evanflow（evanflow 搜索）

EvanFlow

A TDD-driven iterative feedback loop for software development with Claude Code. 16 cohesive skills + 2 custom subagents walk an idea from brainstorm → plan → execute → tdd → iterate, with checkpoints throughout. Vertical-slice TDD, parallel coder/overseer review, executable cohesion contracts, context compaction. Never auto-commits — the user controls every git op.

Single Entry Point: evanflow-go

When the user says "let's evanflow this", "use evanflow", "evanflow this idea", "run this through evanflow", or anything similar — invoke evanflow-go. It's the orchestrator that walks the entire loop end-to-end (brainstorm → plan → execute → tdd → iterate → STOP), announces each step, respects checkpoints (design approval, plan approval), and hands off to the right sub-skill at each phase. The user gets the full EvanFlow workflow without having to remember which sub-skill applies when.

evanflow-go is conductor, not autopilot — every checkpoint is real and the user can interrupt or switch paths anytime.

Shared Vocabulary

Every evanflow-* skill speaks this. Cross-reference here, don't redefine.

• Module — any unit with interface + implementation (function, class, package). Scale-agnostic.
• Interface — complete caller knowledge: type signature, invariants, ordering constraints, error modes, performance characteristics.
• Depth — large behavior behind a small interface = deep (good). Large interface, thin behavior = shallow (avoid).
• Seam — where an interface lives; a place behavior can shift without editing in place.
• Adapter — concrete implementation satisfying an interface at a seam.
• Deletion test — does removing this module concentrate complexity across N callers, or does complexity vanish? The first is a real module; the second is bloat.
• Vertical slice — one test → one impl → repeat. Never write all tests first then all code (horizontal slicing produces tests of imagined behavior).
• Behavior through public interface — tests describe *what*, not *how*. They survive refactors. If a rename breaks a test but behavior didn't change, the test was wrong.
• Grill — opt-in interview pattern, embedded as a labeled section inside planning skills. Stress-test before committing to a path. Not a separate skill invocation in EvanFlow.
• Ubiquitous language — canonical domain terms in CONTEXT.md. New terms added as discovered.
• Mockup quick-mode — when user just wants visual concepts, skip spec/plan ceremony. Produce mockups directly in whatever form the project uses (HTML files, Figma frames, ASCII layouts, etc.) — no full design loop required.

Hard Rules (apply to every evanflow skill)

• Never auto-commit, never auto-stage, never auto-finish. Every git write op (commit, push, merge, rebase, tag, branch -d/-D) requires the user to explicitly ask for it in the current turn. Even git add should not happen on the agent's initiative — leave files unstaged until the user signals they're about to commit.
• No "finish/integrate" workflow on the agent's initiative. After implementation + iterate, the agent reports what was done and stops. The user decides whether to commit, merge, open a PR, keep iterating, or change direction.
• Never invent values you don't authoritatively have. This includes: file paths, env var values, API keys, secret values, IDs (UUIDs, foreign keys, third-party object IDs), URLs, port numbers, hostnames, version numbers, third-party service names, function names you haven't verified exist. If unsure, STOP and ask — don't guess. Action-hallucination (an agent confidently doing the wrong thing) is the most dangerous failure mode in agentic coding (industry research, 2026). The cost of asking is one round-trip; the cost of acting on a hallucinated value is potentially catastrophic.
• Watch for context drift. If you find yourself re-asking established questions, contradicting earlier decisions, or losing track of constraints set earlier in the session, invoke evanflow-compact to preserve anchors and propose a /clear. ~65% of agent failures trace to context drift, not raw token exhaustion.
• No skill tax. Ad-hoc questions don't require a skill invocation. Skills are tools, not a tollbooth.
• No forced spec/plan paths. Specs and plans live wherever the user wants. Default to docs/ only if no preference is stated.
• No forced sub-skill chains. Each evanflow skill stands alone. Hand-offs are suggestions, not mandates.
• Verify before claiming done. Run the project's quality checks (typecheck, lint, test) and confirm output before reporting completion.

The Default Loop

1. (optional)  evanflow-brainstorming   — clarify intent, propose 2-3 approaches, embedded grill.
                                          Mockup-only requests use mockup quick-mode.
                                          (Hands off to evanflow-prd for substantial features.)
2. (if non-trivial) evanflow-writing-plans — file structure, bite-sized tasks, embedded grill.
                                          Step 2.5: parallelization check — offers
                                          coder-overseer if 3+ independent units exist.
3.             evanflow-executing-plans  — Step 0: parallelization check (offers coder-overseer).
                                          Otherwise task-by-task sequential with inline verification.
        OR     evanflow-coder-overseer   — if user picked parallel path: contract → RED checkpoint →
                                          coders (vertical-slice TDD) → per-coder overseers →
                                          integration overseer (runs touchpoint tests).
4. (always)    evanflow-tdd              — vertical slices for any production code.
                                          Used INSIDE executing-plans tasks AND inside coder-overseer
                                          coders.
5.             evanflow-iterate          — self-review loop: re-read diff, fix issues, re-run checks,
                                          (UI) view the page. Repeat until clean.
6.             STOP. Report what was done. Await user direction.

The loop is interlinked end-to-end. Each step actively offers the right next-step skill when conditions match — including offering evanflow-coder-overseer at both planning time (step 2) and execution time (step 3) when the plan is parallelizable.

Cross-cutting: evanflow-compact runs alongside the loop whenever context drift symptoms appear or at clean phase boundaries. Don't wait for token-limit warnings — proactive compaction at boundaries is far higher quality than reactive mid-flow compaction.

There is no auto-commit, no auto-finish, no auto-integration step. The user controls when to commit, when to merge, when to push, when to open a PR. After step 5, the agent reports and waits.

Ad-hoc questions, quick mockups, exploratory reads: no skill invoked. Just answer.

When to Invoke Each Skill

Compatible Tooling

EvanFlow is self-contained — none of these are required. But some standalone utilities from other Claude Code skill sets compose well alongside if you happen to have them installed:

• A git worktrees skill, for isolating big refactors
• A verification-before-completion rule (already baked into evanflow-executing-plans and evanflow-iterate)
• A parallel-agents dispatch pattern (already used inside evanflow-design-interface and evanflow-coder-overseer)
• A token-compression mode for very long sessions (complements evanflow-compact)

For the historical record of which existing-ecosystem skills inspired which EvanFlow skills, and which were deliberately not adopted, see docs/skills-audit.md.