reports disagree significantly on combined_score (difference > 2.0) or on any individual rubric criterion (difference > 2.0):

1. Present both reviewers' reasoning and issues with evidence
2. Ask user to resolve: "Reviewers disagree on [criterion]. Your decision?"
3. Proceed based on user decision (or use median if user defers)

Refine Mode: No Changes Detected

If --refine mode finds no git changes in the project:

1. Report: "No project file changes detected since last commit."
2. Suggest: "Make edits to project files first, then run --refine again."
3. Alternatively: "Run without --refine to re-implement all steps."

Refine Mode: Changes Don't Map to Steps

If --refine mode finds changed files but none map to implementation steps:

1. Report: "Changed files don't match any implementation step's expected outputs."
2. List the changed files detected
3. Suggest: "Verify manually or run without --refine to re-verify all steps."

---

Checklist

Before completing implementation:

Configuration Handling

• Parsed all flags from $ARGUMENTS correctly
• Used THRESHOLD_FOR_STANDARD_COMPONENTS for Single Judge and Per-Item Judges steps
• Used THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS for Panel of 2 Judges steps
• Used LENIENT_THRESHOLD only for steps the qa-engineer's spec marks lenient
• Iterated until orchestrator-level PASS rule satisfied (or MAX_ITERATIONS reached, default 3)
• Triggered human-in-the-loop checkpoints ONLY for steps in HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS
• If SKIP_REVIEWS is true: Skipped ALL code-reviewer dispatches
• If CONTINUE_MODE is true: Verified last step (via code-reviewer) and resumed correctly
• If REFINE_MODE is true: Detected changed project files, mapped to steps, re-verified from earliest affected step

Context Protection (CRITICAL)

• Read ONLY the task file ($TASK_PATH in .specs/tasks/in-progress/) - no other files
• Did NOT read implementation outputs, reference files, or artifacts
• Used sub-agent reports for status - did NOT read files to "check"

Delegation

• ALL implementations done by sdd:developer agents via Task tool
• ALL per-step verifications done by sdd:code-reviewer agents via Task tool
• Did NOT perform any verification yourself
• Did NOT skip any verification steps (unless SKIP_REVIEWS is true)

Stage Tracking

• Each step marked complete ONLY after orchestrator-level PASS (or immediately if SKIP_REVIEWS)
• Task file updated after each step completion:
  • Step title marked with [DONE]
  • Subtasks marked with [X]
• Todo list updated after each step completion

Execution Quality

• All steps executed in dependency order
• Parallel steps launched simultaneously (not sequentially)
• Each sdd:developer agent received focused prompt with exact step
• All non-None verification levels were reviewed by sdd:code-reviewer (unless SKIP_REVIEWS)
• Panel-of-2 used 2 reviewers in parallel with median voting on combined_score
• Per-Item used one reviewer per item in parallel
• Failed reviews iterated using reviewer's issues as feedback until orchestrator-level PASS
• Final report generated with reviewer confirmation status
• User informed of any reviewer disagreements (Panel high-variance criteria)

Human-in-the-Loop (if enabled)

• Displayed checkpoint after each step in HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP_STEPS
• Incorporated user feedback into subsequent iterations/steps
• Paused workflow when user requested

Final Verification and Completion

• Definition of Done verification agent launched
• All DoD items verified (PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED status)
• Failing DoD items fixed via sdd:developer agents
• Re-verification performed after fixes
• Task moved from in-progress/ to done/ folder
• All DoD checkboxes marked [X] in task file
• Final verification report presented to user

---

Appendix A: Verification Specifications Reference

This appendix documents how verification is specified in task files. During Phase 2 (Execute Steps), you will reference these specifications to understand how to verify each artifact.

How Task Files Define Verification

Task files define verification requirements in #### Verification sections within each implementation step. These sections specify:

Required Elements

1. Level: Verification complexity (this label drives how many sdd:code-reviewer agents are dispatched, see Phase 2)

   • None - Simple operations (mkdir, delete, schema-validated config) - skip code-reviewer entirely
   • Single Judge - Non-critical artifacts - 1 reviewer dispatched; orchestrator threshold 4.0
   • Panel of 2 Judges - Critical artifacts - 2 reviewers dispatched in parallel, median voting on combined_score; orchestrator threshold 4.0 or 4.5
   • Per-Item Judges - Multiple similar items - 1 reviewer per item dispatched in parallel; orchestrator threshold 4.0 per item

2. Artifact(s): Path(s) to file(s) being reviewed

   • Example: src/decision/decision.service.ts, src/decision/tests/decision.service.spec.ts

3. Threshold: Minimum passing score

   • Typically 4.0/5.0 for standard quality
   • Sometimes 4.5/5.0 for critical components

4. Reference Pattern (Optional): Path to example of good implementation

   • Example: src/app.service.ts for NestJS service patterns

Rubric Format

Rubrics in task files use this markdown table format:

| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| [Name 1]  | 0.XX   | [What to evaluate] |
| [Name 2]  | 0.XX   | [What to evaluate] |
| ...       | ...    | ...         |

Requirements:

• Weights MUST sum to 1.0
• Each criterion has a clear, measurable description
• Typically 3-6 criteria per rubric

Example:

| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| Type Correctness | 0.35 | Types match specification exactly |
| API Contract Alignment | 0.25 | Aligns with documented API contract |
| Export Structure | 0.20 | Barrel exports correctly expose all types |
| Code Quality | 0.20 | Follows project TypeScript conventions |

Scoring Scale

When the sdd:code-reviewer evaluates artifacts, it uses this 5-point scale for each criterion

• 1 (Poor): Does not meet requirements

  • Missing essential elements
  • Fundamental misunderstanding of requirements

• 2 (Below Average): Multiple issues, partially meets requirements

  • Some correct elements, but significant gaps
  • Would require substantial rework

• 3 (Adequate): Meets basic requirements

  • Functional but minimal
  • Room for improvement in quality or completeness

• 4 (Good): Meets all requirements, few minor issues

  • Solid implementation
  • Minor polish could improve it

• 5 (Excellent): Exceeds requirements

  • Exceptional quality
  • Goes beyond what was asked
  • Could serve as reference implementation

Using Verification Specs During Execution

During Phase 2 (Execute Steps):

1. After a sdd:developer agent completes implementation
2. Read the step's #### Verification subsection
3. Extract: Level, Artifact paths, Threshold
4. Launch the appropriate count of sdd:code-reviewer agent(s) based on Level
5. Pass exactly the 4 inputs to each reviewer (artifact, step number, specification path, CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT) — NEVER a threshold
6. Receive the reviewer's combined report; aggregate (median for Panel)
7. Apply the orchestrator-level threshold gate against combined_score
8. If FAIL, launch sdd:developer with the consolidated reviewer issues as feedback and re-verify

Example Verification Section in Task File:

#### Verification

**Level:** Panel of 2 Judges with Aggregated Voting
**Artifact:** `src/decision/decision.service.ts`, `src/decision/tests/decision.service.spec.ts`

**Rubric:**

| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| Routing Logic | 0.20 | Correctly routes by customerType |
| Drip Feed Implementation | 0.25 | 2% random approval for rejected New customers only |
| Response Formatting | 0.20 | Correct decision outcome, triggeredRules preserved, ISO 8601 timestamp |
| Testability | 0.15 | Injectable randomGenerator enables deterministic testing |
| Test Coverage | 0.20 | Unit tests cover approval, rejection, drip feed, routing, timestamp |

**Reference Pattern:** NestJS service patterns, ZenEngineService API

This specification tells you to:

• Launch 2 sdd:code-reviewer agents in parallel (Panel of 2 → Pattern B-Panel)
• Pass them the artifact paths (service + test files)
• Do NOT pass any threshold to the reviewers — they are threshold-blind by design
• Receive each reviewer's combined_score; the orchestrator computes median(combined_score) and applies THRESHOLD_FOR_CRITICAL_COMPONENTS (default 4.5) at this layer
• If FAIL, dispatch the developer with consolidated reviewer issues; iterate up to MAX_ITERATIONS
• Reference existing NestJS patterns for comparison