Create my team

Create My Team

One agent doing a big task serially is slow and single-minded. This skill assembles a disposable team of subagents around any mission — scouts to research, specialists to build, reviewers to check — with the two guardrails that make teams trustworthy: research before execution and every deliverable verified before merge. Members are testimony; integration is where truth gets checked.

The Prime Directive (family rule)

A subagent's output is a claim, not a result. Every deliverable returned by a team member is verified at the integration gate (evidence citations spot-checked, contract compliance, does-it-actually-run) before it merges into the mission result. And the team itself follows the law: no member designs or builds before the research phase ends.

Progress checklist

Copy this into your response and check items off:

Team Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame the mission — objective, deliverable, done-when, numbered Mission Questions
- [ ] Step 2: Capability probe — capability record written (mechanism, limits, fallback)
- [ ] Step 3: Team design — topology, size, one mission brief per member, every question assigned
- [ ] Step 4: Research phase — every question answered or UNVERIFIED; unknowns become named spikes
- [ ] Step 5: Plan gate ⛔ — Team Plan Brief (roster, order, cost, pre-mortem) approved before execution spawns
- [ ] Step 6: Execute — skeleton merge first on build missions; integration gate checks every deliverable
- [ ] Step 7: Report — results with per-member attribution, honest failures

Step 1 — Frame the mission

Objective in 2–5 lines, the concrete deliverable, definition of done, constraints (deadline pressure, budget/token sensitivity, files that must not change), and the mission class — research / build / audit / migrate / mixed — which drives the topology choice in Step 3.

Then write the Mission Questions: a numbered list of what the team must find out before anything is built — unknowns in the codebase, ground truth to verify, constraints to confirm. Step 3 assigns every question to exactly one scout's brief; Step 4 ends when every question is answered with evidence or tagged UNVERIFIED — not when the scouts happen to return. Questions discovered mid-research are appended and assigned, never absorbed silently.

Step 2 — Capability probe

Never assume the platform. This skill runs on Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and others; each exposes different (or no) spawning machinery. Probe per references/spawn-protocol.md:

• Inventory the ACTUAL tools available in this session (agent/task spawning, parallel workflows, background execution) — from the live tool list, not from memory of what the platform "usually" has.
• Write the capability record before Step 3 starts — five fields: mechanism, parallelism limit, result-return path, timeout behavior, isolation options. unknown is a legal value; a blank is not.
• No spawning capability = degraded mode, declared honestly: the same phases run sequentially by you, with the same briefs, gates, and attribution ("scout-1 (self)"). The structure survives; the parallelism doesn't. Never fake a team.

Step 3 — Team design

Pick the smallest topology that fits — catalog and selection rules in references/team-topologies.md:

Topology	Use when
Scout swarm	unknowns dominate — parallel research, distinct non-overlapping scopes
Pipeline	staged work where each stage feeds the next (research → design → build → verify)
Panel + judge	quality via independent attempts or reviews, then adjudication
Manager–worker	a work-list of similar independent items (N files to migrate, N modules to document)

Size to the task, not to the ceiling — every member costs tokens; a 3-agent team that finishes beats a 10-agent team that thrashes. Write one mission brief per member from references/mission-brief-template.md: scoped objective, inputs, output contract, evidence rules, what NOT to do. Briefs are what make results mergeable — a member without a contract returns prose you can't integrate. Scout briefs carry their assigned Mission Questions by number — read all briefs together before spawning: every question appears in exactly one brief, like scopes.

Step 4 — Research phase (always first)

Whatever the mission class, scouts go out before anything is built: codebase reality, vendor/docs ground truth, prior art, constraints. Each scout returns claims with citations per its brief. You (the lead) synthesize — and spot-check surprising claims yourself before they enter the plan; a scout's confidence is not evidence.

Research ends when every Mission Question is answered or tagged UNVERIFIED. Every UNVERIFIED that execution will depend on becomes a named spike task — a small, timeboxed scout mission that must close before the dependent worker spawns. No worker builds on an unknown; a spike that can't close turns its unknown into a plan-gate line item, not a silent assumption.

For missions that are pure research, Step 4 completes the job (skip 5–6).

Step 5 — Plan gate ⛔

Present the Team Plan Brief to the user BEFORE spawning executors — 10–20 lines, all five parts present or the gate isn't ready:

1. Roster table — member / role / scope, one line each.
2. Order — parallel vs sequential, and which spikes must close first.
3. Cost — rough (members × scope) plus timeboxes.
4. Untouched — what the mission will NOT change.
5. Pre-mortem — "the merged deliverable failed: top 3 causes" (integration conflicts, duplicated scopes, a member hallucinating are the classics), each mapped to the gate check or brief clause that catches it. A cause with no catcher means the team design isn't done.

One question, recommended answer attached. No execution spawns before the gate clears. If the user cannot respond (headless/CI run), proceed only with read-only and reversible work; every ONE-WAY step (Step 6) stays unexecuted and is reported as pending. For deep implementation missions, offer running deep-plan here instead — this skill orchestrates; deep-plan specifies.

Step 6 — Execute and integrate

• Spawn workers per the topology; parallel where scopes are independent, sequential where they feed each other.
• Skeleton merge first (build missions): the first integration is the thinnest end-to-end slice across members — one item per worker, merged and run through the gate early — never a big-bang merge of everything at the end. A contract mismatch found on slice one costs one fix; found at final merge it costs the mission.
• Isolation for writers: members that modify files get separate worktrees/scopes so they can't trample each other; read-only members don't need it.
• ONE-WAY actions never delegate: pushes, deletions outside a member's worktree, external calls with side effects, publishes. Members deliver gate-passable artifacts; the lead performs any ONE-WAY step itself, after the gate passes and with the user's confirmation.
• Timebox every member; a hung member is killed, logged, and its scope reassigned or reported — never silently absorbed.
• Integration gate per deliverable, protocol in references/integration-gate.md: contract compliance, evidence spot-check, run-it-if-runnable, conflict check against sibling deliverables. Rejected work goes back with the gap named (one retry), then escalates to you or the user.

Step 7 — Report

• The mission deliverable, assembled from gate-passed work only.
• Attribution table: member, scope, delivered, gate result (passed / fixed-after-retry / rejected / timeout) — the honest record of who did what.
• Failures and rejections stated plainly, with what was done about them.
• Cost summary: members spawned, wall time, anything the user should know before asking for a bigger team next time.

When things go wrong

Situation	Response
No spawning capability detected	Declare degraded mode; run phases sequentially yourself with same briefs, gates, and attribution (scout-1 (self))
Member times out	Kill, log in attribution table, reassign scope to new member or lead, or report as honest hole — never absorb silently
Member returns off-contract work	FIX-AND-RETRY once with named gap; second failure = REJECT, scope reassigned or reported
Integration gate finds fabricated citation	Full re-verification of that member's entire deliverable; if pattern continues, reject and reassign
User cannot respond at plan gate (headless)	Proceed only with read-only/reversible work; all ONE-WAY steps stay unexecuted and reported as pending
Sibling members produce conflicting claims	Resolve with code evidence (like jury-my-repo) before merge — no majority vote, code decides