/coding-light-flow

name: coding-flow
description: "Light coding workflow: 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. Lightweight variant: a single architect pass produces discovery, design, specs, and plan; one reviewer gate and one HITL gate approve all of it before implementation.

</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 4-7 postponing 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. 13. If context already contains request for TDD => implement properly red and green adjusting this workflow, including by moving execution of phases `tests` and `review_tests` to be after `user_review_design` and before `implementation`.

</prerequisites>

<solution_design phase="1" applies="ALL" subagent="architect" role="Architect producing discovery, design, specs, and plan in one pass" subagent_required_model="inherit">

Execute strongly in the specified order. A step MUST NOT start before the previous step is complete.

1. Step 1: Discover project context, affected and related code, dependencies, constraints, and requirements; derive the architecture requirements that address the user request fully. Input: user request + `CONTEXT.md` + `ARCHITECTURE.md` + `IMPLEMENTATION.md`. Do not stop until 100% clear. 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. Record Steps 1-3 as concise `architecture-notes.md` in FEATURE PLAN folder. 4. Step 4: Once done, USE SKILL `tech-specs` (load JIT) to create `plans/<FEATURE>/<FEATURE>-SPECS.md`. Specs own WHAT. 5. Step 5: Once done, USE SKILL `planning` (load JIT) to create `plans/<FEATURE>/<FEATURE>-PLAN.md`. Plan owns HOW. Target: 100% clarity. Cross-reference specs, never duplicate them. 6. Required skills: `reasoning`, `tech-specs`, `planning` 7. Recommended skills: `questioning`, `codemap` (structural project discovery) 8. If REQUIREMENTS in use: `requirements-use` skill is required. Plan/Specs must have pointers to requirements identifiers. 9. Additionally discover existing libraries, packages, and search web for similar problems/tasks (if this make sense) 10. SMALL: output specs and plan as message, no files. MEDIUM: concise. LARGE: full. 11. Update `coding-flow-state.md`

</solution_design>

<review_plan phase="2" applies="MEDIUM,LARGE" subagent="reviewer" role="Reviewer inspecting architecture notes, specs, and plan against intent" subagent_required_model="inherit" must-be-subagent>

1. Review all three artifacts together - `architecture-notes.md`, specs, and plan - against user request, do not assume user is in context, give him full information with TLDR. 2. Input: architecture notes, specs, plan, user request. Output: review findings and recommendations. 3. Report gaps between the three artifacts: a design decision absent from specs, a spec element absent from plan. 4. Update `coding-flow-state.md`

</review_plan>

<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. 2. Present architecture notes, specs, plan, and review findings. This is the ONLY gate before implementation. User MUST approve: "Yes, I reviewed the design" or "Approve, the design was reviewed". 3. Strict approval; anything else = review feedback, iterate.

</user_review_design>

<implementation phase="4" 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 not repeat contents => reference instead. 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. Required skills: `coding` 5. Recommended skills: `debugging`, `sensitive-data`, `testing`, `dangerous-