一键导入
implementer
Pure development workflow with test-first development and coverage review. Used by coordinator as a subagent. Never manages beads issues or commits.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Pure development workflow with test-first development and coverage review. Used by coordinator as a subagent. Never manages beads issues or commits.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Single entry point for all implementation work. Triages tasks, manages beads issues, delegates to implementer skill, runs reviewers, creates PRs.
Resolves rebase conflicts by gathering full context from beads issues, git diffs, and surrounding code. Invoked by coordinator and merge-queue after a fast-path rebase fails.
Collaboratively plan epics by exploring the codebase, discussing tradeoffs, filing issues, and running plan review. Invoked via /plan.
Review PR diff for bugs, error handling gaps, security issues, and API contract mismatches. Spawned by coordinator before PR creation.
Review PR test quality — meaningful coverage, edge cases, integration tests, and test accuracy. Spawned by coordinator before PR creation.
Lightweight sub-agent that runs quality gates and returns a concise pass/fail result. Used by implementer and coordinator to preserve context.
| name | implementer |
| description | Pure development workflow with test-first development and coverage review. Used by coordinator as a subagent. Never manages beads issues or commits. |
Follow these phases in strict order. Do not skip phases. Do not proceed until the current phase's gate is satisfied.
This skill covers development only — no issue tracking, no pushes. The coordinator handles those.
sed, or other indirect tricks. Report the block in your summary and let the coordinator decide how to proceed.Write tests for the behavior you are about to change or add. Do this before touching any production code.
If the task issue lists planned test cases, implement those first — they are the acceptance criteria. Then add additional high-value tests for gaps you identify (error paths, edge cases).
This phase is NOT optional. Common excuses that do NOT exempt you from writing tests:
Test documentation: Planned and critical tests (integration, e2e, non-obvious unit tests) should include a docstring answering: what contract is verified, why it matters, what breaks if violated. Tests with descriptive names in table-driven style are often self-documenting — use judgment.
Gate: Your new tests fail (or, for pure deletions/removals, you can write tests asserting the old behavior is gone — these will pass after implementation). If your new tests already pass, they are not testing anything new. Rewrite them.
Make the production code changes. Keep changes minimal and focused on the task.
Delegate quality-gate runs to a test-runner sub-agent to preserve your context window. Do NOT run these commands directly with the Bash tool — test output is verbose and wastes context you need for later phases. Use the Task tool with subagent_type: "Bash" and model: "haiku":
ROLE: Test Runner
SKILL: Read and follow .claude/skills/test-runner/SKILL.md
WORKTREE: <worktree-path>
COMMANDS:
- <test commands from the Quality Gates table in CLAUDE.md matching changed code>
Only run gates not already enforced by git hooks. If your project's pre-commit/pre-push hooks already run lint/typecheck/unit-test, do not duplicate them here — your gate runs should focus on what's not in the hooks (typically integration and e2e tests).
Gate: Sub-agent reports PASS. If FAIL, read the error summary, fix the issue, and re-delegate. Only run quality gates directly in your own context if you need to debug a failure interactively.
This is an audit, not a formality. Evaluate whether your tests actually cover the changes you made.
git diff --name-only
Separate the output into production files and test files.
Integration tests are needed when changes affect:
If integration tests are needed, write them.
Write any missing tests identified above. Then re-run quality gates via the test-runner sub-agent.
Gate: All tests pass, including your new coverage additions. If you identified no gaps in Steps 2-3, document your reasoning (e.g., "Changes were purely deletions; added regression tests in Phase 1 confirming removed elements no longer render").
This must be the very last thing you output. The coordinator reads your result — keep it concise to avoid polluting its context.
Produce exactly this and nothing else after it:
IMPLEMENTATION RESULT: SUCCESS | FAILURE
Task: <task-id or "N/A" if not provided>
Commit: <full commit hash, or "N/A" on failure>
## What changed
- <1 bullet per logical change, max 5>
## Files modified
- <path> — <what changed in 1 phrase>
## Test coverage
- <1 bullet per test file added/modified, what it covers>
## Concerns
- <anything the coordinator should know, or "None">
If implementation failed, replace "What changed" with:
## Error
<what went wrong — 1-3 sentences>
## Attempted
- <what you tried>