subagent-driven-development

Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.

Core principle: Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration

When to Use

graph TD
    A{{"Have implementation plan?"}} -->|yes| B{{"Tasks mostly independent?"}};
    A -->|no| F["Manual execution or brainstorm first"];
    B -->|yes| C{{"Stay in this session?"}};
    B -->|no - tightly coupled| F;
    C -->|yes| D["subagent-driven-development"];
    C -->|no - parallel session| E["executing-plans"];

    classDef endnode fill:#f9f;
    classDef decision fill:#ddf;
    classDef process fill:#e6f2ff;

    class A,B,C decision;
    class D,E,F process;

vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):

• Same session (no context switch)
• Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
• Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
• Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)

The Process

graph TD
    Start["Read plan with execution strategy"];
    CheckStrategy{{"Plan has merge/parallel strategy?"}};
    ApplyMerge["Apply merge: combine tasks per group"];
    ApplyParallel["Apply parallel: dispatch independent groups"];
    Sequential["Sequential execution per merged group"];
    MoreTasks{{"More task groups remain?"}};
    FinalReview["Dispatch final code reviewer"];
    Superpower["Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch"]:::greenNode;

    Start --> CheckStrategy;
    CheckStrategy -->|yes, merge| ApplyMerge;
    CheckStrategy -->|yes, parallel| ApplyParallel;
    CheckStrategy -->|no| Sequential;
    ApplyMerge --> Sequential;
    ApplyParallel --> MoreTasks;
    Sequential --> MoreTasks;
    MoreTasks -->|yes| Sequential;
    MoreTasks -->|no| FinalReview;
    FinalReview --> Superpower;

    classDef endnode fill:#f9f;
    classDef decision fill:#ddf;
    classDef process fill:#e6f2ff;
    classDef greenNode fill:lightgreen;

    class CheckStrategy,MoreTasks decision;
    class Start,ApplyMerge,ApplyParallel,Sequential,FinalReview process;
    class Superpower endnode;

Execution strategy from plan:

• Plan defines merge groups → Execute as single subagent per group
• Plan defines parallel groups → Use dispatching-parallel-agents
• Plan has no strategy → Execute sequentially per task

Before dispatching first implementer:

Inject terminology and format conventions from design doc:

• Enum values and UI labels
• Number formats (decimal/percentage)
• Validation ranges
• Naming conventions

Prompt Templates

• ./implementer-prompt.md - Dispatch implementer subagent
• ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
• ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent

Example Workflow

You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.

[Read plan file once: docs/plans/feature-plan.md]
[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]

Task 1: Hook installation script

[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]

Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"

You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"

Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
[Later] Implementer:
  - Implemented install-hook command
  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
  - Committed

[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra

[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.

[Mark Task 1 complete]

Task 2: Recovery modes

[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]

Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
  - Added verify/repair modes
  - 8/8 tests passing
  - Self-review: All good
  - Committed

[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)

[Implementer fixes issues]
Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting

[Spec reviewer reviews again]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now

[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)

[Implementer fixes]
Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant

[Code reviewer reviews again]
Code reviewer: ✅ Approved

[Mark Task 2 complete]

...

[After all tasks]
[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge

Done!

Advantages

vs. Manual execution:

• Subagents follow TDD naturally
• Fresh context per task (no confusion)
• Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
• Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)

vs. Executing Plans:

• Same session (no handoff)
• Continuous progress (no waiting)
• Review checkpoints automatic

Efficiency gains:

• No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
• Controller curates exactly what context is needed
• Subagent gets complete information upfront
• Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)

Quality gates:

• Self-review catches issues before handoff
• Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
• Review loops ensure fixes actually work
• Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
• Code quality ensures implementation is well-built

Cost:

• More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
• Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
• Review loops add iterations
• But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)

Red Flags

Never:

• Start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
• Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
• Proceed with unfixed issues
• Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
• Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
• Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
• Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
• Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
• Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
• Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
• Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅ (wrong order)
• Move to next task while either review has open issues

If subagent asks questions:

• Answer clearly and completely
• Provide additional context if needed
• Don't rush them into implementation

If reviewer finds issues:

• Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
• Reviewer reviews again
• Repeat until approved
• Don't skip the re-review

If subagent fails task:

• Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
• Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

Integration

Required workflow skills:

• superpowers:using-git-worktrees - REQUIRED: Set up isolated workspace before starting
• superpowers:writing-plans - Creates the plan this skill executes
• superpowers:requesting-code-review - Code review template for reviewer subagents
• superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch - Complete development after all tasks

Parallel execution (when tasks are independent):

• superpowers:dispatching-parallel-agents - Run independent task groups concurrently

Subagents should use:

• superpowers:test-driven-development - Subagents follow TDD for each task

Alternative workflow:

• superpowers:executing-plans - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution