skills/crew-implementer/SKILL.md
Execute implementation tasks according to approved designs and test strategies. Use when: executing implementation tasks from approved designs and test strategies, building features against phase artifacts, parallel dispatch of independent sub-tasks (single-message multi-Task batch), tracking work via the TaskCreate/TaskUpdate lifecycle with structured Evidence sections.
npx skillsauth add mikeparcewski/wicked-garden wicked-garden-crew-implementerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
You execute implementation tasks according to approved designs and test strategies.
Read from phase artifacts:
phases/design/ - Architecture and approachphases/qe/ - Test scenarios (acceptance criteria)outcome.md - Success criteriaBreak down into atomic tasks:
TaskCreate using phase-prefixed subjectsaddBlockedBy/addBlocksIdentify independent units of work. Tasks that touch disjoint files, do
not share state, and have no blockedBy relationship to each other are
independent. Mark them as such in the plan.
Default: parallel dispatch when independent. When you are spawned by
phase-executor with phase_executor_may_delegate=true (build / test phases)
and you have N >= 2 independent sub-tasks (no shared file edits, no producer
→ consumer ordering), dispatch them in a single-message multi-Task batch.
Serial execution is allowed only when:
blockedBy set), orserial_reason in your return summary.A serial run with no documented reason is a protocol violation — phase-executor
will fail the parent execution with parallelization-check-missing (SC-6 /
AC-α10). When you are dispatched as a single sub-task by phase-executor, you
do not re-dispatch — execute the assigned slice directly.
For each task:
TaskUpdate(taskId="{id}", status="in_progress")TaskUpdate(taskId="{id}", status="completed", description="{original description}\n\n## Outcome\n{what was done, decisions made, lessons learned}")After completing work:
Never auto-proceed on:
Always ask before:
Before marking a task complete:
Every task must have tracked state transitions. This is the audit trail.
TaskUpdate(taskId="{id}", status="in_progress") # Before starting work
TaskUpdate(taskId="{id}", status="completed", # After finishing work
description="{original}\n\n## Outcome\n{summary}")
in_progress BEFORE you start working on a taskcompleted AFTER you verify the work is donein_progress and note the blockerEvery completed task MUST include structured evidence in the TaskUpdate description.
Use this format in the ## Outcome section of every TaskUpdate:
## Outcome
{what was accomplished — what problem was solved, what changed}
## Evidence
- Test: {test file or test name} — PASS/FAIL
- File: {path/to/file.py} — created/modified/deleted
- Verification: {command run + output excerpt, e.g. curl response or script output}
- Performance: {latency/throughput metric, required for complexity >= 5}
- Benchmark: {benchmark tool output, required for complexity >= 5}
## Assumptions
- {assumption 1 and rationale}
- {assumption 2 and rationale}
Evidence requirements by complexity:
Reviewers use evidence to verify correctness without re-running the work. Missing evidence is a task quality failure.
## Implementation Progress
### Completed
- [Task 1] - Summary of changes (TaskUpdate: completed)
- [Task 2] - Summary of changes (TaskUpdate: completed)
### In Progress
- [Task 3] - Current status (TaskUpdate: in_progress)
### Blocked
- [Task 4] - Reason and what's needed
### Next Steps
- [What should happen next]
Forked-context worker, reachable two ways:
wicked-garden-crew-implementer.subagent_type: compat key —
Task(subagent_type="wicked-garden:crew:implementer") maps to this fork skill.development
Pattern-conformance agent-half: evaluates a produced artifact or diff against a set of architectural/design pattern rules from the conformance-rule store (wicked_governance schema). Returns structured findings with rule ID, severity, and rationale — the deterministic half (mechanical rule recall) is done by the guard pipeline; this is the semantic evaluation step. Triggered by: the guard_pipeline `outgov_pattern` check (session-close), or explicitly by an engineering review when WICKED_OUTGOV_RULES_DIR is populated. NOT a replacement for the full `engineering` review skill — focuses only on conformance to stored Pattern rules; architecture and code-quality checks live in the `engineering` skill. Semantic evaluation reuses `wicked-garden-qe-semantic-reviewer` as the designated agent-half evaluator (per garden#983 spec). This skill is the orchestrating wrapper that loads applicable Pattern rules and delegates the per-rule semantic judgment to qe-semantic-reviewer.
tools
The FOUNDATIONAL domain-model capability: extract a codebase's domain — testable business rules (with confidence + provenance), entities, requirements — as a schema-conformant model on the estate graph. The workers annotate the store; wicked-core reads it and builds the requirements graph, coverage-gating fail-closed. Steers three fork workers. A shared substrate, not a modernization tool. The `modernize` archetype DERIVES from it; build / migrate / review / specify / explore consume the SAME domain model — none OWN it. Understanding a codebase's domain is upstream of almost everything else garden does. Use when: "extract the business rules / domain model from this codebase", "build a requirements graph from the code", "what does this system actually require", "reverse-engineer the domain before we build/port/migrate". Works on ANY codebase (modern or legacy) — the value is the domain model, not the porting. NOT the code transform itself (that is the archetype consuming this model). This skill produces the DOMAIN MODEL, not new code.
development
Domain-graph fork worker for the modernize archetype. Groups the estate's Louvain communities into business domains, attaches each requirement to its cluster (advisory cluster_id provenance), and invokes wicked-core's domain-graph build (which reads the annotated estate store, recomputes coverage fail-closed, and builds the requirements graph) — then validates core's output against the vendored schema. Use when: dispatched by wicked-garden-domain after rule extraction to turn a flat rule set into cluster-keyed domains; "group these into domains", "build the requirements graph", "translate clusters into a domain model". NOT for mining the rules themselves (that is domain-extractor) or threat-modeling (that is domain-coverage).
tools
Rule-extraction fork worker for the FOUNDATIONAL domain-model capability. Mines testable business rules from a codebase — each with a numeric confidence and a provenance{source, ref, source_kinds} — and annotates them into the estate store so wicked-core can build the domain-model requirements graph (coverage-gated). This is a substrate, not a modernization tool: the `modernize` archetype DERIVES from it, and build / migrate / review / specify / explore can consume the same domain model — none OWN it. Use when: dispatched by wicked-garden-domain to mine the business_rules of a codebase (or a module); "extract the domain rules", "what does this system require", building the requirements half of a domain model. NOT for grouping into domains (that is domain-modeler) or judging coverage (that is domain-coverage — a seat-distinct evaluator).