[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M71JF9RQ092KM5ZXCBBT6FS1":3,"skill-same:01M71JF9RQ092KM5ZXCBBT6FS1":92},{"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":36,"publishedAt":57,"linkOnly":58,"markdownContent":59,"markdownBody":60,"frontMatter":61,"refName":71,"commitSha":72,"skillDirectory":73,"forksCount":74,"repositoryHtmlUrl":75,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":76,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":77,"install":78,"resources":91},"01M71JF9RQ092KM5ZXCBBT6FS1","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).","xuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup","xuanxuan1983","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F151701653?v=4","01M71HCZNB5H19QJ6YBF98W2WH","01M71HCZP14T0921BD0TC9EPD3",1,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[17,22,25,30,33],{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":26,"categoryName":27,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":31,"categoryName":32,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",{"categoryNo":34,"categoryName":35,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务",[37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56],"subagent","development","driven","subagent driven development","plans","code quality","parallel","fresh","review","code-review","tasks","code","workflow","when","writing","superpowers","delegation","delegate","test-driven-development","test-driven","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: Hermes Agent (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":62,"license":14,"version":63,"metadata":64,"description":7},"Hermes Agent (adapted from obra\u002Fsuperpowers)","1.1.0",{"hermes":65},{"tags":66,"related_skills":68},[53,37,67,49,43],"implementation",[69,70,55],"writing-plans","requesting-code-review","main","17ee50c38aefa9426a89d7e8ee167fdc4c184fb7","skills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fxuanxuan1983","2026-05-24 00:14:48",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":79,"prompt":89,"zipAvailable":90},[80,83,86],{"tool":81,"command":82},"npx","npx skills add xuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":84,"command":85},"bunx","bunx skills add xuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":87,"command":88},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add xuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup --skill subagent-driven-development","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[93,112,139,155,175,193],{"skillNo":94,"name":69,"nameZh":6,"description":95,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":96,"categories":97,"keywords":104,"publishedAt":57},"01M71JFHVW1W4XE013TY9ZYN9P","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\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[98,101,102,103],{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计",{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":26,"categoryName":27,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},{"categoryNo":31,"categoryName":32,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[51,105,41,56,55,52,106,50,49,107,48,47,37,46,45,108,109,110,38,111],"writing plans","design","you","documentation","paths","planning","for",{"skillNo":113,"name":55,"nameZh":6,"description":114,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":115,"categories":116,"keywords":125,"publishedAt":57},"01M71JFF859RV0XGWS206X1TMB","Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle with test-first approach.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Ftest-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[117,120,123,124],{"categoryNo":118,"categoryName":119,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":121,"categoryName":122,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":31,"categoryName":32,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[126,38,127,39,128,129,130,131,132,133,52,51,134,50,48,37,135,136,137,138],"test driven development","test","test-first","green","cycle","red-green-refactor","testing","implementing","debugging","systematic","bugfix","refactor","systematic-debugging",{"skillNo":140,"name":138,"nameZh":6,"description":141,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":142,"categories":143,"keywords":145,"publishedAt":57},"01M71JFCA5S48PZ5M7DG31R8K5","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\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[144],{"categoryNo":121,"categoryName":122,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[146,134,135,56,147,148,55,52,51,50,37,149,150,38,151,152,41,153,154,127],"systematic debugging","problem","problem-solving","phase","bug","fixes","root cause","use","root-cause",{"skillNo":156,"name":70,"nameZh":6,"description":157,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":158,"categories":159,"keywords":162,"publishedAt":57},"01M71JF76DA8ARZ4JRYR4VBRWM","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\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Frequesting-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[160,161],{"categoryNo":118,"categoryName":119,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":26,"categoryName":27,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[163,164,48,45,56,165,166,55,167,168,52,169,51,170,171,172,37,46,173,174],"code review","requesting code review","pipeline","static","fix","auto-fix","auto","loop","security scan","commit","reviewer","verification",{"skillNo":176,"name":177,"nameZh":6,"description":178,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":179,"categories":180,"keywords":181,"publishedAt":57},"01M71JF52HZT5VQXFVF9K2H76K","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\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fplan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[177,182,183,110,38,111,184,185,41,51,49,37,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,67],"plan-mode","do","inspect","mode","work","markdown","active","directory","workspace","plan mode","write",{"skillNo":194,"name":195,"nameZh":6,"description":196,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":197,"categories":198,"keywords":203,"publishedAt":57},"01M71JE8HX3Q2TC5QV5SZVZHQ8","xitter","Interact with X\u002FTwitter via the x-cli terminal client using official X API credentials. Use for posting, reading timelines, searching tweets, liking, retweeting, bookmarks, mentions, and user lookups.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fxuanxuan1983\u002Fhermes-skills-backup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsocial-media\u002Fxitter\u002FSKILL.md",[199,202],{"categoryNo":200,"categoryName":201,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000010","后端与接口",{"categoryNo":23,"categoryName":24,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[195,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,111,220,221],"Media","official","x api","social","secret","uv","access","api","credentials","cli","terminal","token","reading","macos","posting","social-media","twitter","linux"]