Subtask Creation - Bite-Sized, Zero-Context Steps

Overview

Write comprehensive implementation subtasks assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase. Each subtask breaks down into 2-5 minute steps following RED-GREEN-REFACTOR. Complete code, exact commands, explicit verification. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.

Save subtasks to: docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/subtasks/T-[task-id]/ST-[task-id]-[number]-[description].md

Foundational Principle

Every subtask must be completable by anyone with zero context about the system.

Requiring context creates bottlenecks, onboarding friction, and integration failures.

Subtasks answer: Exactly what to create/modify, with complete code and verification. Subtasks never answer: Why the system works this way (context is removed).

Bite-Sized Step Granularity

Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):

•"Write the failing test" - step
•"Run it to make sure it fails" - step
•"Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
•"Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
•"Commit" - step

Subtask Document Structure

Header (required):

Field	Content
Title	`# ST-[task-id]-[number]: [Subtask Name]`
Agent Note	`> For Agents: REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:executing-plans`
Goal	One sentence describing what this builds
Prerequisites	Verification commands with expected output
Files	Create: `exact/path`, Modify: `exact/path:lines`, Test: `tests/path`

Step Structure (TDD Cycle):

Step	Content
Step 1: Write failing test	Complete test file with imports
Step 2: Run test to verify fail	Command + expected failure output
Step 3: Write minimal implementation	Complete implementation file
Step 4: Run test to verify pass	Command + expected success output
Step 5: Update exports (if needed)	Exact modification to index files
Step 6: Verify type checking	Command + expected output
Step 7: Commit	Exact git commands with message
Rollback	Exact commands to undo if issues

Explicit Rules

✅ DO Include in Subtasks

Exact file paths (absolute or from root), complete file contents (if creating), complete code snippets (if modifying), all imports and dependencies, step-by-step TDD cycle (numbered), verification commands (copy-pasteable), expected output (exact), rollback procedures (exact commands), prerequisites (what must exist first)

❌ NEVER Include in Subtasks

Placeholders: "...", "TODO", "implement here"; vague instructions: "update the service", "add validation"; assumptions: "assuming setup is done"; context requirements: "you need to understand X first"; incomplete code: "add the rest yourself"; missing imports: "import necessary packages"; undefined success: "make sure it works"; no verification: "test it manually"

<cannot_skip>

⛔ HARD GATE: lib-commons in Go Code Examples

MUST: For Go projects, code examples use lib-commons instead of custom utilities.

See shared-patterns/code-example-standards.md for:

•Complete list of what lib-commons provides
•Forbidden patterns (custom loggers, config loaders, HTTP helpers)
•Correct import patterns with lib prefix aliases
•Anti-rationalization table

Quick Reference - DO NOT Create Custom:

Category	Use lib-commons
Logging	`libLog "github.com/LerianStudio/lib-commons/v2/commons/log"`
Config	`libCommons.SetConfigFromEnvVars()`
HTTP	`libHTTP "github.com/LerianStudio/lib-commons/v2/commons/net/http"`
Telemetry	`libOpentelemetry "github.com/LerianStudio/lib-commons/v2/commons/opentelemetry"`
PostgreSQL	`libPostgres "github.com/LerianStudio/lib-commons/v2/commons/postgres"`

MUST NOT: Create custom logger, config loader, or HTTP helper in subtasks—use lib-commons.

</cannot_skip>

Rationalization Table

Excuse	Reality
"The developer will figure out imports"	Imports are context. Provide them explicitly.
"TODO comments are fine for simple parts"	TODOs require decisions. Make them now.
"They'll know which service to update"	They won't. Specify the exact file path.
"The verification steps are obvious"	Obvious ≠ documented. Write exact commands.
"Rollback isn't needed for simple changes"	Simple changes fail too. Always provide rollback.
"This needs system understanding"	Then you haven't removed context. Simplify more.
"I'll provide the template, they fill it"	Templates are incomplete. Provide full code.
"The subtask description explains it"	Descriptions need interpretation. Give exact steps.
"They can look at similar code for reference"	That's context. Make subtask self-contained.
"This is too detailed, we're not that formal"	Detailed = parallelizable = faster. Be detailed.
"Steps are too small, feels like hand-holding"	Small steps = verifiable progress. Stay small.
"Custom logger is simpler for this example"	Examples teach patterns. Teach lib-commons.
"lib-commons import is too verbose"	Verbosity shows correct dependencies. Keep it.
"I'll use lib-commons in the real code"	Subtask is real code. Use lib-commons now.

Red Flags - STOP

If you catch yourself writing any of these in a subtask, STOP and rewrite:

•Code placeholders: ..., // TODO, // implement X here
•Vague file references: "the user service", "the auth module"
•Assumption phrases: "assuming you have", "make sure you"
•Incomplete imports: "import required packages"
•Missing paths: Not specifying where files go
•Undefined verification: "test that it works"
•Steps longer than 5 minutes
•Context dependencies: "you need to understand X"
•No TDD cycle in implementation steps
•Use libZap.NewLogger() instead of custom func NewLogger() (Go)
•Use libCommons.SetConfigFromEnvVars() instead of scattered os.Getenv() (Go)
•Use libHTTP utilities instead of custom func JSONResponse() (Go)
•Check lib-commons first before creating files in utils/, helpers/, pkg/common/ (Go)

When you catch yourself: Expand the subtask until it's completely self-contained.

Gate 8 Validation Checklist

Category	Requirements
Atomicity	Each step 2-5 minutes; no system architecture understanding required; assignable to anyone
Completeness	All code provided in full; all file paths explicit; all imports listed; all prerequisites documented; TDD cycle followed
Verifiability	Test commands copy-pasteable; expected output exact; commands run from project root
Reversibility	Rollback commands provided; rollback doesn't require system knowledge

Gate Result: ✅ PASS → Ready for implementation | ⚠️ CONDITIONAL (add details) | ❌ FAIL (decompose further)

Confidence Scoring

Factor	Points	Criteria
Step Atomicity	0-30	All 2-5 minutes: 30, Most sized right: 20, Too large/vague: 10
Code Completeness	0-30	Zero placeholders: 30, Mostly complete: 15, Significant TODOs: 5
Context Independence	0-25	Anyone can execute: 25, Minor context: 15, Significant knowledge: 5
TDD Coverage	0-15	All RED-GREEN-REFACTOR: 15, Most have tests: 10, Limited: 5

Action: 80+ autonomous | 50-79 present options | <50 ask about structure

Execution Handoff

After creating subtasks, offer execution choice:

"Subtasks complete. Two execution options:

•Subagent-Driven - Fresh subagent per subtask, review between, fast iteration → Use ring:subagent-driven-development
•Parallel Session - New session with ring:executing-plans, batch with checkpoints → Use ring:executing-plans

Which approach?"

The Bottom Line

If you wrote a subtask with "TODO" or "..." or "add necessary imports", delete it and rewrite with complete code.

Subtasks are not instructions. Subtasks are complete, copy-pasteable implementations following TDD.

•"Add validation" is not a step. [Complete validation code with test] is a step.
•"Update the service" is not a step. [Exact file path + exact code changes with test] is a step.
•"Import necessary packages" is not a step. [Complete list of imports] is a step.

Every subtask must be completable by someone who:

•Just joined the team yesterday
•Has never seen the codebase before
•Doesn't know the business domain
•Won't ask questions (you're unavailable)
•Follows TDD religiously

If they can't complete it with zero questions while following RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, it's not atomic enough.

Remember: DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.