[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M71QFS9S04MD8JP747W5WM0N":3,"skill-same:01M71QFS9S04MD8JP747W5WM0N":85},{"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":30,"publishedAt":51,"linkOnly":52,"markdownContent":53,"markdownBody":54,"frontMatter":55,"refName":65,"commitSha":66,"skillDirectory":67,"forksCount":13,"repositoryHtmlUrl":68,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":69,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":70,"install":71,"resources":84},"01M71QFS9S04MD8JP747W5WM0N","subagent-driven-development",null,"Execute plans via delegate_task subagents (2-stage review).","gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN","gjbvsjjvgm-sketch","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F278511911?v=4","01M71F3JXKZQ70H2KCHHTXKZDA","01M71PENEVFN19DBZFNHJPCHQ7",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[17,22,25],{"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},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50],"subagent","development","driven","subagent driven development","test","task","stage","plans","parallel","subagents","review","code-review","code","workflow","writing","superpowers","delegation","delegate","test-driven-development","test-driven","2026-11-10 13:02:02",false,"---\nname: subagent-driven-development\ndescription: \"Execute plans via delegate_task subagents (2-stage review).\"\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":56,"license":14,"version":57,"metadata":58,"description":7},"Hermes Agent (adapted from obra\u002Fsuperpowers)","1.1.0",{"hermes":59},{"tags":60,"related_skills":62},[47,31,61,44,39],"implementation",[63,64,49],"writing-plans","requesting-code-review","main","6746276ba18cb774853eb61b3b9399658bc9bc5c","core\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch","2026-04-28 17:01:03",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":72,"prompt":82,"zipAvailable":83},[73,76,79],{"tool":74,"command":75},"npx","npx skills add gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":77,"command":78},"bunx","bunx skills add gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN --skill subagent-driven-development",{"tool":80,"command":81},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add gjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN --skill subagent-driven-development","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsubagent-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[86,107,131,148,166,190],{"skillNo":87,"name":63,"nameZh":6,"description":88,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":89,"categories":90,"keywords":99,"publishedAt":51},"01M71QG27G1R2H2ZWEG4S0WTZT","Write implementation plans: bite-sized tasks, paths, code.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[91,94,95,98],{"categoryNo":92,"categoryName":93,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000015","视觉设计",{"categoryNo":18,"categoryName":19,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师",{"categoryNo":26,"categoryName":27,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[45,100,38,50,49,46,101,44,43,102,31,42,41,103,104,105,106,32,35,61],"writing plans","design","tasks","documentation","write","paths","planning",{"skillNo":108,"name":49,"nameZh":6,"description":109,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":110,"categories":111,"keywords":118,"publishedAt":51},"01M71QFZYRTJXMAE551MRAKZ14","TDD: enforce RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, tests before code.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Ftest-driven-development\u002FSKILL.md",[112,115],{"categoryNo":113,"categoryName":114,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":116,"categoryName":117,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",[119,32,35,33,120,121,122,46,45,123,43,31,124,125,126,127,128,38,129,130],"test driven development","green","red-green-refactor","testing","debugging","systematic","refactor","systematic-debugging","enforce","tests","tdd","quality",{"skillNo":132,"name":126,"nameZh":6,"description":133,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":134,"categories":135,"keywords":137,"publishedAt":51},"01M71QFWR5Q8EYEQ6MCS3SM6MC","4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[136],{"categoryNo":116,"categoryName":117,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},[138,123,124,50,139,140,49,46,45,31,141,142,32,143,38,144,35,145,146,147],"systematic debugging","problem","problem-solving","phase","bugs","root cause","root-cause","investigation","understand","hermes",{"skillNo":149,"name":64,"nameZh":6,"description":150,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":151,"categories":152,"keywords":155,"publishedAt":51},"01M71QFQ1DBCVAZ511MXFE6T2V","Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Frequesting-code-review\u002FSKILL.md",[153,154],{"categoryNo":113,"categoryName":114,"taxonomyType":20,"taxonomyTypeDesc":21},{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[156,157,43,41,50,49,158,159,46,160,45,161,162,31,42,163,164,32,165,38],"code review","requesting code review","fix","auto-fix","auto","security scan","commit","verification","security","scan",{"skillNo":167,"name":168,"nameZh":6,"description":169,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":170,"categories":171,"keywords":173,"publishedAt":51},"01M71QFM7KWM540YR67FRN807Q","python-debugpy","Debug Python: pdb REPL + debugpy remote (DAP).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fpython-debugpy\u002FSKILL.md",[172],{"categoryNo":96,"categoryName":97,"taxonomyType":28,"taxonomyTypeDesc":29},[174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,123,124,182,183,184,126,185,186,187,188,147,189],"debugpy","python debugpy","python","dap","inspect","post-mortem","pdb","remote","debugger","node","commands","debug","post","breakpoints","node-inspect","tui",{"skillNo":191,"name":192,"nameZh":6,"description":193,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":194,"categories":195,"keywords":196,"publishedAt":51},"01M71QFJMTKHGWANW9XA84S2G1","plan","Plan mode: write markdown plan to .hermes\u002Fplans\u002F, no exec.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgjbvsjjvgm-sketch\u002FWORM_V2_SOVEREIGN\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fcore\u002Fskills\u002Fsoftware-development\u002Fplan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[192,197,106,32,198,38,45,44,31,199,200,104,61,147,201,202,33],"plan-mode","mode","markdown","plan mode","hermes agent","exec"]