Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

Context Driven Development pipeline for release workflows

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name cdd
description Context Driven Development pipeline for release workflows

CDD Pipeline

This project calls its release workflow Context Driven Development (CDD)

Workspace Configuration

All CDD commands and scripts require the $CDD_DIR environment variable.

export CDD_DIR=/path/to/workspace

This allows parallel workspaces without VCS conflicts. Each workspace is independent - different branches can use different workspace directories simultaneously.

Scripts will abort with a clear error if $CDD_DIR is not set.

Core Philosophy

Use user/agent interactive development time during the Research and Plan phases to prepare tightly focused tasks that pre-load the exact required context to run autonomously during the Implement phase.

Pipeline Phases

  • Research
  • Plan
  • Execute

1. Research

What: Build foundational understanding before design decisions.

Artifacts:

  • $CDD_DIR/README.md - High-level description of release features
  • $CDD_DIR/user-stories/ - User actions and expected system responses
  • $CDD_DIR/research/ - Facts gathered from internet, docs, codebase

Why this phase exists: Decisions made without research are assumptions. Research surfaces constraints, prior art, and edge cases that would otherwise appear during execution (when fixing is expensive).

Key insight: Research artifacts become reference material for task execution. Sub-agents can read $CDD_DIR/research/ without re-fetching from the internet. The research phase pays the lookup cost once.

2. Plan

What: Transform research into implementation decisions and executable task files.

Artifacts:

  • $CDD_DIR/plan/ - Implementation decisions, architecture choices, detailed designs
  • $CDD_DIR/tasks/ - Individual task files (one per unit of work)
  • $CDD_DIR/tasks/order.json - Execution order and task metadata

Why this phase exists: Planning is the translation layer between "what we want" (research) and "what to do" (tasks). It makes architectural decisions explicit and breaks work into parallelizable units.

Key insight: Task files must be complete. During execution, sub-agents see only their task file. Any context not written into the task must be re-discovered (wasting tokens) or will be missed (creating bugs).

3. Verify (Sub-phase of Plan)

What: Two-stage iterative verification following the artifact pyramid.

Artifacts:

  • $CDD_DIR/verified.md - Log of items verified and issues resolved

Stage 1 - Plan Verification:

/cdd:gap-plan  # Verify README/user-stories → plan alignment
fix gaps
/cdd:gap-plan  # Repeat until clean

Checks alignment down the pyramid:

  • README/research/user-stories → plan
  • Naming, error handling, memory management conventions
  • Integration points, build changes, migrations

Stage 2 - Task Verification:

/cdd:gap-tasks  # Verify plan → tasks alignment
fix gaps
/cdd:gap-tasks  # Repeat until clean

Checks task completeness:

  • All plan items covered by tasks
  • Task sequencing and dependencies
  • TDD workflow, test coverage, baseline skills
  • Task scope and acceptance criteria

Why this phase exists: This is the last moment of full context visibility. Once execution begins, each sub-agent sees only its task. Cross-cutting issues, inconsistencies between tasks, missing dependencies - these can only be caught while the complete picture is visible.

Key insights:

  • Specific checklists prevent vague "find issues" prompts
  • verified.md prevents re-checking completed items
  • Token budgets (140k per command) enable thorough verification
  • Pyramid approach: verify each transition separately (foundation→plan, plan→tasks)

Convergence pattern: Each gap-finding run identifies the highest-priority issue. After fixing, re-run. When no substantive gaps remain, verification is complete.

4. Execute

What: Mechanical execution of task files via orchestration loop.

Process:

/orchestrate → /check-quality → /refactor → /check-quality

Why this structure: Execution is unattended. No human to provide missing context. Task files must be complete or sub-agents will fail, research (wasting tokens), or succeed partially (creating debt).

Key insight: Orchestrators load ZERO skills. They're pure execution loops. Sub-agents read task files directly - task content never flows through orchestrator context.

Directory Structure

$CDD_DIR/
├── README.md          # High-level release description
├── user-stories/      # User actions and system responses
│   └── README.md      # Index/overview
├── research/          # Internet facts for task reference
│   └── README.md      # Index/overview
├── plan/              # Implementation decisions
│   └── README.md      # Index/overview
├── tasks/             # Individual task files
│   └── order.json     # Execution order
├── verified.md        # Verification log (concerns + resolutions)
├── tmp/               # Temp files during execution
└── ...                # Other files permitted, ignored by pipeline

Abstraction Levels

Each directory serves a distinct abstraction level. Content should not leak between levels.

$CDD_DIR/plan/ - Coordination Layer

Plan documents coordinate everything shared between tasks. If two tasks must agree on something, the plan decides it.

The plan owns:

  • Public symbols - Function names, struct names, enum names
  • Function signatures - Arguments, argument order, return types
  • Struct members - Field names, field order, field types
  • Enums - Value names and meanings
  • Allowed libraries - Which dependencies can be used, which are forbidden
  • Architectural choices - Module boundaries, data flow, ownership rules

Why this matters: Tasks execute independently. If the plan doesn't coordinate shared symbols, Task A might define foo_create(ctx, name, count) while Task B expects foo_create(ctx, count, name). Both compile. Integration fails.

The plan is the contract. Tasks implement what the plan specifies. Disagreements are resolved in the plan before tasks are written.

DO NOT include: Implementation code, detailed algorithms, function bodies.

$CDD_DIR/tasks/ - Implementation Units

Task files specify what this task implements from the plan:

  • Which functions from the plan this task implements
  • Which structs from the plan this task defines
  • Expected behaviors and edge cases
  • Test scenarios for this task's scope

Tasks do NOT make coordination decisions. If a task needs a function signature, struct layout, or enum value - it comes from the plan. Tasks copy the relevant specs from the plan and add implementation guidance.

DO NOT include: Implementation code, function bodies, working test code.

The sub-agent writes the actual code. The task tells them what to write and how to test it.

Why this separation matters: Tasks execute independently without seeing each other. The plan is their shared reference. If Task A invents a struct layout instead of copying from the plan, Task B (which also uses that struct) will have a different layout. The plan prevents this.

Artifact Authority

Artifacts form a hierarchy of authority:

$CDD_DIR/README.md (authoritative)
        ↓
user-stories + research (derived)
        ↓
      plan (derived)
        ↓
      tasks (derived)

Rules:

  1. Lower-level artifacts derive from higher-level ones
  2. Contradictions between levels must be resolved immediately
  3. Resolution is always top-down: align lower artifacts to higher authority
  4. Higher-level documents may change through iteration—but when they do, all derived artifacts must be reviewed and realigned

Why this matters: Sub-agents executing tasks cannot detect contradictions with higher-level intent. If a task contradicts the plan, or the plan contradicts the README, the error propagates silently. Consistency is enforced during authoring because it cannot be enforced during execution.

Lifecycle

Create empty $CDD_DIR/ → Research → Plan → Verify → Execute → Delete $CDD_DIR/

The workspace directory is ephemeral. It exists only for the duration of the release workflow. After successful execution, it's deleted. The work lives in the codebase; the pipeline artifacts are disposable.

Efficiency Principles

  1. Orchestrators load ZERO skills - Pure execution loops need only embedded logic
  2. Sub-agents read task files - Never pass task content through orchestrator context
  3. Load skills on-demand - Don't preload "just in case"
  4. Complete task authoring - Spend tokens researching during authoring so execution doesn't need to
  5. Reference vs working knowledge - Large docs go in separate skills, loaded when needed

Design Tradeoffs

Decision Tradeoff Rationale
Full context in verify Expensive per-run Last chance to catch cross-cutting issues
Task files are complete Verbose, some duplication Sub-agents can't see other tasks
Verification is human-terminated Subjective Models don't converge to "done" naturally
Research cached in files Stale if release spans days Avoids re-fetching during execution

When to Load This Skill

  • Designing or modifying the release workflow
  • Debugging why execution sub-agents are failing
  • Optimizing token usage in the pipeline
  • Understanding why a phase exists before changing it