Dev lifecycle

Dev Lifecycle

Composable git mechanics for any code demand. The spec-driven flow (prompt-grill) calls these phases at the right moments; the /ship command runs them in sequence for small changes without a spec. Either way, the mechanics live here and only here.

All git artifacts — branch names, commit messages, CI config, PR title and description — must be in English, regardless of the language of specs or chat.

Reference flow, not a mandate. This skill ships as one opinionated develop-based reference flow. Teams using a different git model (trunk-based, GitHub Flow, release branches, etc.) should adapt the kickoff and close phases accordingly. There is no automatic parametrization.

Phase: kickoff (start of any demand)

1. Ensure develop is up to date (git fetch + fast-forward).
2. Create the working branch from develop: <type>/<kebab-case-description> where <type> is a Conventional Commits type: feat | fix | chore | refactor | docs | test | perf.
3. If working spec-driven: the branch name comes from the approved plan.md; also record it at the top of tasks.md so a new session knows where to work.
4. Never work directly on develop or main.

Phase: checkpoint (during development)

Make a Conventional Commit: type(scope): subject — imperative mood, concise, English.

Commit-unit ownership (avoids double decomposition):

• With a spec (tasks.md exists): the task is the commit unit. One task marked [x] = one commit referencing what the task delivered. Do not invent a different split.
• Without a spec (small change via /ship): commit in logical units — never one giant commit at the end.

Coding principles (apply autonomously while writing each task — refactor before the commit; never pause to ask the user):

• KISS — write the simplest code that satisfies the task's acceptance criteria. Predictable over clever; if a new reader wouldn't grasp it in ~30s, simplify.
• YAGNI — implement only what the approved spec requires now. No speculative config, hooks, parameters, or abstraction layers with a single caller.
• DRY — deduplicate knowledge, not look-alike code. Abstract on the third real repetition of the same concept; two similar blocks that change for different reasons stay separate (premature abstraction is worse than duplication).
• SoC — each module/function/layer has one reason to change; respect the layer boundaries declared in plan.md (no cross-layer leakage). Prefer composition over inheritance.

If the code as written violates one of these, refactor it within the same task before committing — this is autonomous, no approval needed. If honoring a principle would contradict the approved spec or plan, the spec/plan wins; note it in the commit body.

Before each checkpoint, the local gates must be green: lint, type-check, tests (same three gates as CI — see close phase).

Phase: close (when the work is done)

1. Detect the stack from the repo's manifests — never assume:
   • Node/TS (package.json + lockfile): eslint · tsc --noEmit · vitest/jest, using the package manager the lockfile implies.
   • Python (pyproject.toml / requirements*.txt): ruff · mypy · pytest.
   • React: eslint · tsc · vitest/jest · production build.
2. CI (GitHub Actions, .github/workflows/):
   • If none exists: create one running install → lint → type-check → tests for the detected stack. Use Docker / service containers only if the project already uses them — Docker is never a prerequisite.
   • If CI exists: evolve the tests to cover the changes made; touch the CI config only if the change actually requires it.
3. Run the full local gate suite. All green before pushing.
4. Push the auxiliary branch to origin — automatic, no confirmation needed.
5. Draft the PR (base: develop) and PAUSE. Show title and description and wait for explicit approval before opening it.
   • Title: clear, objective, Conventional-Commits style.
   • Description: valid Markdown, exactly this template (no leading indentation — the ## headings must start at column 0):

## Summary
What changed and why, briefly.

## Notable Decisions
Key choices made, and meaningful alternatives rejected (with the reason).
(Spec-driven? Pull these from spec.md "Decisions taken".)

## Test Plan
How the change was verified / steps to reproduce the verification.
(Spec-driven? Derive from the acceptance criteria checklist.)

Guardrails

• Never commit or push to develop or main directly.
• Never auto-merge; never force-push a shared branch.
• Never open the PR without explicit approval of title + description.
• If the stack or CI host is ambiguous, ask before generating CI.
• If plan.md flagged a PR-split decision, honor it: one branch/PR per slice.