/coding-flow

name: coding-flow
description: "Workflow for all coding: features, fixes, refactors, unit tests, etc.; scales small to large."

<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>

<prerequisites phase="0" applies="ALL">

1. All Rosetta prep steps MUST be FULLY completed 2. MUST USE SKILL `load-project-context` (required: all), `orchestration` (all except trivial), `hitl` (all, unless `No HITL` or `Fully Autonomous`) 3. MUST ALWAYS use todo tasks ledger, ASAP. Phases are sequential. Independent tasks can run in parallel. 4. No rush, take your time, MUST FOLLOW WORKFLOW ENTIRELY, no skipping, if in doubt - select the safest / longest path, no deviation from the workflow is allowed 5. When debugging is needed, INVOKE SUBAGENT `engineer` with `debugging` skill to save LLM context 6. INVOKE SUBAGENT `executor` for building, running tests, installing packages, and similar mechanical actions. 7. MUST just-in-time load each phase's skills 8. If workflow is for REQUIREMENTS, MUST USE SKILL `requirements-use` and LOAD all affected requirements. Use refs to requirements for subagents. 9. If `/goal` is set repeat phases 7-12 postponing user_review_impl and final_validation until goal is met. 10. If migrate/modernize: implementation phase MUST use tiny batches ONLY (1-3 files), never bulk-read (other phases may); specs/plan enforce; FS-copy RECOMMENDED; no behavior change/new code; mirror source; subagents same; REQUIRED TO log <file> started/completed; Use impl subagents like MAP-REDUCE; 11. Run architect subagent with required model in the background and consult with it if already supported or prefer advisor if already available 12. Coding workflow state MUST be saved to `agents/TEMP/<FEATURE>/coding-flow-state.md` file.

</prerequisites>

<discovery phase="1" applies="if request is non-specific, unclear, ambiguous, or has gaps" subagent="discoverer" role="Context discoverer" subagent_required_model="inherit">

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. Required skills: `load-project-context` 4. Recommended skills: `codemap` (structural project discovery) 5. If REQUIREMENTS in use: `requirements-use` skill is required. 6. Additionally request to discover existing libraries, packages, search web for similar problems/tasks (if this make sense) 7. Update `coding-flow-state.md` 8. Do not stop until 100% clear

</discovery>

<design phase="2" applies="ALL" subagent="architect" role="Design architecture requirements and solution" subagent_required_model="inherit">

1. Step 1: discover affected and related code to design architecture requirements to address user request fully. 2. Step 2: design 3 best architecture solutions on high level with pro/cons analysis. 3. Step 3: define the best solution, but concise, phrase-terse, compressed, etc. 4. Input: user request + `CONTEXT.md` + `ARCHITECTURE.md` + `IMPLEMENTATION.md`. Output: concise `architecture-notes.md` in FEATURE PLAN folder. 5. Required skills: `reasoning` 6. Recommended skills: `questioning` 7. Update `coding-flow-state.md`

</design>

<user_review_design phase="3" applies="ALL" type="HITL">

1. Present main solution first and then alternatives, do not assume user is in context, give him full information with TLDR. 1. Present specs, plan, and review findings. User MUST approve: "Yes, I reviewed the design" or "Approve, the design was reviewed". 1. Strict approval; anything else = review feedback, iterate. 1. SMALL: combine with Phase 6 into single checkpoint.

</user_review_design>

<tech_plan phase="4" applies="ALL" subagent="architect" role="Senior architect defining specs and plan" subagent_required_model="inherit">

1. MUST USE SKILL `tech-specs` and `planning` together. Split: specs own WHAT, plan owns HOW. Target: 100% clarity. 2. Input: discovery notes, user request, `ARCHITECTURE.md`. Output: `plans/<FEATURE>/<FEATURE>-SPECS.md` + `plans/<FEATURE>/<FEATURE>-PLAN.md`. 3. SMALL: output as message, no files. MEDIUM: concise. LARGE: full. 4. Required skills: `tech-specs`, `planning` 5. If medium/large `reasoning` skill is required 6. If REQUIREMENTS in use: `requirements-use` skill is required. Plan/Specs must have pointers to requirements identifiers. 7. Recommended skills: `questioning` 8. Update `coding-flow-state.md`

</tech_plan>

<review_plan phase="5" applies="MEDIUM,LARGE" subagent="reviewer" role="Reviewer inspecting specs and plan against intent" subagent_required_model="inherit" must-be-subagent>

1. Review specs and plan against user request and discovery notes, do not assume user is in context, give him full information with TLDR. 2. Input: specs, plan, user request. Output: review findings and recommendations. 3. Update `coding-flow-state.md`

</review_plan>

<user_review_plan phase="6" 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. Strict approval; anything else = review feedback, iterate.

</user_review_plan>

<implementation phase="7" applies="ALL" subagent="engineer" role="Senior engineer executing approved plan" subagent_required_model="inherit">

1. Implement approved plan. Build MUST succeed. Tests excluded. 2. Input: approved specs + plan. Demand subagent to read and execute it fully. Do n