ry-start

name	ry-start
description	Полный lifecycle задачи: init, research, plan, implement, verify, commit, sync; ревью только по явному запросу. Используй для: реализуй задачу, доработай, исправь качественно, сделай фичу, end-to-end, доведи до конца. EN triggers: ry-start, full SDLC, implement task, build feature, complete lifecycle, explicit review only.

ry-start

Purpose

Implement a task to a high-quality, scalable, synchronized state. Speed is secondary to correctness, consistency, maintainability, and clean git history.

Workflow

1. If context is missing, run a scoped ry-init automatically.
2. Understand the prompt. For ambiguity, ask concise Russian questions with options.
3. Research current code through Serena memories and semantic tools (serena_find_symbol, serena_get_symbols_overview, serena_find_referencing_symbols).
4. Research current docs, patterns, and alternatives through ry-explore. Prefer Context7 MCP for official versioned docs, DeepWiki MCP for public repo architecture, and Grep MCP for real production usage patterns.
5. Read references/context-sufficiency-gate.md and pass the gate before editing code.
6. Write a detailed plan. Verify each plan item against code using Serena before editing.
7. Create or use a feature branch/worktree. Use stacked PRs only when the task naturally splits into independent logical PRs.
8. Implement strictly by plan, adapting only after code evidence. Make frequent atomic Conventional Commits.
9. Provide progress checkpoints after meaningful milestones or every 2-3 completed plan groups.
10. Fix all issues in touched scope plus affected integration path. If wider technical debt is found, ask whether to expand scope.
11. Run quality gates using project scripts, OpenCode LSP (auto-starts for detected file extensions), and detected stack checks. Use verification-quality-gates skill.
12. Trigger browser validation for UI/browser-visible work unless auth blocks it; if auth blocks, report the limitation and use available evidence. Use browser-tool-routing and browser-validation skills.
13. Apply security implementation guidance for security-sensitive changes; run ry-sec-review only when the owner explicitly asks for review/audit/security review.
14. Run reviewer subagents only when the owner explicitly asks for review, audit, security review, rules review, or ry-review; otherwise skip the expensive review phase. Reviewer output transport follows references/reviewer-protocol.md: file-first reports plus compact summaries. Explicit review may invoke up to six parallel reviewer subagents in a single Task fan-out with self-contained read-only prompts.
15. Run flow-post-task-sync before final response.

Deploy Intent Routing

If the owner request includes deploy, production, server rollout, sync-and-deploy, or a named deployment target, do not finish after implementation. After code validation and Serena/docs sync, route into /ry-deploy with the same scope and target. If the deploy contract is incomplete, ask for the missing server, branch, environment, health-check, rollback, or credential decision before deploying. Never invent server access or deployment targets.

Automatic Helper Routing

The owner normally writes prompts in Russian. ry-start must route helper skills automatically instead of waiting for explicit helper skill names:

Russian intent pattern	Helper skills
изучи код, посмотри проект, реализуй, доработай, исправь, рефакторинг, ревью, архитектура, файлы, директории, symbols, implementation scope	serena-code-workflow, lsp-routing, quality-first-engineering, implementation-discipline
исследуй интернет, изучи в интернете, посмотри документацию, best practices, migration, API behavior, framework/library setup, MCP/tool sources	tech-research (Context7, DeepWiki, Grep MCP), then web-research for broader sources
проверь в браузере, визуально, UI, адаптив, скриншот, pixel-perfect, user flow, business-logic checks	browser-tool-routing, browser-validation
консоль, сеть, runtime, layout, hydration, Lighthouse, performance, browser-only failures	browser-debug
Figma, дизайн, UI, верстка, дизайн-система, shadcn/ui, ReactBits, FSD, tokens, pixel-perfect design	ry-design, figma-to-code, design-system-implementation, fsd-frontend-architecture, design-validation
auth/authz/API/input/file/dependency/config/secrets/payment/admin/external-integration	owasp-top-10-implementation
explicit review, audit, ry-review, ry-sec-review, ry-rules-review, reviewer subagents, security/rules review	matching reviewer tracks; security track only for explicit security-review request or security-sensitive explicit review
завершение, финализация, durable code/config/docs/memory changes produced	verification-quality-gates, serena-memory-sync, flow-post-task-sync

Context Sufficiency

Do not implement from a shallow prompt. Before editing, the model must know the relevant architecture, files, symbols, DB/schema/API/config contracts, tests, integration paths, current project patterns, and current external API/framework guidance needed for the task.

If the model cannot answer the gate questions in references/context-sufficiency-gate.md, it must gather more evidence through Serena, LSP, ry-explore, browser/security/design workflows, or ask the owner with options. This is a quality guard, not a hard blocker: the correct response is to enrich context until implementation is safe.

Reviewer Opt-In

Invoking ry-start alone is not permission to use parallel reviewer subagents. Reviewer tracks are orchestrated only by explicit review intents such as ry-review, ry-sec-review, ry-rules-review, "сделай ревью", "security review", or "аудит". Prompts must be self-contained and read-only for reviewers. Reviewer subagents use mode: subagent, hidden: true, permission: { edit: "deny" } as defined in .opencode/agents/.

Non-Negotiables

• No hacks, temporary workarounds, or untracked debt in touched scope.
• No fake green checks. If a check cannot run, say why.
• No silent destructive git actions. Branch/worktree cleanup requires verified merged state.
• No secrets in commits, logs, docs, memories, or prompts.