opencode-swarm-plugin 0.43.0 → 0.44.1

package/docs/analysis/subagent-coordination-patterns.md

@@ -1,902 +0,0 @@
-prefer tdd
-
-# Subagent Coordination Patterns Analysis
-
-**Source:** obra/superpowers repository  
-**Files Analyzed:**
-
-- skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
-- skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md
-- skills/requesting-code-review/SKILL.md
-- skills/requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
-
----
-
-## 1. Core Principles
-
-1. **Fresh Subagent Per Task** - No context pollution. Each agent starts clean, reads requirements, executes, reports back.
-
-2. **Review Between Tasks** - Code review after EACH task catches issues before they compound. Cheaper than debugging later.
-
-3. **Focused Agent Prompts** - One clear problem domain per agent. Self-contained context. Specific about expected output.
-
-4. **Parallelize Independent Work** - 3+ independent failures/tasks = dispatch concurrent agents. No shared state = parallel safe.
-
-5. **Same Session Execution** - Subagent-driven development stays in current session (vs executing-plans which spawns parallel session).
-
-6. **Quality Gates Over Speed** - More subagent invocations cost tokens, but catching issues early is cheaper than debugging cascading failures.
-
-7. **Never Skip Review** - Even "simple" tasks get reviewed. Critical issues block progress. Important issues fixed before next task.
-
-8. **Explicit Severity Tiers** - Critical (must fix), Important (should fix), Minor (nice to have). Not everything is critical.
-
----
-
-## 2. When to Use Each Pattern
-
-### Subagent-Driven Development
-
-**Use when:**
-
-- Staying in current session (no context switch)
-- Tasks are mostly independent
-- Want continuous progress with quality gates
-- Have a plan ready to execute
-
-**Don't use when:**
-
-- Need to review plan first → use `executing-plans`
-- Tasks are tightly coupled → manual execution better
-- Plan needs revision → brainstorm first
-
-**Decision tree:**
-
-```
-Have implementation plan?
-├─ Yes → Tasks independent?
-│  ├─ Yes → Stay in session?
-│  │  ├─ Yes → Subagent-Driven Development ✓
-│  │  └─ No → Executing Plans (parallel session)
-│  └─ No → Manual execution (tight coupling)
-└─ No → Write plan first
-```
-
----
-
-### Dispatching Parallel Agents
-
-**Use when:**
-
-- 3+ test files failing with different root causes
-- Multiple subsystems broken independently
-- Each problem can be understood without context from others
-- No shared state between investigations
-
-**Don't use when:**
-
-- Failures are related (fix one might fix others)
-- Need to understand full system state
-- Agents would interfere with each other (shared state, editing same files)
-- Exploratory debugging (don't know what's broken yet)
-
-**Decision tree:**
-
-```
-Multiple failures?
-├─ Yes → Are they independent?
-│  ├─ Yes → Can work in parallel?
-│  │  ├─ Yes → 3+ failures?
-│  │  │  ├─ Yes → Parallel Dispatch ✓
-│  │  │  └─ No → Sequential agents
-│  │  └─ No (shared state) → Sequential agents
-│  └─ No (related) → Single agent investigates all
-└─ No → Single investigation
-```
-
-**Heuristics:**
-
-- Different test files = likely independent
-- Different subsystems = likely independent
-- Same error across files = likely related
-- Cascading failures = investigate root cause first
-
----
-
-### Requesting Code Review
-
-**Mandatory:**
-
-- After each task in subagent-driven development
-- After completing major feature
-- Before merge to main
-
-**Optional but valuable:**
-
-- When stuck (fresh perspective)
-- Before refactoring (baseline check)
-- After fixing complex bug
-
-**Never skip because:**
-
-- "It's simple" (simple tasks can have subtle issues)
-- "I'm confident" (review finds blind spots)
-- "Time pressure" (unfixed bugs cost more time later)
-
----
-
-## 3. Agent Prompt Best Practices
-
-### Anatomy of a Good Prompt
-
-**1. Focused** - One clear problem domain
-
-```markdown
-❌ "Fix all the tests"
-✓ "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts"
-```
-
-**2. Self-contained** - All context needed
-
-```markdown
-❌ "Fix the race condition"
-✓ "Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:
-
-1.  'should abort tool with partial output capture' - expects 'interrupted at' in message
-2.  'should handle mixed completed and aborted tools' - fast tool aborted instead of completed
-3.  'should properly track pendingToolCount' - expects 3 results but gets 0"
-```
-
-**3. Specific about output** - What should agent return?
-
-```markdown
-❌ "Fix it"
-✓ "Return: Summary of root cause and what you fixed"
-```
-
-**4. Constraints** - Prevent scope creep
-
-```markdown
-✓ "Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue"
-✓ "Do NOT change production code - fix tests only"
-✓ "Don't refactor - minimal changes to make tests pass"
-```
-
----
-
-### Implementation Subagent Template
-
-```markdown
-You are implementing Task N from [plan-file].
-
-Read that task carefully. Your job is to:
-
-1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
-2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
-3. Verify implementation works
-4. Commit your work
-5. Report back
-
-Work from: [directory]
-
-Report: What you implemented, what you tested, test results, files changed, any issues
-```
-
-**Key elements:**
-
-- References plan file for context
-- Explicit steps to follow
-- Specific output format
-- Working directory specified
-
----
-
-### Parallel Investigation Template
-
-```markdown
-Fix the 3 failing tests in src/agents/agent-tool-abort.test.ts:
-
-1. "should abort tool with partial output capture" - expects 'interrupted at' in message
-2. "should handle mixed completed and aborted tools" - fast tool aborted instead of completed
-3. "should properly track pendingToolCount" - expects 3 results but gets 0
-
-These are timing/race condition issues. Your task:
-
-1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
-2. Identify root cause - timing issues or actual bugs?
-3. Fix by:
-   - Replacing arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting
-   - Fixing bugs in abort implementation if found
-   - Adjusting test expectations if testing changed behavior
-
-Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue.
-
-Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.
-```
-
-**Key elements:**
-
-- Paste error messages and test names (full context)
-- Hypothesis about root cause
-- Clear fixing strategy
-- Anti-pattern constraint ("Do NOT just increase timeouts")
-- Expected return format
-
----
-
-### Fix Subagent Template
-
-```markdown
-Fix issues from code review: [list issues]
-
-Context: [what was just implemented]
-
-Issues to fix:
-
-1. [Issue from reviewer with file:line reference]
-2. [Issue from reviewer with file:line reference]
-
-Fix these issues and commit. Report what you changed.
-```
-
-**Key elements:**
-
-- Specific issues from code review
-- Context of original implementation
-- Clear success criteria
-
----
-
-## 4. Code Review Template Structure
-
-### Dispatcher Side (Requesting Review)
-
-**1. Get git SHAs:**
-
-```bash
-BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1)  # or origin/main
-HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
-```
-
-**2. Fill template placeholders:**
-
-- `{WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}` - What you just built
-- `{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}` - What it should do (reference plan file/section)
-- `{BASE_SHA}` - Starting commit
-- `{HEAD_SHA}` - Ending commit
-- `{DESCRIPTION}` - Brief summary
-
-**3. Dispatch superpowers:code-reviewer subagent** with filled template
-
----
-
-### Code Reviewer Side (Template Output)
-
-#### Strengths
-
-[What's well done? Be specific with file:line references]
-
-Example:
-
-```
-- Clean database schema with proper migrations (db.ts:15-42)
-- Comprehensive test coverage (18 tests, all edge cases)
-- Good error handling with fallbacks (summarizer.ts:85-92)
-```
-
----
-
-#### Issues
-
-##### Critical (Must Fix)
-
-[Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality]
-
-##### Important (Should Fix)
-
-[Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps]
-
-##### Minor (Nice to Have)
-
-[Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements]
-
-**For each issue:**
-
-- File:line reference
-- What's wrong
-- Why it matters
-- How to fix (if not obvious)
-
-Example:
-
-```
-#### Important
-1. **Missing help text in CLI wrapper**
-   - File: index-conversations:1-31
-   - Issue: No --help flag, users won't discover --concurrency
-   - Fix: Add --help case with usage examples
-
-2. **Date validation missing**
-   - File: search.ts:25-27
-   - Issue: Invalid dates silently return no results
-   - Fix: Validate ISO format, throw error with example
-```
-
----
-
-#### Recommendations
-
-[Improvements for code quality, architecture, or process]
-
----
-
-#### Assessment
-
-**Ready to merge?** [Yes/No/With fixes]
-
-**Reasoning:** [Technical assessment in 1-2 sentences]
-
-Example:
-
-```
-**Ready to merge: With fixes**
-
-**Reasoning:** Core implementation is solid with good architecture and tests.
-Important issues (help text, date validation) are easily fixed and don't affect
-core functionality.
-```
-
----
-
-### Review Checklist (Reviewer Uses This)
-
-**Code Quality:**
-
-- Clean separation of concerns?
-- Proper error handling?
-- Type safety (if applicable)?
-- DRY principle followed?
-- Edge cases handled?
-
-**Architecture:**
-
-- Sound design decisions?
-- Scalability considerations?
-- Performance implications?
-- Security concerns?
-
-**Testing:**
-
-- Tests actually test logic (not mocks)?
-- Edge cases covered?
-- Integration tests where needed?
-- All tests passing?
-
-**Requirements:**
-
-- All plan requirements met?
-- Implementation matches spec?
-- No scope creep?
-- Breaking changes documented?
-
-**Production Readiness:**
-
-- Migration strategy (if schema changes)?
-- Backward compatibility considered?
-- Documentation complete?
-- No obvious bugs?
-
----
-
-## 5. Anti-Patterns and Red Flags
-
-### Subagent-Driven Development
-
-**Never:**
-
-- ❌ Skip code review between tasks
-- ❌ Proceed with unfixed Critical issues
-- ❌ Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
-- ❌ Implement without reading plan task
-- ❌ Try to fix subagent failures manually (context pollution)
-
-**If subagent fails task:**
-
-- ✓ Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
-- ✓ Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)
-
----
-
-### Dispatching Parallel Agents
-
-**Common mistakes:**
-
-❌ **Too broad:** "Fix all the tests"  
-✓ **Specific:** "Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts"
-
-❌ **No context:** "Fix the race condition"  
-✓ **Context:** Paste error messages and test names
-
-❌ **No constraints:** Agent might refactor everything  
-✓ **Constraints:** "Do NOT change production code" or "Fix tests only"
-
-❌ **Vague output:** "Fix it"  
-✓ **Specific:** "Return summary of root cause and changes"
-
-**When NOT to parallelize:**
-
-- Related failures (fix one might fix others)
-- Need full context (understanding requires seeing entire system)
-- Exploratory debugging (don't know what's broken yet)
-- Shared state (agents would interfere)
-
----
-
-### Requesting Code Review
-
-**Never:**
-
-- ❌ Skip review because "it's simple"
-- ❌ Ignore Critical issues
-- ❌ Proceed with unfixed Important issues
-- ❌ Argue with valid technical feedback
-
-**If reviewer wrong:**
-
-- ✓ Push back with technical reasoning
-- ✓ Show code/tests that prove it works
-- ✓ Request clarification
-
----
-
-### Code Reviewer Anti-Patterns
-
-**DO:**
-
-- ✓ Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)
-- ✓ Be specific (file:line, not vague)
-- ✓ Explain WHY issues matter
-- ✓ Acknowledge strengths
-- ✓ Give clear verdict
-
-**DON'T:**
-
-- ❌ Say "looks good" without checking
-- ❌ Mark nitpicks as Critical
-- ❌ Give feedback on code you didn't review
-- ❌ Be vague ("improve error handling")
-- ❌ Avoid giving a clear verdict
-
----
-
-## 6. Integration Between Patterns
-
-### Subagent-Driven Development Workflow
-
-```
-1. Load Plan
-   └─ Read plan file, create TodoWrite with all tasks
-
-2. For Each Task:
-   ├─ Dispatch implementation subagent
-   │  └─ Fresh context, follows TDD, commits work
-   │
-   ├─ Get git SHAs (before task, after task)
-   │
-   ├─ Dispatch code-reviewer subagent
-   │  └─ Reviews against plan requirements
-   │
-   ├─ Act on review feedback
-   │  ├─ Critical issues → Fix immediately
-   │  ├─ Important issues → Dispatch fix subagent
-   │  └─ Minor issues → Note for later
-   │
-   └─ Mark task complete in TodoWrite
-
-3. After All Tasks:
-   ├─ Dispatch final code-reviewer
-   │  └─ Reviews entire implementation
-   │
-   └─ Use finishing-a-development-branch skill
-      └─ Verify tests, present options, execute choice
-```
-
----
-
-### Parallel Investigation Workflow
-
-```
-1. Multiple Failures Detected
-   └─ Identify independent problem domains
-
-2. Group by Domain
-   ├─ File A tests: Tool approval flow
-   ├─ File B tests: Batch completion behavior
-   └─ File C tests: Abort functionality
-
-3. Dispatch Parallel Agents
-   ├─ Agent 1: Fix File A (focused scope, specific errors)
-   ├─ Agent 2: Fix File B (focused scope, specific errors)
-   └─ Agent 3: Fix File C (focused scope, specific errors)
-
-4. Review and Integrate
-   ├─ Read each summary
-   ├─ Verify fixes don't conflict
-   ├─ Run full test suite
-   └─ Integrate all changes
-```
-
----
-
-### Acting on Code Review Feedback
-
-**Severity Tiers:**
-
-**Critical (Must Fix):**
-
-- Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality
-- **Action:** Fix immediately, re-review, don't proceed without fixing
-
-**Important (Should Fix):**
-
-- Architecture problems, missing features, poor error handling, test gaps
-- **Action:** Dispatch fix subagent before next task
-
-**Minor (Nice to Have):**
-
-- Code style, optimization opportunities, documentation improvements
-- **Action:** Note for later, don't block on these
-
-**Example flow:**
-
-```
-Reviewer returns:
-  Critical: None
-  Important: Missing progress indicators, Date validation missing
-  Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
-
-Action:
-1. Dispatch fix subagent: "Fix Important issues from review: [list]"
-2. Fix subagent commits changes
-3. (Optional) Quick re-review if fixes were complex
-4. Mark task complete, proceed to next task
-5. Note Minor issues for future cleanup
-```
-
----
-
-## 7. Required Workflow Skills
-
-### Subagent-Driven Development Dependencies
-
-**REQUIRED:**
-
-- `writing-plans` - Creates the plan that this skill executes
-- `requesting-code-review` - Review after each task
-- `finishing-a-development-branch` - Complete development after all tasks
-
-**Subagents must use:**
-
-- `test-driven-development` - Subagents follow TDD for each task
-
-**Alternative workflow:**
-
-- `executing-plans` - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution
-
----
-
-## 8. Real-World Examples
-
-### Parallel Investigation (from Session 2025-10-03)
-
-**Scenario:** 6 test failures across 3 files after major refactoring
-
-**Failures:**
-
-- agent-tool-abort.test.ts: 3 failures (timing issues)
-- batch-completion-behavior.test.ts: 2 failures (tools not executing)
-- tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts: 1 failure (execution count = 0)
-
-**Decision:** Independent domains - abort logic separate from batch completion separate from race conditions
-
-**Dispatch:**
-
-```
-Agent 1 → Fix agent-tool-abort.test.ts
-Agent 2 → Fix batch-completion-behavior.test.ts
-Agent 3 → Fix tool-approval-race-conditions.test.ts
-```
-
-**Results:**
-
-- Agent 1: Replaced timeouts with event-based waiting
-- Agent 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)
-- Agent 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete
-
-**Integration:** All fixes independent, no conflicts, full suite green
-
-**Time saved:** 3 problems solved in parallel vs sequentially
-
----
-
-### Subagent-Driven Development Example
-
-```
-Coordinator: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.
-
-[Load plan, create TodoWrite]
-
-Task 1: Hook installation script
-
-[Dispatch implementation subagent]
-Subagent: Implemented install-hook with tests, 5/5 passing
-
-[Get git SHAs, dispatch code-reviewer]
-Reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage. Issues: None. Ready.
-
-[Mark Task 1 complete]
-
-Task 2: Recovery modes
-
-[Dispatch implementation subagent]
-Subagent: Added verify/repair, 8/8 tests passing
-
-[Dispatch code-reviewer]
-Reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Missing progress reporting
-
-[Dispatch fix subagent]
-Fix subagent: Added progress every 100 conversations
-
-[Verify fix, mark Task 2 complete]
-
-...
-
-[After all tasks]
-[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
-Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
-
-Done!
-```
-
----
-
-## 9. Key Quotes Worth Preserving
-
-> **"Fresh subagent per task + review between tasks = high quality, fast iteration"**  
-> — subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
-
-> **"Dispatch one agent per independent problem domain. Let them work concurrently."**  
-> — dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md
-
-> **"Review early, review often."**  
-> — requesting-code-review/SKILL.md
-
-> **"More subagent invocations cost tokens, but catching issues early is cheaper than debugging later."**  
-> — subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md (paraphrased from "Cost" section)
-
-> **"Do NOT just increase timeouts - find the real issue."**  
-> — dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md (example prompt constraint)
-
-> **"Categorize by actual severity (not everything is Critical)"**  
-> — code-reviewer.md
-
-> **"Be specific (file:line, not vague)"**  
-> — code-reviewer.md
-
-> **"If subagent fails task: Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions. Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)."**  
-> — subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md
-
----
-
-## 10. Advantages Summary
-
-### Subagent-Driven Development
-
-**vs. Manual execution:**
-
-- Subagents follow TDD naturally
-- Fresh context per task (no confusion)
-- Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
-
-**vs. Executing Plans:**
-
-- Same session (no handoff)
-- Continuous progress (no waiting)
-- Review checkpoints automatic
-
-**Cost tradeoff:**
-
-- More subagent invocations
-- But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)
-
----
-
-### Dispatching Parallel Agents
-
-**Benefits:**
-
-1. **Parallelization** - Multiple investigations happen simultaneously
-2. **Focus** - Each agent has narrow scope, less context to track
-3. **Independence** - Agents don't interfere with each other
-4. **Speed** - 3 problems solved in time of 1
-
-**Verification after agents return:**
-
-1. Review each summary - Understand what changed
-2. Check for conflicts - Did agents edit same code?
-3. Run full suite - Verify all fixes work together
-4. Spot check - Agents can make systematic errors
-
----
-
-### Requesting Code Review
-
-**Benefits:**
-
-- Catches issues before they compound
-- Fresh perspective on implementation
-- Validates against requirements
-- Explicit severity tiers guide priority
-- Clear verdict (Yes/No/With fixes)
-
-**Integration:**
-
-- Subagent-Driven Development: Review after EACH task
-- Executing Plans: Review after each batch (3 tasks)
-- Ad-Hoc Development: Review before merge, when stuck
-
----
-
-## 11. Decision Tree: Which Pattern to Use?
-
-```
-What are you doing?
-├─ Executing implementation plan?
-│  ├─ Yes → Subagent-Driven Development
-│  │  ├─ Fresh subagent per task
-│  │  ├─ Code review after each task
-│  │  └─ Same session, continuous progress
-│  │
-│  └─ No → Continue...
-│
-├─ Multiple independent failures?
-│  ├─ Yes (3+) → Dispatching Parallel Agents
-│  │  ├─ One agent per problem domain
-│  │  ├─ Focused prompts with constraints
-│  │  └─ Review and integrate results
-│  │
-│  └─ No → Continue...
-│
-└─ Completed task/feature?
-   └─ Yes → Requesting Code Review
-      ├─ Get git SHAs
-      ├─ Dispatch code-reviewer subagent
-      ├─ Fix Critical/Important issues
-      └─ Proceed or merge
-```
-
----
-
-## 12. Prompt Templates Quick Reference
-
-### Implementation Subagent
-
-```
-You are implementing Task N from [plan-file].
-Read that task carefully. Your job is to:
-1. Implement exactly what the task specifies
-2. Write tests (following TDD if task says to)
-3. Verify implementation works
-4. Commit your work
-5. Report back
-
-Work from: [directory]
-Report: What you implemented, what you tested, test results, files changed, any issues
-```
-
-### Parallel Investigation Subagent
-
-```
-Fix the 3 failing tests in [test-file]:
-[Paste test names and error messages]
-
-Your task:
-1. Read the test file and understand what each test verifies
-2. Identify root cause
-3. Fix by: [strategy]
-
-Do NOT [anti-pattern constraint]
-Return: Summary of what you found and what you fixed.
-```
-
-### Fix Subagent
-
-```
-Fix issues from code review: [list issues]
-Context: [what was just implemented]
-Issues to fix:
-1. [Issue with file:line]
-2. [Issue with file:line]
-
-Fix these issues and commit. Report what you changed.
-```
-
-### Code Reviewer Subagent
-
-```
-Review {WHAT_WAS_IMPLEMENTED}
-Compare against {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
-Git range: {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
-
-Output:
-- Strengths (specific, with file:line)
-- Issues (Critical/Important/Minor with file:line, why, how to fix)
-- Recommendations
-- Assessment (Ready to merge? Yes/No/With fixes + reasoning)
-```
-
----
-
-## 13. Context Pollution Prevention
-
-**Problem:** Coordinator tries to fix subagent failures manually, polluting context with failed attempts.
-
-**Solution:** Always dispatch fix subagent instead.
-
-**Pattern:**
-
-```
-Subagent fails task → Review failure report → Dispatch fix subagent with:
-  - What failed
-  - Why it failed (from report)
-  - Specific fix instructions
-  - Constraints to prevent same failure
-```
-
-**Why it works:**
-
-- Fix subagent has fresh context
-- Coordinator maintains high-level coordination role
-- No accumulated debugging cruft in coordinator context
-- Parallel-safe (fix subagent doesn't interfere with other work)
-
----
-
-## 14. File Reservation (Not in Source Docs)
-
-**Note:** The analyzed skills don't mention file reservation, but this is a common coordination primitive for multi-agent systems.
-
-**When it would apply:**
-
-- Parallel agents editing potentially overlapping files
-- Prevention of merge conflicts
-- Coordination of shared state mutations
-
-**Integration point:**
-
-- Would fit in "Dispatching Parallel Agents" when agents might touch overlapping code
-- Verification step: "Check for conflicts - Did agents edit same code?"
-
-**For opencode-swarm-plugin:** Agent Mail has file reservation (`agentmail_reserve`, `agentmail_release`). This pattern could enhance parallel dispatch safety.
-
----
-
-## END ANALYSIS
-
-**Key takeaways for opencode-swarm-plugin:**
-
-1. **Adopt fresh subagent per task** - Prevents context pollution, enables TDD naturally
-2. **Mandatory code review between tasks** - Catches issues early, explicit severity tiers
-3. **Parallelize at 3+ independent failures** - Clear heuristic for when to dispatch concurrent agents
-4. **Focused agent prompts** - Self-contained, specific output, constraints prevent scope creep
-5. **Never skip review because "it's simple"** - Simple tasks can have subtle issues
-6. **Fix subagents instead of manual fixes** - Preserves coordinator context clarity
-7. **Explicit severity tiers guide priority** - Critical blocks, Important before next task, Minor noted
-8. **Same session vs parallel session** - Subagent-driven stays in session, executing-plans spawns parallel
-
-**Patterns to integrate:**
-
-- ✓ Fresh subagent per task (already in swarm worker pattern)
-- ✓ Code review after each task (add to swarm_complete?)
-- ✓ Parallel dispatch at 3+ failures (add to debug-plus command)
-- ✓ Severity-based issue triage (integrate with UBS scan results)
-- ✓ Fix subagent pattern (add to swarm toolkit)