dev

name	dev
description	Forge DEV stage — implement an already-planned /plan task list into committed, test-backed code. Reads tasks.md + plan.md, then drives each task through a subagent TDD loop (implementer → spec-compliance reviewer → code-quality reviewer) with RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, HARD-GATE evidence checks, and a spec-gap decision score. Use when a plan and task list already exist and it is time to implement — triggers: "/dev", "start the dev stage", "build the tasks", "implement tasks.md test-first", "run the implementer/reviewer TDD loop", "write the code for the planned tasks one by one", "work through the task list with subagents". Per-task coding ONLY. Do NOT use for creating the design doc or task list (that is plan), for the post-build type-check/lint/security/test gate (validate), for pushing the branch or opening the PR (ship), for addressing PR review feedback (review), or for orchestrating several stages / taking an issue end-to-end to a merged PR (smith).
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob
next	validate
terminal	false

Implement each task from the /plan task list using a subagent-driven loop: implementer → spec compliance reviewer → code quality reviewer per task.

Dev

Chain (HARD-GATE): the ONLY skill you invoke after dev is validate. Never open a PR straight from dev.

This skill reads the task list created by /plan and implements each task using a three-stage subagent loop. TDD is enforced inside each implementer subagent.

Usage

/dev

---

Setup

Step 1: Load context

# Find task list and design doc
ls docs/work/

Read:

• Task list: docs/work/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>/tasks.md — extract ALL task text upfront
• Design doc: docs/work/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>/plan.md — including ambiguity policy section

Step 2: Create decisions log

Create an empty decisions log at the start of every /dev session:

# docs/work/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>/decisions.md

Format for each entry:

## Decision N
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Task**: Task N — <title>
**Gap**: [what the spec didn't cover]
**Score**: [filled checklist total]
**Route**: PROCEED / SPEC-REVIEWER / BLOCKED
**Choice made**: [if PROCEED: what was decided and why]
**Status**: RESOLVED / PENDING-DEVELOPER-INPUT

Step 3: Pre-flight checks

<HARD-GATE: /dev start>
Do NOT write any code until ALL confirmed:
1. git branch --show-current output is NOT main or master
2. git worktree list shows the worktree path for this feature
3. Task list file confirmed to exist (use Read tool — do not assume)
4. Decisions log file created
</HARD-GATE>

---

Multi-developer conflict check (soft block)

Before starting the per-task loop, check for cross-developer conflicts:

# Auto-sync to get latest team state (non-blocking)
forge sync || true

# Check for conflicts with the current Forge issue
bash scripts/conflict-detect.sh --issue <forge-id>

If exit code 2 (validation error): show error message, abort — do not show conflict prompt.

If exit code 1 (conflicts found):

• Display the conflict output to the developer
• Ask: "Other developers are working in overlapping areas. Proceed anyway? (y/n)"
• If n: exit cleanly, no side effects
• If y: log override via forge comment <id> "Conflict override: proceeding despite overlap with <conflicting-issues>", then continue to Per-Task Loop
• Audit: record conflict override per OWASP A09

If exit code 0: proceed silently to Per-Task Loop.

---

Per-Task Loop

Repeat for each task in the task list, in order:

Step A: Dispatch implementer subagent

Provide the subagent with:

• Full task text (copy the complete task content — do NOT send just the file path)
• Relevant design doc sections for this task
• Recent git log showing what has already been implemented

The implementer subagent:

1. Asks clarifying questions before writing any code
2. Implements using RED-GREEN-REFACTOR
3. Self-reviews for correctness
4. Commits with a descriptive message

<HARD-GATE: TDD enforcement (inside implementer subagent)>
Do NOT write any production code until:
1. A FAILING test exists for that code
2. The test has been run and output shows it FAILING
3. The failure reason matches the expected missing behavior

If code was written before its test: delete it. Start with the test.
"The test would obviously fail" is not evidence. Run it and show the output.
</HARD-GATE>

---

Step B: Decision gate (when implementer hits a spec gap)

If the implementer encounters something not specified in the design doc, STOP and fill this checklist BEFORE deciding how to proceed:

Gap: [describe exactly what the spec doesn't cover]

Score each dimension (0=No / 1=Possibly / 2=Yes):
[ ] 1. Files affected beyond the current task?
[ ] 2. Changes a function signature or public export?
[ ] 3. Changes a shared module used by other tasks?
[ ] 4. Changes or touches persistent data or schema?
[ ] 5. Changes user-visible behavior not discussed in design doc?
[ ] 6. Affects auth, permissions, or data exposure?
[ ] 7. Hard to reverse without cascading changes to other files?
TOTAL: ___ / 14

Mandatory overrides — any of these = automatically BLOCKED:
[ ] Security dimension (6) scored 2
[ ] Schema migration or data model change
[ ] Removes or changes an existing public API endpoint
[ ] Affects a task that is already implemented and committed

Score routing:

• 0-3: PROCEED — make the decision, document in decisions log with full reasoning
• 4-7: SPEC-REVIEWER — route this decision to spec reviewer. Continue other independent tasks while waiting
• 8+, or any mandatory override triggered: BLOCKED — document in decisions log with Status=PENDING-DEVELOPER-INPUT. Complete all other independent tasks first. Surface to developer at /dev exit

Log the decision entry before continuing.

---

Step C: Spec compliance review

After the implementer finishes the task, dispatch a spec compliance reviewer subagent.

Provide:

• Full task text (what was supposed to be implemented)
• Relevant design doc sections
• git diff for this task's commits

Reviewer checks:

• All requirements from the task text are implemented
• Nothing extra was added beyond task scope
• Edge cases documented in design doc are handled
• TDD evidence: test exists, test was run failing, then passing

If spec issues found: implementer fixes → re-review → repeat until ✅

<HARD-GATE: spec before quality>
Do NOT dispatch code quality reviewer until spec compliance reviewer returns ✅ for this task.
Running quality review before spec compliance is the wrong order.
</HARD-GATE>

---

Step D: Code quality review

After spec ✅, dispatch a code quality reviewer subagent.

Provide:

• git SHAs for this task's commits
• The changed code (git diff)

Reviewer checks:

• Naming: clear, descriptive, consistent with codebase conventions
• Structure: functions not too long, proper separation of concerns
• Duplication: no copy-paste that could be extracted
• Test coverage: tests cover happy path and at least one error path
• No magic numbers, no commented-out code, no TODO without a Forge issue

If quality issues found: implementer fixes → re-review → repeat until ✅

---

Step E: Task completion

<HARD-GATE: task completion>
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.

Do NOT mark task complete or move to next task until ALL confirmed in this session:
1. Spec compliance reviewer returned ✅
2. Code quality reviewer returned ✅
3. Identify what command proves this task is done (e.g. `bun test`, a CLI invocation, a script run).
4. Run it fresh — show the actual output. "Last run was fine" is not evidence.
5. Tests run fresh — actual output shows passing.
6. Implementer has committed (git log shows the commit).
7. Progress recorded on the Forge issue — `forge comment <id> "task <task-num>/<total> done: <title> (<commit-sha>, <test-count> tests, <gate-count> gates)"` ran successfully (exit code 0). The Forge comment is the kernel-native record. If the recording command errors: STOP, show the error, do not proceed to the next task.

Forbidden phrases (these are not evidence):
- "should pass"
- "looks good"
- "seems to work"
</HARD-GATE>

Mark task complete. Move to next task.

---

/dev Completion

After all tasks are complete (or BLOCKED):

Final code review

Dispatch a final code reviewer for the full implementation:

• Overall coherence: does the feature hang together as a whole?
• Cross-task consistency: naming, patterns, style consistent across all tasks?
• Integration: do all the pieces connect correctly?

Surface BLOCKED decisions

If any decisions have Status=PENDING-DEVELOPER-INPUT:

⏸️  /dev blocked — developer input needed

The following decisions were deferred during implementation:

Decision 1: [gap description]
  Task: Task N — <title>
  Score: 11/14 (mandatory override: schema change)
  Options considered: [A] vs [B]
  Recommendation: [A] because [reason]
  Blocked tasks: Task 6, Task 7 (depend on this decision)

Decision 2: ...

Please review and respond. After decisions are resolved, the implementer
will complete the blocked tasks and re-run spec + quality review.

Wait for developer input. After decisions resolved: implement blocked tasks → spec review → quality review → complete.

/dev exit gate

<HARD-GATE: /dev exit>
Do NOT declare /dev complete until:
1. All tasks are marked complete OR have BLOCKED status with PENDING-DEVELOPER-INPUT
2. BLOCKED decisions have been surfaced to developer and are awaiting input
3. Final code reviewer has approved (or issues fixed and re-reviewed)
4. All decisions in decisions log have Status of RESOLVED or PENDING-DEVELOPER-INPUT
5. No unresolved spec or quality issues remain
</HARD-GATE>

Record stage transition

# Confirm the issue carries design + acceptance context.
forge issue show <id>

# Record the dev→validate transition kernel-natively (Stage:/Summary:/Decisions:/Artifacts:/Next: envelope).
forge comment <id> "Stage: dev complete → ready for validate
Summary: <N tasks done, M decision gates fired>
Decisions: <key spec gaps and how they were resolved>
Artifacts: <changed source files and test files>
Next: <validation priorities — lint issues, type concerns>"

---

Decision Gate Calibration

The frequency of decision gates is a plan quality metric:

• 0 gates fired: Excellent — Phase 1 Q&A covered all cases
• 1-2 gates fired: Good — minor gaps, normal
• 3-5 gates fired: Plan was incomplete — note for Phase 1 improvement next feature
• 5+ gates fired: Phase 1 Q&A was insufficient — the ambiguity policy field needed to be more specific

Document the gate count in the final commit message.

---

Dynamic Output

The completion summary is generated from the live task list, decisions log, Forge issue state, commits, and validation output at runtime. Do not copy a static example into this skill file; run /dev to view the current task/status summary.

Integration with Workflow

Utility: /status  -> Understand current context before starting

Default template:
  /dev       -> Implement each task with subagent-driven TDD (you are here)
  /validate  -> Type check, lint, tests, security
  /ship      -> Push + create PR
  /review    -> Address PR feedback
  /verify    -> Post-merge health check

Pre-merge gate: doc updates + CI-green checkpoint embedded in /ship and /review (not a separate stage).

Tips

• Send full task text to subagents: Never send the file path — copy the complete task text directly into the subagent prompt
• TDD lives inside the implementer: The implementer subagent is responsible for RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, not the orchestrating /dev session
• Spec before quality — always: A task that passes quality review but fails spec compliance has still failed
• Decision gates are rare with a good plan: If gates fire frequently, the Phase 1 Q&A needs more depth next time
• BLOCKED ≠ failed: Surfacing a blocked decision with documentation and a recommendation is the correct behavior