Delegate Task

HARD GATE — HARD GATE — Delegated work must have clear success criteria and verification commands. The delegate must be able to verify completion independently.

Delegate a single complex task to a subagent with a two-stage review gate before accepting the result. Use when oversight of a single task matters more than speed.

Distinct from dispatch-agents: This skill runs one subagent sequentially with a mandatory review. dispatch-agents runs multiple subagents in parallel without inter-task review gates.

Subagent depth tiers (e45s30)

Select brief depth from task risk: and skill effort: before spawning:

State depth: <tier> in the Agent tool description field.

Process

1. Define the task

Before spawning the agent, read specs/state.yaml if it exists. Then write a minimal self-contained brief using this template (brief size directly controls token cost and hallucination risk — do not pad):

Goal: [one sentence — specific, measurable outcome]
In scope: [explicit file or module list]
Out of bounds: [what NOT to do]
Constraints: [relevant CONVENTIONS.md rules, existing patterns, test requirements]
Verify: [runnable command]
Prior decisions: [relevant entries from specs/state.yaml — omit section if none apply]

Do not include full file contents, full conversation history, or decisions unrelated to this task.

2. Spawn the subagent (iterative retrieval, max 3 cycles)

Use the Agent tool with a fresh context per spawn. Pass prior decisions only via specs/state.yaml.

Cycle: dispatch → evaluate output vs goal → refine brief → re-spawn if needed (max 3 cycles).

Include in each brief:

• All context the agent needs (it starts cold — no shared state)
• Reference to CONVENTIONS.md constraints
• The verify command it must run before reporting done

3. Stage 1 review — output inspection

When the subagent returns, review its report before looking at the diff:

• Did it run the verify command? Did it pass?
• Does it explain what it changed and why?
• Are there any concerns raised by the agent?

If the report raises red flags, ask the subagent for clarification or re-run with adjusted instructions.

4. Stage 2 review — diff inspection

Inspect the actual diff:

git diff main...HEAD

Check:

• Changes are scoped to what was asked — nothing extra
• No any, no @ts-ignore, no disabled lint rules
• Tests added for new behavior
• CONVENTIONS.md compliance (naming, structure, no gh issue creation)
• Boy Scout Rule: touched areas are cleaner than before

5. Decision

• Accept: merge the result into the main working branch
• Revise: send back to the subagent with specific feedback
• Reject: discard and re-approach differently

After accepting, append to specs/state.yaml under ## Active Decisions:

**[task short name]**: [what approach the agent chose and why — one sentence]

Report the decision and rationale to the user.