/git-workflow

name: git-workflow
description: Use when running claudikins-kernel:execute, decomposing plans into tasks, setting up two-stage review, deciding batch sizes, or handling stuck agents — enforces isolation, verification, and human checkpoints; prevents runaway parallelization and context death
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - Bash
  - Edit
  - Write
  - TodoWrite
  - Skill
  - mcp__plugin_claudikins-tool-executor_tool-executor__search_tools
  - mcp__plugin_claudikins-tool-executor_tool-executor__get_tool_schema
  - mcp__plugin_claudikins-tool-executor_tool-executor__execute_code

Git Workflow Methodology

When to use this skill

Use this skill when you need to:

• Run the `claudikins-kernel:execute` command
• Decompose plans into executable tasks
• Set up two-stage code review
• Decide batch sizes and checkpoints
• Handle stuck agents or failed tasks

Core Philosophy

> "I'd use 5-7 agents per SESSION, not 30 per batch." - Boris

Execution is about isolation, verification, and human checkpoints. Not speed.

The Six Principles

1. **One task = one branch** - Isolation prevents pollution 2. **Fresh context per task** - `context: fork` gives a clean slate 3. **Two-stage review** - Spec compliance first, then code quality 4. **Human checkpoints between batches** - Not between individual tasks 5. **Commands own git** - Agents never checkout/merge/push 6. **Features are the unit** - Batch at feature level, not task level

Batch Size Guidance (GOSPEL)

**Wrong:** 30 agents for 10 tasks (3 per task micro-management) **Right:** 5-7 agents total (feature-level batches)

| Scenario | Wrong | Right | | -------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------ | | 10 tasks, 5 features | 30 micro-task agents | 5-7 feature agents | | Simple refactor | 10 agents for tiny changes | 1-2 feature agents |

Default `--batch 1` is correct. Features are the unit of work.

Task Decomposition

From a plan, extract tasks that are:

| Quality | Definition | Example | | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | | **Atomic** | Completable in one agent session | "Add auth middleware" not "Build auth system" | | **Testable** | Has measurable acceptance criteria | "Returns 401 for invalid token" | | **Independent** | Minimal dependencies on other tasks | Can be reviewed in isolation | | **Right-sized** | Not too small (noise) or large (context death) | 50-200 lines of changes |

See [task-decomposition.md](references/task-decomposition.md) for patterns.

Review Stages

Two reviewers with different jobs. Never skip either.

Stage 1: Spec Compliance (spec-reviewer, opus)

**Question:** "Did it do what was asked?"

Checks:

• All acceptance criteria addressed?
• Any scope creep (features not in spec)?
• Any missing requirements?

Output: `PASS` or `FAIL` with line references.

Stage 2: Code Quality (code-reviewer, opus)

**Question:** "Is it well-written?"

Checks:

• Consistency with codebase style
• Error handling
• Edge cases
• Naming clarity
• Unnecessary complexity

Output: `PASS` or `CONCERNS` with confidence scores.

See [review-criteria.md](references/review-criteria.md) for detailed checklists.

Review Enforcement (MANDATORY)

**This is non-negotiable. Violations here break the entire workflow.**

The Iron Rule

After EVERY task completes, you MUST spawn BOTH reviewer agents:

1. **spec-reviewer** - Spawned via `Task(spec-reviewer, {...})` 2. **code-reviewer** - Spawned via `Task(code-reviewer, {...})` (if spec passes)

What "MUST spawn" Means

| Allowed | NOT Allowed | |---------|-------------| | `Task(spec-reviewer, { prompt: "...", context: "fork" })` | Inline spec check by orchestrator | | `Task(code-reviewer, { prompt: "...", context: "fork" })` | "I'll just verify the code looks good" | | Waiting for agent output JSON | Making your own compliance table | | Reading from `.claude/reviews/spec/` | Skipping because "it's a simple task" |

Inline Reviews Are VIOLATIONS

If you find yourself doing ANY of these, you are VIOLATING the methodology:

• Creating a "Spec Compliance Check" table yourself
• Writing "Verdict: PASS" without spawning an agent
• Saying "Let me verify the implementation meets criteria"
• Checking acceptance criteria in a loop instead of delegating

**The orchestrator does NOT review. The orchestrator SPAWNS reviewers.**

Pre-Merge Checklist (HARD GATE)

Before ANY merge decision can be offered to the user:

□ .claude/reviews/spec/{task_id}.json EXISTS for each task
□ .claude/reviews/code/{task_id}.json EXISTS for each task
□ Both files contain valid JSON with "verdict" field
□ spec-reviewer verdict is PASS (or user override documented)

If ANY file is missing: **DO NOT proceed to merge. You skipped the review.**

Why This Matters

1. **Consistency** - Every task gets the same rigor, not "looks simple, I'll check it" 2. **Auditability** - Review outputs are artifacts, not orchestrator judgments 3. **Separation of concerns** - Orchestrator orchestrates, reviewers review 4. **No rationalization** - You can't convince yourself your inline check is "good enough"

Verdict Matrix

What happens when reviewers return their verdicts:

| Spec Result | Code Result | Action | | ----------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------ | | PASS | PASS | Offer [Accept] [Revise anyway] | | PASS | CONCERNS | Offer [Accept with caveats] [Fix] [Klaus review] | | FAIL | \* | Always [Revise] or [Retry] |

See [review-conflict-matrix.md](references/review-conflict-matrix.md) for