Guidance for assigning, coordinating, and reviewing focused subagent work.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add kmshihab7878/claude-code-setup --skill subagent-development --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Subagent Development?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/kmshihab7878-subagent-development)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: Subagent-Driven Development
description: Guidance for assigning, coordinating, and reviewing focused subagent work.
---
# Subagent-Driven Development
> Fresh agents per task. Two-stage review. Status protocol. No context bleeding.
## Triggers
- Multi-domain task requiring parallel agent work
- `/sc:spawn` produces a task hierarchy to execute
- User requests agent-based task delegation
- Complex implementation spanning multiple technical domains
## Core Principles
### 1. Fresh Agent Per Task
Each subagent gets a **fresh context** with only what it needs:
- The specific task description
- Relevant file paths and content
- Acceptance criteria with a test that defines "done"
- No leaked context from other tasks
**Why**: Context bleeding causes agents to make assumptions from unrelated tasks, producing subtle bugs.
### 2. Status Protocol
Every subagent MUST report status using exactly one of these:
| Status | Meaning | Action Required |
|--------|---------|-----------------|
| `DONE` | Task complete, all tests pass | Proceed to review |
| `BLOCKED` | Cannot proceed, needs external input | Orchestrator resolves blocker |
| `NEEDS_CONTEXT` | Missing information to complete task | Provide specific context requested |
| `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS` | Complete but with flagged issues | Review concerns before accepting |
### 3. Two-Stage Review
Every subagent's output goes through **two reviews** before acceptance:
**Stage 1: Spec Compliance**
```
- Does the output match the task description exactly?
- Are all acceptance criteria met?
- Does the test that defines "done" pass?
- Are there any out-of-scope changes?
```
**Stage 2: Code Quality**
```
- Does the code follow project conventions?
- Are there security issues? (injection, auth, secrets)
- Is error handling adequate?
- Is the code testable and maintainable?
```
If either stage fails, the subagent output is **rejected with specific feedback**.
## Domain Grouping Strategy
When spawning multiple agents, group by domain to minimize cross-cutting concerns:
| Domain | Typical Tasks |
|--------|---------------|
| **Data Layer** | Schema, migrations, queries, ORM models |
| **API Layer** | Routes, controllers, validation, serialization |
| **Business Logic** | Services, domain models, rules |
| **Infrastructure** | Docker, CI/CD, deployment, monitoring |
| **Frontend** | Components, state, routing, styling |
| **Testing** | Test infrastructure, fixtures, mocks |
**Rule**: Tasks within the same domain can share an agent. Tasks across domains MUST use separate agents.
## Orchestration Pattern
```
1. DECOMPOSE: Break the task into domain-grouped subtasks
2. SPEC: Write acceptance criteria + failing test for each subtask
3. DISPATCH: Launch one agent per domain group (parallel where independent)
4. MONITOR: Collect status from each agent
5. REVIEW: Two-stage review of each agent's output
6. INTEGRATE: Merge outputs, run full test suite, resolve conflicts
7. VERIFY: Trigger verification-before-completion
```
## Integration
- Task decomposition comes from `/sc:spawn`
- Each subtask follows `test-driven-development`
- Reviews follow `/review` command patterns
- Final integration uses `verification-before-completion`
- Use `git-worktrees` for isolation when agents modify overlapping files
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!