home / skills / thebushidocollective / han / develop
This skill guides end-to-end feature development using an 8-phase workflow with emphasis on quality, testing, and documentation.
npx playbooks add skill thebushidocollective/han --skill developReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: develop
user-invocable: false
description: Comprehensive 8-phase workflow for developing new features with quality enforcement
---
# Feature Development Workflow
## Name
han-core:develop - Comprehensive 8-phase workflow for developing new features with quality enforcement
## Synopsis
```
/develop [arguments]
```
## Description
Comprehensive 8-phase workflow for developing new features with quality enforcement
## Implementation
A comprehensive, structured 8-phase workflow for developing new features with quality enforcement and quality principles.
## Overview
This command guides you through a systematic feature development process:
1. **Discover** - Understand requirements and context
2. **Explore** - Analyze existing codebase patterns
3. **Clarify** - Resolve ambiguities with user input
4. **Design** - Create architecture with specialized agents
5. **Implement** - Build with TDD and quality practices
6. **Review** - Multi-agent quality review with confidence scoring
7. **Validate** - Run all verification hooks and summarize
8. **Document** - Write blog post announcing the feature
---
## Phase 1: Discover
### Understand requirements and gather context
**Objective**: Establish clear understanding of what needs to be built and why.
1. **Review the feature request**:
- What is the user-facing goal?
- What problem does this solve?
- What are the acceptance criteria?
2. **Identify impacted areas**:
- Which parts of the codebase will change?
- What existing features might be affected?
- Are there related issues or PRs?
3. **Check for similar features**:
```bash
# Search for similar implementations
grep -r "similar_feature_name" .
```
4. **Review project documentation**:
- Check CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md for standards
- Review architecture docs if available
- Identify any constraints or requirements
**Output**: Clear problem statement and high-level approach.
---
## Phase 2: Explore (Parallel Agent Execution)
### Analyze codebase with specialized agents
**Objective**: Understand existing patterns and identify integration points.
**Launch multiple Explore agents in PARALLEL** (single message with multiple Task calls):
1. **Code Explorer**: Map existing features
- Find entry points and call chains
- Identify data flow and transformations
- Document current architecture
2. **Pattern Analyzer**: Identify conventions
- How are similar features implemented?
- What testing patterns are used?
- What naming conventions exist?
3. **Dependency Mapper**: Understand relationships
- What modules will be affected?
- What are the integration points?
- Are there circular dependencies to avoid?
**Consolidation**: Synthesize findings from all agents into a cohesive understanding.
**Output**: Comprehensive map of existing codebase patterns and integration points.
---
## Phase 3: Clarify (Human Decision Point)
### Resolve ambiguities before implementation
**Objective**: Get user input on unclear requirements and design choices.
**Use AskUserQuestion tool** to resolve:
1. **Architecture decisions**:
- Which approach should we take? (if multiple valid options)
- What are the trade-offs? (performance vs. simplicity)
2. **Scope clarifications**:
- Should this include X feature?
- What's the priority if time is limited?
3. **Integration choices**:
- Should we extend existing module or create new one?
- How should this integrate with system Y?
**IMPORTANT**: Do not proceed with assumptions. Get explicit user answers.
**Output**: Clear, unambiguous requirements with user-approved approach.
---
## Phase 4: Design (Parallel Agent Execution)
### Create architecture with specialized agents
**Objective**: Design the implementation before coding.
**Select appropriate specialized agent(s)** based on feature type:
- **Frontend feature?** → `frontend:presentation-engineer`
- **Backend API?** → `backend:api-designer`
- **Database changes?** → `databases:database-designer`
- **Complex system?** → `architecture:solution-architect`
**Launch agents in PARALLEL** for multi-disciplinary features:
- Frontend + Backend agents simultaneously
- Include `security:security-engineer` for sensitive features
- Include `performance:performance-engineer` for high-traffic features
**Agent responsibilities**:
- Define module structure and file organization
- Specify interfaces and contracts
- Identify testing strategy
- Document key decisions and trade-offs
**Consolidation**: Review all design proposals, resolve conflicts, select final approach.
**Output**: Detailed implementation plan with module structure and interfaces.
---
## Phase 5: Implement (TDD with Quality Enforcement)
### Build the feature using test-driven development
**Objective**: Implement the designed solution with quality practices.
**Apply TDD cycle** (use `tdd:test-driven-development` skill):
```
For each component:
1. Write failing test (Red)
2. Implement minimum code to pass (Green)
3. Refactor for quality (Refactor)
4. Repeat
```
**Implementation guidelines**:
- ✅ Start with tests, not implementation
- ✅ Follow existing codebase patterns (from Phase 2)
- ✅ Apply SOLID principles (`han-core:solid-principles` skill)
- ✅ Keep it simple (KISS, YAGNI)
- ✅ Apply Boy Scout Rule - leave code better than found
- ❌ Don't over-engineer
- ❌ Don't skip tests
- ❌ Don't ignore linter/type errors
**Integration**:
- Integrate incrementally (don't build everything then integrate)
- Test integration points early
- Validate against acceptance criteria continuously
**Output**: Working implementation with comprehensive tests.
---
## Phase 6: Review (Parallel Multi-Agent Review)
### Quality review with confidence-based filtering
**Objective**: Identify high-confidence issues before final validation.
**Launch review agents in PARALLEL** (single message with multiple Task calls):
1. **Code Reviewer** (han-core:code-reviewer skill):
- General quality assessment
- Confidence scoring ≥80%
- False positive filtering
2. **Security Engineer** (security:security-engineer):
- Security vulnerability scan
- Auth/authz pattern verification
- Input validation review
3. **Discipline-Specific Agent**:
- Frontend: `frontend:presentation-engineer` (accessibility, UX)
- Backend: `backend:backend-architect` (API design, scalability)
- etc.
**Review consolidation**:
- Merge findings from all agents
- De-duplicate issues
- Filter for confidence ≥80%
- Organize by: Critical (≥90%) → Important (≥80%)
**Present findings to user with options**:
```
Found 3 critical and 5 important issues.
Options:
1. Fix all issues now (recommended)
2. Fix critical only, defer important
3. Review findings and decide per-issue
```
**Output**: Consolidated review with high-confidence issues only.
---
## Phase 7: Validate & Summarize
### Final verification and change summary
**Objective**: Ensure all quality gates pass and document the change.
**Run all validation hooks**:
```bash
# All validation plugins automatically run on Stop
# Verify: tests, linting, type checking, etc.
```
**Validation checklist**:
- [ ] All tests pass
- [ ] Linting passes
- [ ] Type checking passes
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities introduced
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] No breaking changes (or properly coordinated)
**Generate change summary**:
1. **What changed**: Files modified and why
2. **How to test**: Steps to verify functionality
3. **Breaking changes**: None, or list with migration guide
4. **Follow-up tasks**: Any deferred work or tech debt
**Create TODO list** (using TaskCreate tool):
- Document any follow-up tasks
- Track deferred improvements
- Note any tech debt introduced
**Output**: Ready-to-commit feature with comprehensive documentation.
---
## Phase 8: Document (Blog Post)
### Write a blog post announcing the feature
**Objective**: Share the new feature with the community and explain its value.
**Blog post creation**:
1. **Research context** (optional):
- Use `reddit` to find related community discussions
- Identify pain points the feature addresses
- Understand how users talk about this problem
2. **Write the blog post**:
Location: `website/content/blog/{feature-slug}.md`
```markdown
---
title: "{Feature Name}: {Compelling subtitle}"
description: "{One-line description of what problem this solves}"
date: "{YYYY-MM-DD}"
author: "The Bushido Collective"
tags: ["{relevant}", "{tags}"]
category: "Feature"
---
{Opening hook - what problem does this solve?}
## The Problem
{Describe the pain point this feature addresses}
## The Solution
{Explain how the feature works}
### Key Capabilities
{List main features with examples}
## Getting Started
{How to use the feature}
## What's Next
{Future improvements or related features}
```
3. **Writing guidelines**:
- Technical but accessible
- 500-1000 words for feature announcements
- Include working code examples
- Be honest about limitations
- Make it actionable
**IMPORTANT**: Every significant feature should have a blog post. This is not optional.
**Output**: Published blog post in `website/content/blog/`.
---
## Usage
### Basic usage
```
/feature-dev
```
Then describe the feature you want to build.
### With feature description
```
/feature-dev Add user authentication with JWT tokens
```
---
## Best Practices
### DO
- ✅ Follow all 8 phases in order
- ✅ Launch agents in parallel when independent
- ✅ Use AskUserQuestion to resolve ambiguities
- ✅ Apply confidence scoring to all reviews
- ✅ Run TDD cycle for all new code
- ✅ Pause for user input at decision points
- ✅ Write a blog post for every significant feature
### DON'T
- ❌ Skip phases (especially Explore, Review, and Document)
- ❌ Start coding before design (Phases 1-4)
- ❌ Implement without tests
- ❌ Report low-confidence review findings
- ❌ Make architectural decisions without user input
- ❌ Commit without running validation hooks
- ❌ Ship features without documentation
---
## Example Workflow
```
User: /feature-dev Add pagination to user list API
Phase 1: Discover
- Feature: Add pagination to GET /api/users
- Acceptance: Support page/limit query params, return total count
- Impact: Backend API, database queries
Phase 2: Explore (parallel agents)
- Found existing pagination in products API
- Pattern: Uses offset/limit with total count in response
- Testing: Integration tests verify pagination logic
Phase 3: Clarify
Q: Should we use cursor-based or offset-based pagination?
A: [User selects offset-based for consistency]
Phase 4: Design
- Agent: backend:api-designer
- Design: Extend existing UserService with pagination
- Interface: getUsersPaginated(page, limit) -> { users, total }
Phase 5: Implement
- Write test for pagination
- Implement pagination logic
- Test passes ✅
Phase 6: Review (parallel agents)
- Code reviewer: No issues (confidence N/A)
- Security engineer: No issues (confidence N/A)
- Backend architect: No issues (confidence N/A)
Phase 7: Validate
- Tests: ✅ Pass
- Linting: ✅ Pass
- Types: ✅ Pass
- Ready to commit
Phase 8: Document
- Blog post: website/content/blog/user-list-pagination.md
- Title: "Pagination: Handling Large Data Sets Gracefully"
- Tags: [api, pagination, performance]
Summary: Added pagination to user list API
Files: services/user.service.ts, tests/user.service.test.ts, website/content/blog/user-list-pagination.md
Testing: Run GET /api/users?page=1&limit=10
```
---
## See Also
- `/review` - Run multi-agent review only
- `/commit` - Smart commit workflow
- `/create-blog-post` - Research and write blog posts
- `tdd:test-driven-development` - TDD skill
- `han-core:code-reviewer` - Review skill
This skill provides a structured, 8-phase workflow to develop new features with built-in quality enforcement. It guides teams from requirement discovery through parallel design and review, to final validation and a public-facing blog post. The workflow enforces TDD, multi-agent reviews with confidence filtering, and clear user decision points.
The workflow runs eight ordered phases: Discover, Explore (parallel code analysis agents), Clarify (human decision point), Design (parallel specialist agents), Implement (TDD), Review (multi-agent quality review with confidence scoring), Validate (run validation hooks and produce change summary), and Document (publish a blog post). Each phase produces specific outputs and gates progression until user approvals and quality checks pass.
Can I skip phases for small changes?
Small fixes may be faster, but skipping phases increases risk; at minimum do Discover, Implement (with tests), Review, and Validate.
How are conflicting design proposals resolved?
Design agents consolidate proposals; conflicts are reviewed and the final approach is chosen with user approval at the Clarify decision point.
What does confidence scoring mean in reviews?
Review agents tag findings with confidence percentages; only high-confidence issues (recommended ≥80%) are surfaced to reduce false positives.