subagents-orchestration-guide-7073c1 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited subagents-orchestration-guide-7073c1 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Explicit User Instruction: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in the invoked recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.
When receiving a new full-cycle task, pass the user requirements to requirement-analyzer and keep the user's wording in the orchestrator. Compare the returned scope, cost, and question evidence against that wording to run requirement convergence and assign Structural Scale. Classify evaluation requests, speculative ideas, and prescribed mechanisms from the user's wording rather than from analyzer output. The orchestrator owns both judgments. Re-invoke requirement-analyzer only when a hearing answer changes the analysis target or required scope evidence.
Before routing calls at workflow entry or resumption, resolve the mode from the user's explicit mode selection, then the Workflow Mode directive in the loaded root CLAUDE.md, otherwise Normal Mode. An explicit session selection applies until the user changes it and takes precedence over the repository default.
The flows below describe Normal Mode. For Lite Mode, read references/lite-mode.md and apply its call set and quality boundary. Invoke retained calls and consume only results they actually produced. User-approval stops and authority boundaries remain applicable in both modes.
Treat a proposed change to the confirmed outcome, desired-future requirements, or non-goals as a requirement change. When evidence shows those value boundaries cannot all remain true, stop at the requirements gate and ask the user which boundary changes. A technical design or implementation correction that preserves them is not a requirement change, including removal of a working technical choice that is no longer needed; passing an earlier phase does not establish that its means remain necessary. Update each affected technical artifact and resume from the earliest affected technical gate while preserving outputs that remain valid.
I pass what to accomplish and where to work. Each specialist determines how to execute autonomously.
I pass to specialists (what/where/constraints):
I let specialists determine (how):
| Bad (I prescribe how) | Good (I pass what) | |
|---|---|---|
| quality-fixer | "Run these checks: 1. lint 2. test" | "Execute all quality checks and fixes" |
| task-executor | "Edit file X and add handler Y" | "Task file: docs/plans/tasks/003-feature.md" |
Decision precedence when outputs conflict:
An explicit restriction in the user instruction or confirmed outcome, desired-future requirements, or non-goals is a hard boundary. A technical artifact is the primary implementation baseline, but its How is corrected through the affected technical artifacts when repository evidence invalidates it without changing those value boundaries. Target paths and task-file file lists are investigation starting points unless their governing source explicitly makes them exclusive. Unrelated improvements remain outside the active change.
Each specialist's agent definition owns its canonical result shape. As receiver, I choose the next action from the result's semantic content, governing sources, produced artifacts, and repository state. Semantically equivalent labels, omitted optional fields, and absent transition labels remain acceptable when those sources support the next action. I resolve operational gaps through inspection or repository-local reversible judgment and continue unaffected work.
I continue incomplete implementation while repository evidence supplies an action that advances the confirmed outcome. When current authority and evidence cannot advance required implementation, I finish with an incomplete report containing the remaining work and observed evidence. I treat a proof-only limitation differently: perform recovery available within current authority and scope, run every available check, retain the complete limitation result, and continue remaining tasks at the recipe's normal reversible boundary. Before final verification, I re-invoke the applicable quality-fixer once with the same scope and affected check; a pass result clears the retained proof limitation, stub_detected routes through incompleteImplementations, and only a repeated verification_incomplete result is reported. I claim only observed proof. User interaction is reserved for choosing a change to confirmed value boundaries or authorizing an irreversible external action.
Apply references/review-resolution.md to actionable deliverable-review findings. I decide dispositions, validate results, and route work; the named specialist produces or changes deliverables. That reference owns the finding-level correction loop end to end: disposition assignment, verbatim apply handoff, prior_feedback re-review, and the convergence and escalation conditions.
I understand each subagent's responsibilities and assign work appropriately:
task-executor Responsibilities (DELEGATE these):
quality-fixer Responsibilities (DELEGATE these):
Task cycle: Accept each task's implementation result and required integration/E2E review, apply the selected mode's quality boundary, then commit the completed task at the recipe's commit point. Normal Mode runs quality-fixer per task; Lite Mode uses the Final Quality Run. Each task retains its focused verification.
Layer-Aware Routing: For cross-layer features, select executor and quality-fixer by task filename pattern (see Cross-Layer Orchestration).
Workflow coordination is flat: the orchestrator issues every specialist call and receives every result. Specialist definitions keep Agent outside their tool sets.
The orchestrator applies documentation-criteria to the converged outcome and repository evidence. Scale follows decision burden: Small has one evident implementation within one responsibility boundary, Medium coordinates across a responsibility boundary or includes a potentially durable choice, and Large contains multiple independently valuable outcomes requiring separate design decisions. File count is supporting evidence only.
| Scale | PRD | ADR | Design Doc | Work Plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small | Update when product scope changes | Not needed | Not needed | Not needed — task-executor runs from an explicit prompt |
| Medium | Update when product scope changes | Only for decision points that pass both ADR filters | Required | Required |
| Large | Required — create, update, or reverse | Only for decision points that pass both ADR filters | Required | Required |
A qualifying ADR raises the scale to Medium at minimum. Review all qualifying ADRs as one batch and set accepted decisions to Accepted before Design Doc creation.
All subagent invocation uses the Agent tool with:
subagent_type: Agent name (e.g., "task-executor")description: Concise task description (3-5 words)prompt: Specific instructions including deliverable pathsThe orchestrator coordinates work using only the following tools:
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Agent | Invoke subagents |
| AskUserQuestion | User confirmations and questions |
| Bash | Shell operations (git commit, ls, verification commands) |
| Read | Deliverable documents for information bridging between subagents |
All implementation work (Edit, Write, MultiEdit) is performed by subagents, not the orchestrator.
Each agent declares its own input and output contract. Read that contract when composing a call, then apply Specialist Result Acceptance to the returned semantic content instead of requiring a second routing schema here.
Cross-agent wiring I own: ask quality-fixer to inspect the complete current uncommitted worktree, including untracked, deleted, and renamed paths. Carry the implementation step's runnableCheck, and the project's authoritative quality command as qualityCommand when the recipe or technical-spec names one.
Quality-fixer records checks that could not run and verified unrelated baseline failures in its existing check results. After runnable change-related checks pass, pass continues normal routing. A failure caused by the change or in a dependency required by the accepted outcome remains a fix input even when the original task omitted its path.
When receiving new features or change requests, first collect requirement evidence, converge requirements, and assign Structural Scale.
ADRBatch mode → document-reviewer batch review → resolve findings → set accepted ADRs to Accepted [Stop]DesignDoc mode → code-verifier → document-reviewer → design-sync → Design Doc approval [Stop]ADRBatch mode → document-reviewer batch review → resolve findings → set accepted ADRs to Accepted [Stop]DesignDoc mode → code-verifier → document-reviewer → design-sync → Design Doc approval [Stop]Small produces no Work Plan or task file. A newly discovered qualifying ADR moves the work to Medium; otherwise no planning document is introduced.
Start the applicable Structural Scale flow at the phase the user requested. That instruction accepts the preceding phases, so continue from that entry point rather than rechecking earlier review or approval records. Before reporting completion, verify the artifacts and results every applicable phase from that entry point requires, and complete missing work inside those phases. Return to an earlier phase only when a material change invalidates its outcome, applying Requirement Change Detection.
When the orchestrator determines from scopeEvidence.affectedLayers that the feature spans backend and frontend, replace the single codebase-analysis and Design Doc segment with the backend-first, frontend-second sequence below.
Replace the standard Design Doc creation step with per-layer creation:
| Step | Agent | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | codebase-analyzer | Analyze the complete confirmed cross-layer scope, passing exactly one governing source: prd_path or requirements |
| 9 | technical-designer | Backend Design Doc (with the relevant backend evidence from step 8) |
| 10 | code-verifier (Normal Mode) | Verify Backend Design Doc against existing code (its result JSON becomes prior_layer_verification for step 12) |
| 11 | document-reviewer | Review Backend Design Doc (pass verification_evidence when step 10 ran, and step-8 JSON as codebase_analysis); route the verdict through the Review Resolution Verdict Gate |
| 12 | technical-designer-frontend | Frontend Design Doc (with relevant frontend evidence from step 8, reviewed Backend Design Doc, UI Spec, and prior_layer_verification when step 10 ran) |
| 13 | code-verifier (Normal Mode) | Verify Frontend Design Doc against existing code |
| 14 | document-reviewer | Review Frontend Design Doc (pass verification_evidence when step 13 ran, plus step-8 JSON as codebase_analysis). Route the verdict through the Review Resolution Verdict Gate. |
| 15 | design-sync (Normal Mode) | Cross-layer consistency verification, then Design Doc approval [Stop] in both modes |
Step 8 runs once and its full JSON is reused unchanged by both designers; each consumes the evidence relevant to its layer. The retained backend steps run sequentially before step 12 so the frontend designer receives reviewed backend contracts and repository verification when it ran.
Layer Context in Design Doc Creation:
design-sync: Use frontend Design Doc as source. design-sync auto-discovers other Design Docs in docs/design/ for comparison.
Pass all reviewed Design Doc paths and supplied test skeleton paths to work-planner. It follows the selected implementation approach, dependencies, and earliest executable verification boundary when defining tasks.
During autonomous execution, route agents by task filename pattern. This table also defines the two executor lanes a work plan task entry selects between:
| Executor lane | Filename Pattern | Executor | Quality Fixer |
|---|---|---|---|
backend | *-task-* or *-backend-task-* | task-executor | quality-fixer |
frontend | *-frontend-task-* | task-executor-frontend | quality-fixer-frontend |
A work plan task entry records exactly one lane; task materialization copies that value and selects the filename from this table rather than inferring the layer from target paths.
After starting autonomous execution mode:
status: escalation_needed or status: blocked -> Apply Specialist Result AcceptancerequiresTestReview is true -> Execute integration-test-reviewerstatus is needs_revision -> Apply Review Resolution and re-invoke the routed executor (task-executor or task-executor-frontend per Layer-Aware Agent Routing) with the same task_file and the complete apply quality-issue objects verbatim as correction_findingsstatus is blocked -> Resolve moved or renamed changed test paths and re-invoke the reviewer once. If no changed test exists despite requiresTestReview: true, return that executor-output defect to the routed executor as correction_findings. If it returns blocked again, record the review as not run and proceed to the selected mode's quality/commit boundarystatus is pass -> Proceed to the selected mode's quality/commit boundary| Trigger | Action |
|---|---|
| Evidence shows the confirmed outcome, desired-future requirements, and non-goals cannot all remain true without a user choice | Apply Requirement Change Detection and ask which value boundary changes. |
| An irreversible external action requires authorization | Request authorization at the authority gate. |
| Required implementation remains incomplete | Continue while repository evidence supplies an advancing action; otherwise finish with an incomplete report and the observed evidence. |
| A subagent reports an environment or execution prerequisite | Apply the proof-limitation recovery and retry in Specialist Result Acceptance. |
| A requirement changes | Apply Requirement Change Detection above. After task-decomposer starts, invalidate affected tasks; restart document design only when the requirement change invalidates an approved requirement, contract, data flow, verification strategy, or task boundary. |
| The user stops or interrupts | Stop autonomous execution. |
Every subagent prompt must include:
Construct the prompt from the agent's Input Parameters section and the deliverables available at that point in the flow.
Two additional rules:
[placeholder] in examples below with concrete values before invoking the Agent tool#### convergence record → the agent that carries it
Pass: the orchestrator's judged convergence record to whichever agent carries it forward. Pass it unchanged; each field's readiness label travels with it.
outcome to Success Criteria and user-authored nonGoals to Out of Scope; the PRD contains confirmed requirements and boundaries while evaluation requests, speculative ideas, and unselected mechanisms remain only in pre-confirmation convergence contextRequirement Convergence when no PRD exists, and always records the fields left weak-but-explicit therenonGoals; unselected candidates create no UI Spec contentprototype_path is present, pass prototype_reference_strength: binding when implementation follows the prototype's rendering, or reference when only what the UI Spec records reaches implementation. Resolve it from what the user already stated about the prototype; ask only when neither reading is supportednonGoals as excluded from every task entry; unselected candidates create no planning obligation. At Small scale no Work Plan is produced, so the weak-but-explicit fields stay in the orchestrator's own context per the storage protocol rather than becoming blocking items in the executor prompt#### codebase-analyzer → technical-designer
Pass to codebase-analyzer: exactly one governing source — the approved PRD path when one exists, otherwise the confirmed requirements Pass to technical-designer: codebase-analyzer JSON output as additional context in the Design Doc creation prompt. Required downstream uses:
focusAreas → canonical disposition-target list for the Fact Disposition Table (one row per focusArea, carrying through fact_id and evidence verbatim)simplifications → each entry whose recorded condition holds reduces new implementation surface; the orchestrator presents the set at the scope stop and passes it unchangeddataModel, dataTransformationPipelines, qualityAssurance → Existing Codebase Analysis and Verification Strategy sections#### code-verifier → document-reviewer (Design Doc review)
Pass to code-verifier: Design Doc path (doc_type: design-doc). Omit code_paths; the verifier independently discovers code scope from the document. Pass to document-reviewer: verification_evidence from the latest code-verifier result and recorded Review Resolution dispositions only when verification ran; otherwise omit that input. Always pass the same codebase-analyzer JSON previously given to the designer as codebase_analysis, the governing source as confirmed_requirement_context, and the original request as requirements_verbatim when applicable. The reviewer uses codebase_analysis.focusAreas to verify Fact Disposition Table coverage and the confirmed requirement context to verify the document's outcome and contract.
#### design-evidence finding with an apply disposition → technical-designer
Pass to the owning designer: invoke a fresh update call with the existing Design Doc path and complete correction_findings copied verbatim with only their apply dispositions added. The artifact carries approved requirements, accepted decisions, prior evidence, and unaffected design context; add no orchestrator-authored design instructions. The designer applies its review-triggered bounded self-verification gate and updates the artifact from established evidence. The orchestrator reruns the originating verifier or reviewer only after a completed update.
#### code-verifier + document-reviewer → next-layer technical-designer (cross-layer flow only)
Pass to next-layer technical-designer: reviewed prior-layer Design Doc path plus prior_layer_verification only when the prior-layer code-verifier ran. See Cross-Layer Orchestration section for sequencing. Use available verification discrepancies and prior-layer review findings to identify unstable contracts. Limit verified-claim inference to what actual evidence states; when the design depends on an unverified claim, record it in the frontend Design Doc's ## Cross-Layer Assumptions section with justification and a verification target. Escalate only when the dependency cannot be bounded by a downstream verification step.
#### technical-designer → work-planner
Pass to work-planner: Design Doc path. Work-planner maps governing sections and ACs to implementation tasks. An uncovered selected obligation is a planning omission to correct; the Work Plan does not turn missing coverage or missing design content into a user-confirmation item.
#### *1 acceptance-test-generator → work-planner
Pass to acceptance-test-generator: Design Doc path; UI Spec path (if exists).
Orchestrator verification: Every path in generatedFiles[] exists on disk. An empty list is a valid generation result.
Pass to work-planner: generated paths. Work-planner assigns each skeleton to the earliest task where it becomes executable.
pass or verification_incomplete. Lite Mode task commits follow accepted executor and required test-review results; the Final Quality Run precedes post-implementation review. Commits occur only at the invoked recipe's defined points| Reviewer | Complete: empty finding set | Enter Review Resolution | Blocked |
|---|---|---|---|
| code-reviewer | verdict is pass | verdict is needs-improvement or needs-redesign | verdict is blocked → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance |
| security-reviewer | status is pass | status is needs_revision | status is blocked → Apply Specialist Result Acceptance |
Reviewer findings are candidates. Create correction work only from the Review Resolution apply set.
Fix-cycle handoff: Apply Review Resolution and invoke each correction owner it selects. For an author-owned technical-artifact correction, invoke the layer-appropriate technical designer in update mode, run the artifact's existing document-reviewer and applicable design-sync gates, then re-run the originating reviewer. For an executor-owned correction, invoke the layer-appropriate executor with its original task_file or direct-scope fields plus correction_findings as the complete apply finding objects verbatim with only their dispositions added, then branch on the executor result through the per-task cycle's step 2, including its conditional integration-test-reviewer path, and run the applicable quality gate. When both owners are required, Review Resolution's author-first re-evaluation controls the order. Carry prior_feedback only to reconciliation reviewers.
Re-run rule: A reviewer's passing result stands. Re-run only a reviewer whose latest result still carries a corrected finding, passing its recorded dispositions as prior_feedback and the re-derived implementation file set so the rerun reconciles against the corrected state. After recovering a blocked review prerequisite, re-run that reviewer. Review Resolution convergence governs acceptance and preserves resolved declines.
references/review-resolution.md: Finding disposition, correction, and convergencereferences/lite-mode.md: The Lite Mode call set and Final Quality Run~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.