Teams Driven Development

Teams-Driven Development

Execute plan by delegating fresh worker per task via teams delegate, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.

Core principle: Fresh worker per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration

When to Use

digraph when_to_use {
    "Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
    "Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
    "Stay in this session?" [shape=diamond];
    "teams-driven-development" [shape=box];
    "executing-plans" [shape=box];
    "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];

    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Stay in this session?" [label="yes"];
    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
    "Stay in this session?" -> "teams-driven-development" [label="yes"];
    "Stay in this session?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - parallel session"];
}

vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):

• Same session (no context switch)
• Fresh worker per task (no context pollution)
• Two-stage review after EACH task: spec compliance first, then code quality
• Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)

The Process

digraph process {
    rankdir=TB;

    subgraph cluster_per_task {
        label="Per Task";
        "Delegate to implementer worker (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Implementer worker asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
        "Implementer worker implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
        "Delegate to spec reviewer worker (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Spec reviewer worker confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
        "Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues. Implementer worker fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
        "Delegate to code quality reviewer worker (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Code quality reviewer worker approves?" [shape=diamond];
        "Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues. Implementer worker fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
        "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [shape=box];
    }

    "Read plan ticket, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
    "Delegate to final code reviewer worker for entire implementation" [shape=box];
    "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];

    "Read plan ticket, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "Delegate to implementer worker (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Delegate to implementer worker (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer worker asks questions?";
    "Implementer worker asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Delegate to implementer worker (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Implementer worker asks questions?" -> "Implementer worker implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
    "Implementer worker implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Delegate to spec reviewer worker (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
    "Delegate to spec reviewer worker (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer worker confirms code matches spec?";
    "Spec reviewer worker confirms code matches spec?" -> "Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues. Implementer worker fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
    "Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues. Implementer worker fixes spec gaps" -> "Delegate to spec reviewer worker (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Spec reviewer worker confirms code matches spec?" -> "Delegate to code quality reviewer worker (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "Delegate to code quality reviewer worker (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer worker approves?";
    "Code quality reviewer worker approves?" -> "Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues. Implementer worker fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
    "Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues. Implementer worker fixes quality issues" -> "Delegate to code quality reviewer worker (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Code quality reviewer worker approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
    "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Delegate to implementer worker (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Delegate to final code reviewer worker for entire implementation" [label="no"];
    "Delegate to final code reviewer worker for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
}

Prompt Templates

• ./implementer-prompt.md - Delegate to implementer worker
• ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md - Delegate to spec compliance reviewer worker
• ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md - Delegate to code quality reviewer worker

How to Delegate

Use teams delegate for each worker:

teams(action: 'delegate', tasks: [
  {text: '<implementer prompt with full task text + context>', assignee: 'implementer-task-1'}
])

For reviews:

teams(action: 'delegate', tasks: [
  {text: '<spec review prompt>', assignee: 'spec-reviewer-task-1'}
])

Example Workflow

You: I'm using Teams-Driven Development to execute this plan.

[Read plan ticket once]
[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]

Task 1: Hook installation script

[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
[teams delegate implementer worker with full task text + context]

Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"

You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"

Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
[Later] Implementer:
  - Implemented install-hook command
  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
  - Committed

[teams delegate spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra

[Get git SHAs, teams delegate code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.

[Mark Task 1 complete]

Task 2: Recovery modes

[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
[teams delegate implementer worker with full task text + context]

Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
  - Added verify/repair modes
  - 8/8 tests passing
  - Self-review: All good
  - Committed

[teams delegate spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
  - Create `tk` tickets for all surfaced issues

[Implementer fixes issues]
Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting

[Spec reviewer reviews again]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now

[teams delegate code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)

[Implementer fixes]
Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant

[Code reviewer reviews again]
Code reviewer: ✅ Approved

[Mark Task 2 complete]

...

[After all tasks]
[teams delegate final code-reviewer]
Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge

Done!

Advantages

vs. Manual execution:

• Workers follow TDD naturally
• Fresh context per task (no confusion)
• Parallel-safe (workers don't interfere)
• Worker can ask questions (before AND during work)

vs. Executing Plans:

• Same session (no handoff)
• Continuous progress (no waiting)
• Review checkpoints automatic

Efficiency gains:

• No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
• Controller curates exactly what context is needed
• Worker gets complete information upfront
• Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)

Quality gates:

• Self-review catches issues before handoff
• Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
• Review loops ensure fixes actually work
• Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
• Code quality ensures implementation is well-built

Cost:

• More worker invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
• Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
• Review loops add iterations
• But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)

Red Flags

NEVER:

• Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
• Proceed with unfixed issues
• Delegate multiple implementer workers in parallel on the same codebase (conflicts)
• Make worker read plan file (provide full text instead)
• Skip scene-setting context (worker needs to understand where task fits)
• Ignore worker questions (answer before letting them proceed)
• Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
• Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
• Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
• Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅ (wrong order)
• Move to next task while either review has open issues

If worker asks questions:

• Answer clearly and completely
• Provide additional context if needed
• Don't rush them into implementation

If reviewer finds issues:

• Implementer (same worker) fixes them
• Reviewer reviews again
• Repeat until approved
• Don't skip the re-review

If worker fails task:

• Delegate fix worker with specific instructions
• Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

Integration

Required workflow skills:

• superpowers:writing-plans - Creates the plan this skill executes
• superpowers:requesting-code-review - Code review template for reviewer workers
• superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch - Complete development after all tasks

Workers should use:

• superpowers:test-driven-development - Workers follow TDD for each task

Alternative workflow:

• superpowers:executing-plans - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution

After completing each review stage, follow handbook 15.04 to create tk tickets for all surfaced issues.

Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when delegating a code quality reviewer worker.

Purpose: Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)

Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.

teams delegate (code-reviewer worker):
  Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md

  WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED: [from implementer's report]
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
  BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
  HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
  DESCRIPTION: [task summary]

Code reviewer returns: Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment

Implementer Worker Prompt Template

Use this template when delegating an implementer worker.

teams delegate (worker):
  description: "Implement Task N: [task name]"
  prompt: |
    You are implementing Task N: [task name]

    ## Task Description

    [FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here, don't make worker read file]

    ## Context

    [Scene-setting: where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]

    ## Before You Begin

    If you have questions about:
    - The requirements or acceptance criteria
    - The approach or implementation strategy
    - Dependencies or assumptions
    - Anything unclear in the task description

    **Ask them now.** Raise any concerns before starting work.

    ## Your Job

    Once you're clear on requirements:
    1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
    2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
    3. Verify implementation works
    4. Commit your work
    5. Self-review (see below)
    6. Report back

    Work from: [directory]

    **While you work:** If you encounter something unexpected or unclear, **ask questions**.
    It's always OK to pause and clarify. Don't guess or make assumptions.

    ## Before Reporting Back: Self-Review

    Review your work with fresh eyes. Ask yourself:

    **Completeness:**
    - Did I fully implement everything in the spec?
    - Did I miss any requirements?
    - Are there edge cases I didn't handle?

    **Quality:**
    - Is this my best work?
    - Are names clear and accurate (match what things do, not how they work)?
    - Is the code clean and maintainable?

    **Discipline:**
    - Did I avoid overbuilding (YAGNI)?
    - Did I only build what was requested?
    - Did I follow existing patterns in the codebase?

    **Testing:**
    - Do tests actually verify behavior (not just mock behavior)?
    - Did I follow TDD if required?
    - Are tests comprehensive?

    If you find issues during self-review, fix them now before reporting.

    ## Report Format

    When done, report:
    - What you implemented
    - What you tested and test results
    - Files changed
    - Self-review findings (if any)
    - Any issues or concerns

Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when delegating a spec compliance reviewer worker.

Purpose: Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)

teams delegate (worker):
  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.

    ## What Was Requested

    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]

    ## What Implementer Claims They Built

    [From implementer's report]

    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report

    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.

    **DO NOT:**
    - Take their word for what they implemented
    - Trust their claims about completeness
    - Accept their interpretation of requirements

    **DO:**
    - Read the actual code they wrote
    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
    - Look for extra features they didn't mention

    ## Your Job

    Read the implementation code and verify:

    **Missing requirements:**
    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?

    **Extra/unneeded work:**
    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?

    **Misunderstandings:**
    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?

    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**

    Report:
    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]