/coding-flow

<coding_flow>

<description_and_purpose>

Problem: Unstructured coding leads to scope drift, missing validation, autonomous runaway, and misaligned deliverables. Solution: Sequential workflow with reviewer gates, HITL gates, subagent delegation, and skill-driven execution scaled per Request size classification. Validation: Each phase produces verifiable outputs; reviewer catches issues before user; HITL gates prevent autonomous runaway; final validation confirms implementation matches approved intent.

</description_and_purpose>

<workflow_phases>

• Rosetta prep steps completed
• MUST FOLLOW THIS WORKFLOW ENTIRELY AND FULLY, ALL REQUIRED SCALING IS ALREADY PRE-DEFINED BY "applies" ATTRIBUTE.
• Phases are sequential. Independent subagent tasks within a phase CAN run in parallel.
• When debugging is needed, INVOKE SUBAGENT engineer separately to isolate debugging context from implementation.
• Use INVOKE SUBAGENT executor for building, running tests, installing packages, and similar mechanical actions.

1. Gather project context, affected areas, dependencies, constraints, requirements. SMALL: orchestrator handles inline.
2. Input: user request + CONTEXT.md + ARCHITECTURE.md + IMPLEMENTATION.md. Output: discovery-notes.md in FEATURE PLAN folder.
3. Recommended skills: load-context
4. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

<tech_plan phase="2" applies="ALL" subagent="architect" role="Senior architect defining specs and plan">

1. USE SKILL tech-specs and USE SKILL planning together. Split: specs own WHAT, plan owns HOW.
2. Input: discovery notes, user request, ARCHITECTURE.md. Output: <FEATURE>-SPECS.md + <FEATURE>-PLAN.md in FEATURE PLAN folder.
3. SMALL: output as message, no files. MEDIUM: concise. LARGE: full.
4. Recommended skills: tech-specs, planning, reasoning, questioning
5. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

</tech_plan>

<review_plan phase="3" applies="MEDIUM,LARGE" subagent="reviewer" role="Reviewer inspecting specs and plan against intent">

1. Review specs and plan against user request and discovery notes.
2. Input: specs, plan, user request. Output: review findings and recommendations.
3. Recommended skills: reasoning
4. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

</review_plan>

<user_review_plan phase="4" applies="ALL" type="HITL">

1. Present specs, plan, and review findings. User MUST approve: "Yes, I reviewed the plan" or "Approve, the plan and specs were reviewed".
2. Do NOT assume approval. Anything else = review feedback, iterate.
3. SMALL: may combine with Phase 8 into single checkpoint.

</user_review_plan>

1. Implement approved plan. Build MUST succeed. Tests excluded.
2. Input: approved specs + plan. Output: working code, build passing, update relevant documentation briefly (CONTEXT.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, etc).
3. MUST follow approved scope. MUST stop and escalate if blocked.
4. Recommended skills: coding
5. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

<review_code phase="6" applies="ALL" subagent="reviewer" role="Reviewer inspecting implementation against specs">

1. Review code changes against approved specs and plan.
2. Input: implementation diff, specs, plan, check if documentation is updated, brief, and matches the file intent. Output: review findings and recommendations.
3. Recommended skills: reasoning
4. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

</review_code>

<impl_validation phase="7" applies="MEDIUM,LARGE" subagent="validator" role="Validation specialist">

1. Validate implementation against specs: git changes, spec coverage, gaps, perform search and MCP fact-checking.
2. Input: implementation diff, specs, plan, review findings. Output: validation findings.
3. SMALL: orchestrator performs quick inline check.
4. Recommended skills: coding
5. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

</impl_validation>

<user_review_impl phase="8" applies="ALL" type="HITL">

1. Present implementation, review findings, and validation findings. User MUST approve: "Yes, I approve the implementation".
2. Do NOT assume approval. Do NOT proceed to tests until explicit approval.
3. SMALL: combined with Phase 4 checkpoint.

</user_review_impl>

1. Write and execute tests. All MUST succeed, isolated, idempotent.
2. Input: implementation, specs. Output: passing tests with coverage.
3. Recommended skills: testing
4. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

<review_tests phase="10" applies="MEDIUM,LARGE" subagent="reviewer" role="Reviewer inspecting test coverage and quality">

1. Review tests against specs: coverage, scenarios, edge cases, mocking correctness.
2. Input: tests, specs, implementation. Output: review findings and recommendations.
3. Recommended skills: reasoning
4. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

</review_tests>

<final_validation phase="11" applies="MEDIUM,LARGE" subagent="validator" role="Final end-to-end verification">

1. Systematic by-dependency validation: databases, APIs, web, mobile. Check logs, clean up.
2. Input: full delivery (code + tests + specs + review findings). Output: final validation report.
3. SMALL: orchestrator confirms build + tests pass.
4. Recommended skills: coding
5. Update agents/coding-flow-state.md

</final_validation>

</workflow_phases>

Subagents:

• discoverer (Lightweight): context discovery
• architect (Full): tech specs and architecture
• engineer (Full): implementation and testing
• executor (Lightweight): builds, tests, packages, mechanical actions
• reviewer (Full): logical inspection against intent, provides recommendations
• validator (Full): verification through actual execution

Skills:

• coding, testing, tech-specs, planning, reasoning, debugging, questioning, load-context

MCPs:

• DeepWiki, Context7 — external documentation and library knowledge
• Playwright, Chrome-DevTools — web app testing
• Appium — mobile app testing
• GitNexus — codebase knowledge graph
• Serena — semantic code retrieval at symbol level

</coding_flow>