dev-delegate

EVERY IMPLEMENTATION MUST GO THROUGH A TASK AGENT. This is not negotiable.

Main chat MUST NOT:

• Write code directly
• Make "quick fixes"
• Edit implementation files
• "Just do this one thing"

If you're about to write code in main chat, STOP. Spawn a Task agent instead.

Where This Fits

Main Chat                          Task Agent
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
dev-implement (orchestrates)
  → dev-ralph-loop (per-task loops)
    → dev-delegate (this skill)
      → spawns Task agent ──────→ follows dev-tdd
                                  uses dev-test tools

Main chat uses this skill to spawn Task agents. Task agents follow dev-tdd (TDD protocol) and use dev-test (testing tools).

Core Principle

Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review = high quality, fast iteration

• Implementer subagent does the work (following dev-tdd)
• Spec reviewer confirms it matches requirements
• Quality reviewer checks code quality
• Loop until both approve

When to Use

Called by dev-implement inside each ralph loop iteration. Don't invoke directly.

The Process

For each task:
    1. Dispatch implementer subagent
       - If questions → answer, re-dispatch
       - Implements, tests, commits
    2. Dispatch spec reviewer subagent
       - If issues → implementer fixes → re-review
    3. Dispatch quality reviewer subagent
       - If issues → implementer fixes → re-review
    4. Mark task complete

Step 1: Dispatch Implementer

Pattern: Use structured delegation template from common/templates/delegation-template.md

Every delegation MUST include:

1. TASK - What to do
2. EXPECTED OUTCOME - Success criteria
3. REQUIRED SKILLS - Why this agent
4. REQUIRED TOOLS - What they'll need
5. MUST DO - Non-negotiable constraints
6. MUST NOT DO - Hard blocks
7. CONTEXT - Parent session state
8. VERIFICATION - How to confirm completion

Use this Task invocation (fill in brackets):

Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="""
# TASK

Implement: [TASK NAME]

## EXPECTED OUTCOME

You will have successfully completed this task when:
- [ ] [Success criterion 1]
- [ ] [Success criterion 2]
- [ ] Tests pass (TDD enforced)
- [ ] No regressions in existing tests

## REQUIRED SKILLS

This task requires:
- [Language/framework]: [Why]
- Testing: TDD (test-first mandatory)
- [Other skills as needed]

## REQUIRED TOOLS

You will need:
- Read: Examine existing code
- Write: Create new files
- Edit: Modify existing files
- Bash: Run tests and verify

**Tools denied:** None (full implementation access)

## MUST DO

- [ ] Write test FIRST (TDD RED-GREEN-REFACTOR)
- [ ] Run test suite after each change
- [ ] Follow existing code patterns in [file]
- [ ] [Other non-negotiable requirements]

## MUST NOT DO

- ❌ Write code before test
- ❌ Skip test execution
- ❌ Use `any` / `@ts-ignore` / type suppression
- ❌ Commit broken code

## CONTEXT

### Task Description
[PASTE FULL TASK TEXT FROM PLAN.md - don't make subagent read file]

### Project Context
- Project: [brief description]
- Related files: [list from exploration]
- Test command: [from SPEC.md]

## TDD Protocol (MANDATORY)

Follow the dev-tdd skill - RED-GREEN-REFACTOR:

1. **RED**: Write a failing test FIRST
   - Run it, SEE IT FAIL
   - Document: "RED: [test] fails with [error]"

2. **GREEN**: Write MINIMAL code to pass
   - Run test, SEE IT PASS
   - Document: "GREEN: [test] passes"

3. **REFACTOR**: Clean up while staying green

**If you write code before seeing RED, you're not doing TDD. Stop and restart.**

## Testing Tools

For test options (pytest, Playwright, ydotool), see dev-test skill.

Tests must EXECUTE code and VERIFY behavior. Grepping is NOT testing.

## If Unclear
Ask questions BEFORE implementing. Don't guess.

## Output
Report:
- RED: What test failed and how
- GREEN: What made it pass
- Test command and output
- Commit SHA
- Any concerns
""")

If implementer asks questions: Answer clearly, then re-dispatch with answers included.

If implementer finishes: Proceed to spec review.

Step 2: Dispatch Spec Reviewer

Use this Task invocation:

Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="""
Review spec compliance for: [TASK NAME]

## Original Requirements
[PASTE TASK TEXT FROM PLAN.md]

## Success Criteria (from SPEC.md)
[PASTE RELEVANT CRITERIA]

## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report

The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.

**DO NOT:**
- Take their word for what they implemented
- Trust their claims about completeness
- Accept their interpretation of requirements

**DO:**
- Read the actual code they wrote
- Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
- Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
- Look for extra features they didn't mention

## Review Checklist
1. Does implementation meet ALL requirements?
2. Is anything MISSING from the spec?
3. Is anything EXTRA not in the spec?

## Output Format
- COMPLIANT: All requirements met, nothing extra (after verifying code yourself)
- ISSUES: List what's missing or extra with file:line references

Be strict. "Close enough" is not compliant. Verify by reading code.
""")

If COMPLIANT: Proceed to quality review.

If ISSUES: Have implementer fix, then re-run spec review.

Step 3: Dispatch Quality Reviewer

Use this Task invocation:

Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="""
Review code quality for: [TASK NAME]

## Changes to Review
Files modified: [list files]
Commit range: [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]

## Review Focus
1. Code correctness (logic errors, edge cases)
2. Test coverage (are tests meaningful?)
3. Code style (matches project conventions?)
4. No regressions introduced

## Confidence Scoring
Rate each issue 0-100. Only report issues >= 80 confidence.

## Output Format
### Strengths
- [what's good]

### Issues (Confidence >= 80)
#### [Issue Title] (Confidence: XX)
- Location: [file:line]
- Problem: [description]
- Fix: [suggestion]

### Verdict
APPROVED or CHANGES REQUIRED
""")

If APPROVED: Mark task complete, move to next task.

If CHANGES REQUIRED: Have implementer fix, then re-run quality review.

Honesty Requirement

Me: Implementing Task 1: Add user validation

[Dispatch implementer with full task text]

Implementer: "Should validation happen client-side or server-side?"

Me: "Server-side only, in the API layer"

[Re-dispatch implementer with answer]

Implementer:
- Added validateUser() in api/users.ts
- Tests: 5/5 passing
- Committed: abc123

[Dispatch spec reviewer]

Spec Reviewer: ISSUES
- Missing: Email format validation (spec line 12)

[Tell implementer to fix]

Implementer:
- Added email regex validation
- Tests: 6/6 passing
- Committed: def456

[Re-dispatch spec reviewer]

Spec Reviewer: COMPLIANT

[Dispatch quality reviewer with commit range]

Quality Reviewer: APPROVED
- Strengths: Good test coverage, clear naming
- No issues >= 80 confidence

[Mark Task 1 complete, move to Task 2]