Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

subagent-driven-dev(子 Agent 驱动的开发)

subagent-driven-dev 用于补充开发相关能力,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要让 Agent 承接开发相关任务时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

subagent-driven-dev 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为权限未标注;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 9,461。

总安装 2,691周安装 111GitHub Stars 1下载 879核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.1

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:subagent-driven-dev(子 Agent 驱动的开发)
来源仓库:https://github.com/user-wangjun/subagent-driven-dev
安装命令:
openclaw skills install subagent-driven-dev
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install subagent-driven-dev

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

subagent-driven-dev 在当前会话中执行独立任务的实施计划,提升开发效率。适用于 OpenClaw 中拆分复杂任务为多个子目标并行处理的场景。安装后 Agent 会自动创建临时工作流并分配责任节点。使用前请确保任务可被合理拆解,否则协调成本可能高于收益。

适用宿主包括 OpenClaw,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install subagent-driven-dev;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

subagent-driven-dev 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install subagent-driven-dev。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

subagent-driven-dev 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

subagent-driven-dev 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

subagent-driven-dev 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

subagent-driven-dev 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,691 次,近一周安装 111 次,下载 879 次,GitHub 1 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

subagent-driven-dev 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
subagent-driven-dev

子 Agent 驱动的开发 · 本页

2,6911权限未标注MIT-0有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
subagent-driven-development
description
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session

Subagent-Driven Development

Execute plan by dispatching fresh subagent per task, with two-stage review after each: spec compliance review first, then code quality review.

Core principle: Fresh subagent per task + two-stage review (spec then quality) = high quality, fast iteration

When to Use

digraph when_to_use {
    "Have implementation plan?" [shape=diamond];
    "Tasks mostly independent?" [shape=diamond];
    "Stay in this session?" [shape=diamond];
    "subagent-driven-development" [shape=box];
    "executing-plans" [shape=box];
    "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [shape=box];

    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Tasks mostly independent?" [label="yes"];
    "Have implementation plan?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no"];
    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Stay in this session?" [label="yes"];
    "Tasks mostly independent?" -> "Manual execution or brainstorm first" [label="no - tightly coupled"];
    "Stay in this session?" -> "subagent-driven-development" [label="yes"];
    "Stay in this session?" -> "executing-plans" [label="no - parallel session"];
}

vs. Executing Plans (parallel session):

  • Same session (no context switch)
  • Fresh subagent per task (no context pollution)
  • Two-stage review after each task: spec compliance first, then code quality
  • Faster iteration (no human-in-loop between tasks)

The Process

digraph process {
    rankdir=TB;

    subgraph cluster_per_task {
        label="Per Task";
        "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent asks questions?" [shape=diamond];
        "Answer questions, provide context" [shape=box];
        "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [shape=box];
        "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" [shape=diamond];
        "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [shape=box];
        "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [shape=box];
        "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" [shape=diamond];
        "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [shape=box];
        "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [shape=box];
    }

    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" [shape=box];
    "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
    "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];

    "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create TodoWrite" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" -> "Implementer subagent asks questions?";
    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Answer questions, provide context" [label="yes"];
    "Answer questions, provide context" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
    "Implementer subagent asks questions?" -> "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent implements, tests, commits, self-reviews" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)";
    "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?";
    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent fixes spec gaps" -> "Dispatch spec reviewer subagent (./spec-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Spec reviewer subagent confirms code matches spec?" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" -> "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?";
    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" [label="no"];
    "Implementer subagent fixes quality issues" -> "Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent (./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md)" [label="re-review"];
    "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" [label="yes"];
    "Mark task complete in TodoWrite" -> "More tasks remain?";
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch";
}

Prompt Templates

  • ./implementer-prompt.md - Dispatch implementer subagent
  • ./spec-reviewer-prompt.md - Dispatch spec compliance reviewer subagent
  • ./code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md - Dispatch code quality reviewer subagent

Example Workflow

You: I'm using Subagent-Driven Development to execute this plan.

[Read plan file once: docs/plans/feature-plan.md]
[Extract all 5 tasks with full text and context]
[Create TodoWrite with all tasks]

Task 1: Hook installation script

[Get Task 1 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]

Implementer: "Before I begin - should the hook be installed at user or system level?"

You: "User level (~/.config/superpowers/hooks/)"

Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
[Later] Implementer:
  - Implemented install-hook command
  - Added tests, 5/5 passing
  - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
  - Committed

[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant - all requirements met, nothing extra

[Get git SHAs, dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Approved.

[Mark Task 1 complete]

Task 2: Recovery modes

[Get Task 2 text and context (already extracted)]
[Dispatch implementation subagent with full task text + context]

Implementer: [No questions, proceeds]
Implementer:
  - Added verify/repair modes
  - 8/8 tests passing
  - Self-review: All good
  - Committed

[Dispatch spec compliance reviewer]
Spec reviewer: ❌ Issues:
  - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
  - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)

[Implementer fixes issues]
Implementer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting

[Spec reviewer reviews again]
Spec reviewer: ✅ Spec compliant now

[Dispatch code quality reviewer]
Code reviewer: Strengths: Solid. Issues (Important): Magic number (100)

[Implementer fixes]
Implementer: Extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant

[Code reviewer reviews again]
Code reviewer: ✅ Approved

[Mark Task 2 complete]

...

[After all tasks]
[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge

Done!

Advantages

vs. Manual execution:

  • Subagents follow TDD naturally
  • Fresh context per task (no confusion)
  • Parallel-safe (subagents don't interfere)
  • Subagent can ask questions (before AND during work)

vs. Executing Plans:

  • Same session (no handoff)
  • Continuous progress (no waiting)
  • Review checkpoints automatic

Efficiency gains:

  • No file reading overhead (controller provides full text)
  • Controller curates exactly what context is needed
  • Subagent gets complete information upfront
  • Questions surfaced before work begins (not after)

Quality gates:

  • Self-review catches issues before handoff
  • Two-stage review: spec compliance, then code quality
  • Review loops ensure fixes actually work
  • Spec compliance prevents over/under-building
  • Code quality ensures implementation is well-built

Cost:

  • More subagent invocations (implementer + 2 reviewers per task)
  • Controller does more prep work (extracting all tasks upfront)
  • Review loops add iterations
  • But catches issues early (cheaper than debugging later)

Red Flags

Never:

  • Skip reviews (spec compliance OR code quality)
  • Proceed with unfixed issues
  • Dispatch multiple implementation subagents in parallel (conflicts)
  • Make subagent read plan file (provide full text instead)
  • Skip scene-setting context (subagent needs to understand where task fits)
  • Ignore subagent questions (answer before letting them proceed)
  • Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done)
  • Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again)
  • Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed)
  • Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅ (wrong order)
  • Move to next task while either review has open issues

If subagent asks questions:

  • Answer clearly and completely
  • Provide additional context if needed
  • Don't rush them into implementation

If reviewer finds issues:

  • Implementer (same subagent) fixes them
  • Reviewer reviews again
  • Repeat until approved
  • Don't skip the re-review

If subagent fails task:

  • Dispatch fix subagent with specific instructions
  • Don't try to fix manually (context pollution)

Integration

Required workflow skills:

  • superpowers:writing-plans - Creates the plan this skill executes
  • superpowers:requesting-code-review - Code review template for reviewer subagents
  • superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch - Complete development after all tasks

Subagents should use:

  • superpowers:test-driven-development - Subagents follow TDD for each task

Alternative workflow:

  • superpowers:executing-plans - Use for parallel session instead of same-session execution

Handling Subagent Help Requests

When subagent sends <request_help>:

Identify Priority & Type

PriorityResponse TimeAction
🔴 HighImmediateStop everything, address first
🟡 MediumWithin taskAddress before proceeding
🟢 LowEnd of taskNote it, address later

Respond by Type

ambiguity → Clarify the task description

<help_response>
  <clarification>具体意思是 X,不是 Y</clarification>
  <example>比如这个场景下应该...</example>
</help_response>

blocked → Remove the blocker or provide workaround

<help_response>
  <solution>我已经创建了这个依赖文件</solution>
  <workaround>或者你可以先用这个临时方案...</workaround>
</help_response>

conflict → Make the call

<help_response>
  <decision>用方案 A</decision>
  <reason>因为 B 会导致 C 问题</reason>
</help_response>

decision → Make the decision and explain

<help_response>
  <choice>选 X 方案</choice>
  <why>因为 Y,而且 Z</why>
  <tradeoffs>代价是 A,但可以接受因为 B</tradeoffs>
</help_response>

scope → Either expand scope or handle it yourself

<help_response>
  <scope_decision>expanded | separate_task | lead_handles</scope_decision>
  <instruction>如果是 expanded:这个也算你的任务 / 如果 separate_task:记下来稍后处理 / 如果 leadHandles:我来搞</instruction>
</help_response>

critical → Take over or guide through recovery

<help_response>
  <action>我正在介入处理</action>
  <guidance>你先做 X,Y 留给我</guidance>
</help_response>

Response Quality Checklist

  • ✅ Clear and specific (no vague answers)
  • ✅ Actionable (subagent knows exactly what to do next)
  • ✅ Explains why (so subagent learns)
  • ✅ Addresses the priority appropriately
  • ❌ No "figure it out yourself"
  • ❌ No skipping the response

平台分布

OpenClaw

85.82%
按下载量换算754

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills