[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M71FJHX99JEABGTX2ZTAMCE2":3,"skill-same:01M71FJHX99JEABGTX2ZTAMCE2":88},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":33,"publishedAt":54,"linkOnly":55,"markdownContent":56,"markdownBody":57,"frontMatter":58,"refName":68,"commitSha":69,"skillDirectory":70,"forksCount":13,"repositoryHtmlUrl":71,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":72,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":73,"install":74,"resources":87},"01M71FJHX99JEABGTX2ZTAMCE2","subagent-driven-development",null,"Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks. Dispatches fresh delegate_task per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality).","gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6","gjbvsjjvgm-sketch","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F278511911?v=4","01M71F3JXKZQ70H2KCHHTXKZDA","01M71F3JY8A79Z3NZBW08TF4JD",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.yousef\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[17,22,27,30],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":28,"categoryName":29,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",{"categoryNo":31,"categoryName":32,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",[34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53],"driven","development","subagent driven development","subagent","when","writing","test-driven","test-driven-development","fresh","plans","superpowers","delegate","parallel","code-review","delegation","code","tasks","code quality","workflow","review","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: subagent-driven-development\ndescription: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks. Dispatches fresh delegate_task per task with two-stage review (spec compliance then code quality).\nversion: 1.1.0\nauthor: YOUSEF SHTIWE (adapted from obra\u002Fsuperpowers)\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  hermes:\n    tags: [delegation, subagent, implementation, workflow, parallel]\n    related_skills: [writing-plans, requesting-code-review, test-driven-development]\n---\n\n# Subagent-Driven Development\n\n## Overview\n\nExecute implementation plans by dispatching fresh subagents per task with systematic two-stage review.\n\n**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse this skill when:\n- You have an implementation plan (from writing-plans skill or user requirements)\n- Tasks are mostly independent\n- Quality and spec compliance are important\n- You want automated review between tasks\n\n**vs. manual execution:**\n- Fresh context per task (no confusion from accumulated state)\n- Automated review process catches issues early\n- Consistent quality checks across all tasks\n- Subagents can ask questions before starting work\n\n## The Process\n\n### 1. Read and Parse Plan\n\nRead the plan file. Extract ALL tasks with their full text and context upfront. Create a todo list:\n\n```python\n# Read the plan\nread_file(\"docs\u002Fplans\u002Ffeature-plan.md\")\n\n# Create todo list with all tasks\ntodo([\n    {\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-2\", \"content\": \"Add password hashing utility\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-3\", \"content\": \"Create login endpoint\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n])\n```\n\n**Key:** Read the plan ONCE. Extract everything. Don't make subagents read the plan file — provide the full task text directly in context.\n\n### 2. Per-Task Workflow\n\nFor EACH task in the plan:\n\n#### Step 1: Dispatch Implementer Subagent\n\nUse `delegate_task` with complete context:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Implement Task 1: Create User model with email and password_hash fields\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    TASK FROM PLAN:\n    - Create: src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - Add User class with email (str) and password_hash (str) fields\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__ for debugging\n\n    FOLLOW TDD:\n    1. Write failing test in tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n    2. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify FAIL)\n    3. Write minimal implementation\n    4. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify PASS)\n    5. Run: pytest tests\u002F -q (verify no regressions)\n    6. Commit: git add -A && git commit -m \"feat: add User model with password hashing\"\n\n    PROJECT CONTEXT:\n    - Python 3.11, Flask app in src\u002Fapp.py\n    - Existing models in src\u002Fmodels\u002F\n    - Tests use pytest, run from project root\n    - bcrypt already in requirements.txt\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n#### Step 2: Dispatch Spec Compliance Reviewer\n\nAfter the implementer completes, verify against the original spec:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review if implementation matches the spec from the plan\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    ORIGINAL TASK SPEC:\n    - Create src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py with User class\n    - Fields: email (str), password_hash (str)\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] All requirements from spec implemented?\n    - [ ] File paths match spec?\n    - [ ] Function signatures match spec?\n    - [ ] Behavior matches expected?\n    - [ ] Nothing extra added (no scope creep)?\n\n    OUTPUT: PASS or list of specific spec gaps to fix.\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If spec issues found:** Fix gaps, then re-run spec review. Continue only when spec-compliant.\n\n#### Step 3: Dispatch Code Quality Reviewer\n\nAfter spec compliance passes:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review code quality for Task 1 implementation\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    FILES TO REVIEW:\n    - src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] Follows project conventions and style?\n    - [ ] Proper error handling?\n    - [ ] Clear variable\u002Ffunction names?\n    - [ ] Adequate test coverage?\n    - [ ] No obvious bugs or missed edge cases?\n    - [ ] No security issues?\n\n    OUTPUT FORMAT:\n    - Critical Issues: [must fix before proceeding]\n    - Important Issues: [should fix]\n    - Minor Issues: [optional]\n    - Verdict: APPROVED or REQUEST_CHANGES\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If quality issues found:** Fix issues, re-review. Continue only when approved.\n\n#### Step 4: Mark Complete\n\n```python\ntodo([{\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"completed\"}], merge=True)\n```\n\n### 3. Final Review\n\nAfter ALL tasks are complete, dispatch a final integration reviewer:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review the entire implementation for consistency and integration issues\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    All tasks from the plan are complete. Review the full implementation:\n    - Do all components work together?\n    - Any inconsistencies between tasks?\n    - All tests passing?\n    - Ready for merge?\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n### 4. Verify and Commit\n\n```bash\n# Run full test suite\npytest tests\u002F -q\n\n# Review all changes\ngit diff --stat\n\n# Final commit if needed\ngit add -A && git commit -m \"feat: complete [feature name] implementation\"\n```\n\n## Task Granularity\n\n**Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.**\n\n**Too big:**\n- \"Implement user authentication system\"\n\n**Right size:**\n- \"Create User model with email and password fields\"\n- \"Add password hashing function\"\n- \"Create login endpoint\"\n- \"Add JWT token generation\"\n- \"Create registration endpoint\"\n\n## Red Flags — Never Do These\n\n- Start implementation without a plan\n- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)\n- Proceed with unfixed critical\u002Fimportant issues\n- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents for tasks that touch the same files\n- Make subagent read the plan file (provide full text in context instead)\n- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where the task fits)\n- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)\n- Accept \"close enough\" on spec compliance\n- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues → implementer fixes → review again)\n- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)\n- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is PASS** (wrong order)\n- Move to next task while either review has open issues\n\n## Handling Issues\n\n### If Subagent Asks Questions\n\n- Answer clearly and completely\n- Provide additional context if needed\n- Don't rush them into implementation\n\n### If Reviewer Finds Issues\n\n- Implementer subagent (or a new one) fixes them\n- Reviewer reviews again\n- Repeat until approved\n- Don't skip the re-review\n\n### If Subagent Fails a Task\n\n- Dispatch a new fix subagent with specific instructions about what went wrong\n- Don't try to fix manually in the controller session (context pollution)\n\n## Efficiency Notes\n\n**Why fresh subagent per task:**\n- Prevents context pollution from accumulated state\n- Each subagent gets clean, focused context\n- No confusion from prior tasks' code or reasoning\n\n**Why two-stage review:**\n- Spec review catches under\u002Fover-building early\n- Quality review ensures the implementation is well-built\n- Catches issues before they compound across tasks\n\n**Cost trade-off:**\n- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)\n- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging compounded problems later)\n\n## Integration with Other Skills\n\n### With writing-plans\n\nThis skill EXECUTES plans created by the writing-plans skill:\n1. User requirements → writing-plans → implementation plan\n2. Implementation plan → subagent-driven-development → working code\n\n### With test-driven-development\n\nImplementer subagents should follow TDD:\n1. Write failing test first\n2. Implement minimal code\n3. Verify test passes\n4. Commit\n\nInclude TDD instructions in every implementer context.\n\n### With requesting-code-review\n\nThe two-stage review process IS the code review. For final integration review, use the requesting-code-review skill's review dimensions.\n\n### With systematic-debugging\n\nIf a subagent encounters bugs during implementation:\n1. Follow systematic-debugging process\n2. Find root cause before fixing\n3. Write regression test\n4. Resume implementation\n\n## Example Workflow\n\n```\n[Read plan: docs\u002Fplans\u002Fauth-feature.md]\n[Create todo list with 5 tasks]\n\n--- Task 1: Create User model ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: \"Should email be unique?\"\n  You: \"Yes, email must be unique\"\n  Implementer: Implemented, 3\u002F3 tests passing, committed.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS — all requirements met\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED — clean code, good tests\n\n[Mark Task 1 complete]\n\n--- Task 2: Password hashing ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: No questions, implemented, 5\u002F5 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ❌ Missing: password strength validation (spec says \"min 8 chars\")\n\n[Implementer fixes]\n  Implementer: Added validation, 7\u002F7 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer again]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: Important: Magic number 8, extract to constant\n  Implementer: Extracted MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH constant\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED\n\n[Mark Task 2 complete]\n\n... (continue for all tasks)\n\n[After all tasks: dispatch final integration reviewer]\n[Run full test suite: all passing]\n[Done!]\n```\n\n## Remember\n\n```\nFresh subagent per task\nTwo-stage review every time\nSpec compliance FIRST\nCode quality SECOND\nNever skip reviews\nCatch issues early\n```\n\n**Quality is not an accident. It's the result of systematic process.**\n","# Subagent-Driven Development\n\n## Overview\n\nExecute implementation plans by dispatching fresh subagents per task with systematic two-stage review.\n\n**Core principle:** Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse this skill when:\n- You have an implementation plan (from writing-plans skill or user requirements)\n- Tasks are mostly independent\n- Quality and spec compliance are important\n- You want automated review between tasks\n\n**vs. manual execution:**\n- Fresh context per task (no confusion from accumulated state)\n- Automated review process catches issues early\n- Consistent quality checks across all tasks\n- Subagents can ask questions before starting work\n\n## The Process\n\n### 1. Read and Parse Plan\n\nRead the plan file. Extract ALL tasks with their full text and context upfront. Create a todo list:\n\n```python\n# Read the plan\nread_file(\"docs\u002Fplans\u002Ffeature-plan.md\")\n\n# Create todo list with all tasks\ntodo([\n    {\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-2\", \"content\": \"Add password hashing utility\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n    {\"id\": \"task-3\", \"content\": \"Create login endpoint\", \"status\": \"pending\"},\n])\n```\n\n**Key:** Read the plan ONCE. Extract everything. Don't make subagents read the plan file — provide the full task text directly in context.\n\n### 2. Per-Task Workflow\n\nFor EACH task in the plan:\n\n#### Step 1: Dispatch Implementer Subagent\n\nUse `delegate_task` with complete context:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Implement Task 1: Create User model with email and password_hash fields\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    TASK FROM PLAN:\n    - Create: src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - Add User class with email (str) and password_hash (str) fields\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__ for debugging\n\n    FOLLOW TDD:\n    1. Write failing test in tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n    2. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify FAIL)\n    3. Write minimal implementation\n    4. Run: pytest tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py -v (verify PASS)\n    5. Run: pytest tests\u002F -q (verify no regressions)\n    6. Commit: git add -A && git commit -m \"feat: add User model with password hashing\"\n\n    PROJECT CONTEXT:\n    - Python 3.11, Flask app in src\u002Fapp.py\n    - Existing models in src\u002Fmodels\u002F\n    - Tests use pytest, run from project root\n    - bcrypt already in requirements.txt\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n#### Step 2: Dispatch Spec Compliance Reviewer\n\nAfter the implementer completes, verify against the original spec:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review if implementation matches the spec from the plan\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    ORIGINAL TASK SPEC:\n    - Create src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py with User class\n    - Fields: email (str), password_hash (str)\n    - Use bcrypt for password hashing\n    - Include __repr__\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] All requirements from spec implemented?\n    - [ ] File paths match spec?\n    - [ ] Function signatures match spec?\n    - [ ] Behavior matches expected?\n    - [ ] Nothing extra added (no scope creep)?\n\n    OUTPUT: PASS or list of specific spec gaps to fix.\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If spec issues found:** Fix gaps, then re-run spec review. Continue only when spec-compliant.\n\n#### Step 3: Dispatch Code Quality Reviewer\n\nAfter spec compliance passes:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review code quality for Task 1 implementation\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    FILES TO REVIEW:\n    - src\u002Fmodels\u002Fuser.py\n    - tests\u002Fmodels\u002Ftest_user.py\n\n    CHECK:\n    - [ ] Follows project conventions and style?\n    - [ ] Proper error handling?\n    - [ ] Clear variable\u002Ffunction names?\n    - [ ] Adequate test coverage?\n    - [ ] No obvious bugs or missed edge cases?\n    - [ ] No security issues?\n\n    OUTPUT FORMAT:\n    - Critical Issues: [must fix before proceeding]\n    - Important Issues: [should fix]\n    - Minor Issues: [optional]\n    - Verdict: APPROVED or REQUEST_CHANGES\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['file']\n)\n```\n\n**If quality issues found:** Fix issues, re-review. Continue only when approved.\n\n#### Step 4: Mark Complete\n\n```python\ntodo([{\"id\": \"task-1\", \"content\": \"Create User model with email field\", \"status\": \"completed\"}], merge=True)\n```\n\n### 3. Final Review\n\nAfter ALL tasks are complete, dispatch a final integration reviewer:\n\n```python\ndelegate_task(\n    goal=\"Review the entire implementation for consistency and integration issues\",\n    context=\"\"\"\n    All tasks from the plan are complete. Review the full implementation:\n    - Do all components work together?\n    - Any inconsistencies between tasks?\n    - All tests passing?\n    - Ready for merge?\n    \"\"\",\n    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']\n)\n```\n\n### 4. Verify and Commit\n\n```bash\n# Run full test suite\npytest tests\u002F -q\n\n# Review all changes\ngit diff --stat\n\n# Final commit if needed\ngit add -A && git commit -m \"feat: complete [feature name] implementation\"\n```\n\n## Task Granularity\n\n**Each task = 2-5 minutes of focused work.**\n\n**Too big:**\n- \"Implement user authentication system\"\n\n**Right size:**\n- \"Create User model with email and password fields\"\n- \"Add password hashing function\"\n- \"Create login endpoint\"\n- \"Add JWT token generation\"\n- \"Create registration endpoint\"\n\n## Red Flags — Never Do These\n\n- Start implementation without a plan\n- Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)\n- Proceed with unfixed critical\u002Fimportant issues\n- Dispatch multiple implementation subagents for tasks that touch the same files\n- Make subagent read the plan file (provide full text in context instead)\n- Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where the task fits)\n- Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)\n- Accept \"close enough\" on spec compliance\n- Skip review loops (reviewer found issues → implementer fixes → review again)\n- Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)\n- **Start code quality review before spec compliance is PASS** (wrong order)\n- Move to next task while either review has open issues\n\n## Handling Issues\n\n### If Subagent Asks Questions\n\n- Answer clearly and completely\n- Provide additional context if needed\n- Don't rush them into implementation\n\n### If Reviewer Finds Issues\n\n- Implementer subagent (or a new one) fixes them\n- Reviewer reviews again\n- Repeat until approved\n- Don't skip the re-review\n\n### If Subagent Fails a Task\n\n- Dispatch a new fix subagent with specific instructions about what went wrong\n- Don't try to fix manually in the controller session (context pollution)\n\n## Efficiency Notes\n\n**Why fresh subagent per task:**\n- Prevents context pollution from accumulated state\n- Each subagent gets clean, focused context\n- No confusion from prior tasks' code or reasoning\n\n**Why two-stage review:**\n- Spec review catches under\u002Fover-building early\n- Quality review ensures the implementation is well-built\n- Catches issues before they compound across tasks\n\n**Cost trade-off:**\n- More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)\n- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging compounded problems later)\n\n## Integration with Other Skills\n\n### With writing-plans\n\nThis skill EXECUTES plans created by the writing-plans skill:\n1. User requirements → writing-plans → implementation plan\n2. Implementation plan → subagent-driven-development → working code\n\n### With test-driven-development\n\nImplementer subagents should follow TDD:\n1. Write failing test first\n2. Implement minimal code\n3. Verify test passes\n4. Commit\n\nInclude TDD instructions in every implementer context.\n\n### With requesting-code-review\n\nThe two-stage review process IS the code review. For final integration review, use the requesting-code-review skill's review dimensions.\n\n### With systematic-debugging\n\nIf a subagent encounters bugs during implementation:\n1. Follow systematic-debugging process\n2. Find root cause before fixing\n3. Write regression test\n4. Resume implementation\n\n## Example Workflow\n\n```\n[Read plan: docs\u002Fplans\u002Fauth-feature.md]\n[Create todo list with 5 tasks]\n\n--- Task 1: Create User model ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: \"Should email be unique?\"\n  You: \"Yes, email must be unique\"\n  Implementer: Implemented, 3\u002F3 tests passing, committed.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS — all requirements met\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED — clean code, good tests\n\n[Mark Task 1 complete]\n\n--- Task 2: Password hashing ---\n[Dispatch implementer subagent]\n  Implementer: No questions, implemented, 5\u002F5 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer]\n  Spec reviewer: ❌ Missing: password strength validation (spec says \"min 8 chars\")\n\n[Implementer fixes]\n  Implementer: Added validation, 7\u002F7 tests passing.\n\n[Dispatch spec reviewer again]\n  Spec reviewer: ✅ PASS\n\n[Dispatch quality reviewer]\n  Quality reviewer: Important: Magic number 8, extract to constant\n  Implementer: Extracted MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH constant\n  Quality reviewer: ✅ APPROVED\n\n[Mark Task 2 complete]\n\n... (continue for all tasks)\n\n[After all tasks: dispatch final integration reviewer]\n[Run full test suite: all passing]\n[Done!]\n```\n\n## Remember\n\n```\nFresh subagent per task\nTwo-stage review every time\nSpec compliance FIRST\nCode quality SECOND\nNever skip reviews\nCatch issues early\n```\n\n**Quality is not an accident. It's the result of systematic process.**\n",{"name":5,"author":59,"license":14,"version":60,"metadata":61,"description":7},"YOUSEF SHTIWE (adapted from obra\u002Fsuperpowers)","1.1.0",{"hermes":62},{"tags":63,"related_skills":65},[48,37,64,52,46],"implementation",[66,67,41],"writing-plans","requesting-code-review","main","93bbc269671fbb340afa15b36a8766f15dc30df2",".yousef\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch","2026-04-27 02:51:28",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":75,"prompt":85,"zipAvailable":86},[76,79,82],{"tool":77,"command":78},"npx","npx skills add gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6 --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":80,"command":81},"bunx","bunx skills add gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6 --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":83,"command":84},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6 --skill subagent-driven-development","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.yousef\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[89,108,135,151,160,180],{"skillNo":90,"name":66,"nameZh":6,"description":91,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":92,"categories":93,"keywords":100,"publishedAt":54},"01M71G6TJ2RAQ1J0PV3K6D9GQA","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task. Creates comprehensive implementation plans with bite-sized tasks, exact file paths, and complete code examples.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fhermes_sovereign_data\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[94,97,98,99],{"categoryNo":95,"categoryName":96,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计",{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},{"categoryNo":28,"categoryName":29,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},[39,101,43,102,53,52,103,50,35,49,104,47,37,44,105,41,106,107,40,38],"writing plans","design","documentation","planning","paths","you","for",{"skillNo":109,"name":41,"nameZh":6,"description":110,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":111,"categories":112,"keywords":121,"publishedAt":54},"01M71G6R81013R3T7W5VP56GCB","Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fhermes_sovereign_data\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Ftest-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[113,116,119,120],{"categoryNo":114,"categoryName":115,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":117,"categoryName":118,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":28,"categoryName":29,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},[122,123,35,34,124,39,125,49,126,37,44,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,38],"test","test driven development","testing","debugging","refactor","red-green-refactor","cycle","green","systematic","bugfix","implementing","systematic-debugging","test-first",{"skillNo":136,"name":133,"nameZh":6,"description":137,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":138,"categories":139,"keywords":141,"publishedAt":54},"01M71G6N0Y546JZEDF25E2PMCE","Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fhermes_sovereign_data\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[140],{"categoryNo":117,"categoryName":118,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[142,125,130,39,122,35,37,143,44,144,145,146,43,147,41,148,40,149,150,38],"systematic debugging","use","bug","root-cause","problem-solving","problem","fixes","phase","root cause",{"skillNo":152,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":153,"categories":154,"keywords":159,"publishedAt":54},"01M71G6J0DXEGY48GH4KVW2SJH","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fhermes_sovereign_data\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[155,156,157,158],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},{"categoryNo":28,"categoryName":29,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},{"categoryNo":31,"categoryName":32,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},[35,36,37,34,39,53,52,51,50,49,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40,38],{"skillNo":161,"name":67,"nameZh":6,"description":162,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":163,"categories":164,"keywords":167,"publishedAt":54},"01M71G6EFFBQX6634E6XHB09Y1","Pre-commit verification pipeline — static security scan, baseline-aware quality gates, independent reviewer subagent, and auto-fix loop. Use after code changes and before committing, pushing, or opening a PR.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fhermes_sovereign_data\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Frequesting-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[165,166],{"categoryNo":114,"categoryName":115,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":25,"taxonomyTypeDesc":26},[168,53,49,169,39,170,47,171,172,173,174,37,175,176,177,44,41,178,179,40],"code review","requesting code review","commit","verification","security scan","pipeline","loop","reviewer","fix","auto","static","auto-fix",{"skillNo":181,"name":182,"nameZh":6,"description":183,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":184,"categories":185,"keywords":186,"publishedAt":54},"01M71G6CM8ANSWVFXCN9AAD58Y","plan","Plan mode for Hermes — inspect context, write a markdown plan into the active workspace's `.hermes\u002Fplans\u002F` directory, and do not execute the work.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002Fhermes-sovereign-unified-v13.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fhermes_sovereign_data\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fplan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[182,39,187,52,35,104,188,37,189,190,191,64,192,193,43,194,195,196,107,197],"directory","markdown","workspace","work","write","do","active","plan mode","inspect","mode","plan-mode"]