feature-dev

Use when taking a feature from idea or GitHub issue all the way to a merge-ready PR in one guided workflow.

<SUBAGENT-STOP> If you were dispatched as a subagent to execute a specific task, skip this skill entirely. This skill is for interactive feature development sessions only. Proceed directly with your assigned task. </SUBAGENT-STOP>

Feature Development (7-Phase)

End-to-end feature development workflow from idea to merge-ready PR.

Arguments

  • /feature-dev <description> — start from a text description
  • /feature-dev #<issue> — start from a GitHub issue
  • /feature-dev --resume — resume interrupted feature-dev (checks for existing worktree/branch)

8-Phase Architecture

Rules always loaded: tdd-workflow.mdc, implementation-doc-mandate.mdc, error-handling.mdc Sub-agents used: tests-creator (before implement), code-verifier (after implement)

Phase 1: REQUIREMENTS + SPEC

  1. Parse input (description or GitHub issue via gh issue view)
  2. Clarify ambiguities — ask the user up to 3 questions max
  3. Produce the Implementation Spec (per implementation-doc-mandate.mdc):
    • What: feature description in 2-3 sentences
    • Why: user value / business reason
    • Scope: what's in, what's explicitly out
    • Acceptance criteria: testable bullet points
    • Approach: which files will change, key design decisions
    • Test strategy: framework, which scenarios will be covered
  4. Save spec to .feature-spec.md in project root (add to .gitignore if not already)
  5. Get user confirmation before proceeding

Phase 2: DESIGN

  1. Research the codebase:
    • Find related modules via search tools
    • Read neighboring implementations for patterns
    • Detect test framework (package.json, existing test files) — needed for tests-creator
  2. Produce implementation plan:
    • Files to create/modify (with brief description of changes)
    • Dependencies or packages needed
    • Data model changes if any
    • Estimated complexity: S / M / L
  3. Load relevant rules from ~/goodai-base/rules/core/ based on what will be built:
    • Always: tdd-workflow.mdc, error-handling.mdc, solid-principles.mdc
    • API/service code: api-contracts.mdc, clean-architecture.mdc
    • Database: database-patterns.mdc
    • Async: async-patterns.mdc
    • Security-sensitive: security-baseline.mdc
  4. Get user confirmation on the plan

Phase 3: PREPARE

  1. Create a feature branch: wt switch -c feat/<name>
  2. Install any new dependencies

Phase 4: TESTS-CREATOR (TDD — RED phase)

Run before writing any implementation code.

  1. For each group of acceptance criteria, invoke tests-creator:
    • Input: acceptance criteria from Phase 1 spec + target files from Phase 2 plan
    • tests-creator detects framework and generates failing test stubs
    • tests-creator commits the stubs and verifies RED state
  2. Confirm test stubs are in place and failing before proceeding to Phase 5

Phase 5: IMPLEMENT (TDD — GREEN phase)

  1. Implement changes file by file, following the plan from Phase 2
  2. Goal: make the failing tests from Phase 4 GREEN
  3. Follow existing code patterns and loaded rules
  4. After each file group, run quick inline check: npx tsc --noEmit (type errors only)
  5. Commit with conventional message after each logical chunk

Phase 6: VERIFY (code-verifier gate)

Run code-verifier on the full diff:

Invoke: skills/code-verifier/SKILL.md
Input:  codebase_path=<project_root>, scope=changed, base_branch=<base>
  • gate: PASS → proceed to Phase 7
  • gate: FAIL → fix findings, re-run code-verifier (max 2 cycles)
  • Still FAIL after 2 cycles → report blocker to user, stop

Phase 7: REVIEW (Self)

  1. Launch code-review skill on own changes (if available)
  2. Or run a focused self-review:
    • git diff main...HEAD — review the full diff
    • Check for: TODOs left behind, console.logs, hardcoded values
    • Verify all acceptance criteria from Phase 1 spec
  3. Fix any findings (max 2 review-fix cycles)
  4. Re-run code-verifier after any fixes

Phase 8: DELIVER + CHANGE REPORT

  1. Push branch
  2. Create PR:
    • Link to issue if applicable
    • Include acceptance criteria checklist
    • Add test plan and code-verifier results
  3. Produce Change Report (per implementation-doc-mandate.mdc):
    • Files created/modified with descriptions
    • Test count and results
    • code-verifier gate result
    • Acceptance criteria checklist (checked off)
    • Commits list
  4. Print Change Report to user
  5. Report PR URL to user

Status Updates

At each phase transition, report progress:

✅ Phase 1: Requirements confirmed
🔄 Phase 2: Designing implementation...

Rules

  • ALWAYS get user confirmation after Phase 1 (requirements + spec) and Phase 2 (design)
  • Phases 4-7 are autonomous — no user interaction needed
  • If stuck for >3 attempts on any step, report the blocker and ask user
  • NEVER skip Phase 4 (tests-creator) even if user says "skip tests" — this is TDD, not optional testing
  • NEVER skip Phase 6 (code-verifier) — it is the quality gate, not a suggestion
  • NEVER commit broken code (code-verifier gate must pass before PR)
  • Keep commits atomic: one commit per logical chunk, not one giant commit
  • ALWAYS produce the Change Report in Phase 8 — even if the PR was not created

Red Flags — Stop and re-read this skill if you are thinking:

RationalizationWhy it's wrong
"Requirements are clear enough, I'll skip the design phase"Skipping design means discovering mismatches after code is written, not before
"The user already approved this approach verbally, no need to document"Undocumented approval is invisible to reviewers and future agents; it doesn't exist
"Tests can be written after — implementation first to check if the approach works"Writing tests after implementation makes you test what you built, not what was required
"This phase isn't needed for such a straightforward feature"Every skipped phase is a deferred bug report
"I understand the requirements, confirmation is just a formality"The confirmation step exists to catch the gap between what you understood and what was meant

IRON LAW 1: NEVER START IMPLEMENTING BEFORE THE SPEC IS WRITTEN AND CONFIRMED. IRON LAW 2: NEVER WRITE IMPLEMENTATION CODE BEFORE TESTS-CREATOR HAS GENERATED FAILING STUBS. IRON LAW 3: NEVER DELIVER WITHOUT A PASSING CODE-VERIFIER GATE AND A CHANGE REPORT.