The parallel code review process expands from 3 to 5 reviewers to enhance code quality. This introduces `ring:test-reviewer` and `ring:nil-safety-reviewer` to provide deeper analysis of test coverage and null safety patterns, improving overall reliability. The `dev-cycle` workflow is upgraded from a 6-gate to a 10-gate process, incorporating a sophisticated suite of automated testing gates: - Unit Testing (Gate 3) - Fuzz Testing (Gate 4) - Property-based Testing (Gate 5) - Integration Testing (Gate 6) - Chaos Testing (Gate 7) This change establishes a much higher standard for testing and ensures features are more resilient and production-ready. Finally, new agents and commands are added to the PMO and Product plugins to support delivery tracking, design validation, and reporting, further extending the system's capabilities across the development lifecycle. All documentation is updated to reflect these enhancements.
14 KiB
| name | description | trigger | skip_when | related | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ring:using-dev-team | 8 specialist developer agents for backend (Go/TypeScript), DevOps, frontend, design, UI implementation, QA, and SRE. Dispatch when you need deep technology expertise. | - Need deep expertise for specific technology (Go, TypeScript) - Building infrastructure/CI-CD → ring:devops-engineer - Frontend with design focus → ring:frontend-designer - Frontend from product-designer specs → ring:ui-engineer - Test strategy needed → ring:qa-analyst - Reliability/monitoring → ring:sre | - General code review → use default plugin reviewers - Planning/design → use brainstorming - Debugging → use ring:systematic-debugging |
|
Using Ring Developer Specialists
The ring-dev-team plugin provides 8 specialized developer agents. Use them via Task tool with subagent_type:.
See CLAUDE.md and ring:using-ring for canonical workflow requirements and ORCHESTRATOR principle. This skill introduces dev-team-specific agents.
Remember: Follow the ORCHESTRATOR principle from ring:using-ring. Dispatch agents to handle complexity; don't operate tools directly.
Blocker Criteria - STOP and Report
<block_condition>
- Technology Stack decision needed (Go vs TypeScript)
- Architecture decision needed (monolith vs microservices)
- Infrastructure decision needed (cloud provider)
- Testing strategy decision needed (unit vs E2E) </block_condition>
If any condition applies, STOP and ask user.
always pause and report blocker for:
| Decision Type | Examples | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Technology Stack | Go vs TypeScript for new service | STOP. Check existing patterns. Ask user. |
| Architecture | Monolith vs microservices | STOP. This is a business decision. Ask user. |
| Infrastructure | Cloud provider choice | STOP. Check existing infrastructure. Ask user. |
| Testing Strategy | Unit vs E2E vs both | STOP. Check QA requirements. Ask user. |
You CANNOT make technology decisions autonomously. STOP and ask.
Common Misconceptions - REJECTED
See shared-patterns/shared-anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations (including Specialist Dispatch section).
Self-sufficiency bias check: If you're tempted to implement directly, ask:
- Is there a specialist for this? (Check the 10 specialists below)
- Would a specialist follow standards I might miss?
- Am I avoiding dispatch because it feels like "overhead"?
If any answer is yes → You MUST DISPATCH the specialist. This is NON-NEGOTIABLE.
Anti-Rationalization Table
See shared-patterns/shared-anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations (including Specialist Dispatch section and Universal section).
Cannot Be Overridden
<cannot_skip>
- Dispatch to specialist (standards loading required)
- 10-gate development cycle (quality gates)
- Parallel reviewer dispatch (not sequential)
- TDD in Gate 0 (test-first)
- User approval in Gate 9 </cannot_skip>
These requirements are NON-NEGOTIABLE:
| Requirement | Why It Cannot Be Waived |
|---|---|
| Dispatch to specialist | Specialists have standards loading, you don't |
| 10-gate development cycle | Gates prevent quality regressions |
| Parallel reviewer dispatch | Sequential review = 3x slower, same cost |
| TDD in Gate 0 | Test-first ensures testability |
| User approval in Gate 9 | Only users can approve completion |
User cannot override these. Time pressure cannot override these. "Simple task" cannot override these.
Pressure Resistance
See shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md for universal pressure scenarios (including Combined Pressure Scenarios and Emergency Response).
Critical Reminder:
- Urgency ≠ Permission to bypass - Emergencies require MORE care, not less
- Authority ≠ Permission to bypass - Ring standards override human preferences
- Sunk Cost ≠ Permission to bypass - Wrong approach stays wrong at 80% completion
Emergency Response Protocol
See shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md → Emergency Response section for the complete protocol.
Emergency Dispatch Template:
Task tool:
subagent_type: "ring:backend-engineer-golang"
model: "opus"
prompt: "URGENT PRODUCTION INCIDENT: [brief context]. [Your specific request]"
IMPORTANT: Specialist dispatch takes 5-10 minutes, not hours. This is NON-NEGOTIABLE even under CEO pressure.
Combined Pressure Scenarios
See shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md → Combined Pressure Scenarios section.
8 Developer Specialists
<dispatch_required agent="{specialist}"> Use Task tool to dispatch appropriate specialist based on technology need. </dispatch_required>
| Agent | Specializations | Use When |
|---|---|---|
ring:backend-engineer-golang |
Go microservices, PostgreSQL/MongoDB, Kafka/RabbitMQ, OAuth2/JWT, gRPC, concurrency | Go services, DB optimization, auth/authz, concurrency issues |
ring:backend-engineer-typescript |
TypeScript/Node.js, Express/Fastify/NestJS, Prisma/TypeORM, async patterns, Jest/Vitest | TS backends, JS→TS migration, NestJS design, full-stack TS |
ring:devops-engineer |
Docker/Compose, Terraform/Helm, cloud infra, secrets management | Containerization, local dev setup, IaC provisioning, Helm charts |
ring:frontend-bff-engineer-typescript |
Next.js API Routes BFF, Clean/Hexagonal Architecture, DDD patterns, Inversify DI, repository pattern | BFF layer, Clean Architecture, DDD domains, API orchestration |
ring:frontend-designer |
Bold typography, color systems, animations, unexpected layouts, textures/gradients | Landing pages, portfolios, distinctive dashboards, design systems |
ring:ui-engineer |
Wireframe-to-code, Design System compliance, UX criteria satisfaction, UI states implementation | Implementing from product-designer specs (ux-criteria.md, user-flows.md, wireframes/) |
ring:qa-analyst |
Test strategy, Cypress/Playwright E2E, coverage analysis, API testing, performance | Test planning, E2E suites, coverage gaps, quality gates |
ring:sre |
Structured logging, tracing, health checks, observability | Logging validation, tracing setup, health endpoint verification |
Dispatch template:
Task tool:
subagent_type: "ring:{agent-name}"
model: "opus"
prompt: "{Your specific request with context}"
Frontend Agent Selection:
ring:frontend-designer= visual aesthetics, design specifications (no code)ring:frontend-bff-engineer-typescript= business logic/architecture, BFF layerring:ui-engineer= implementing UI from product-designer specs (ux-criteria.md, user-flows.md, wireframes/)
When to use ring:ui-engineer:
Use ring:ui-engineer when product-designer outputs exist in docs/pre-dev/{feature}/. The ring:ui-engineer specializes in translating design specifications into production code while ensuring all UX criteria are satisfied.
When to Use Developer Specialists vs General Review
Use Developer Specialists for:
- ✅ Deep technical expertise needed – Architecture decisions, complex implementations
- ✅ Technology-specific guidance – "How do I optimize this Go service?"
- ✅ Specialized domains – Infrastructure, SRE, testing strategy
- ✅ Building from scratch – New service, new pipeline, new testing framework
Use General Review Agents for:
- ✅ Code quality assessment – Architecture, patterns, maintainability
- ✅ Correctness & edge cases – Business logic verification
- ✅ Security review – OWASP, auth, validation
- ✅ Post-implementation – Before merging existing code
Both can be used together: Get developer specialist guidance during design, then run general reviewers before merge.
Dispatching Multiple Specialists
If you need multiple specialists (e.g., backend engineer + DevOps engineer), dispatch in parallel (single message, multiple Task calls):
✅ CORRECT:
Task #1: ring:backend-engineer-golang
Task #2: ring:devops-engineer
(Both run in parallel)
❌ WRONG:
Task #1: ring:backend-engineer-golang
(Wait for response)
Task #2: ring:devops-engineer
(Sequential = 2x slower)
ORCHESTRATOR Principle
Remember:
- You're the orchestrator – Dispatch specialists, don't implement directly
- Don't read specialist docs yourself – Dispatch to specialist, they know their domain
- Combine with ring:using-ring principle – Skills + Specialists = complete workflow
Good Example (ORCHESTRATOR):
"I need a Go service. Let me dispatch
ring:backend-engineer-golangto design it."
Bad Example (OPERATOR):
"I'll manually read Go best practices and design the service myself."
Available in This Plugin
Agents: See "7 Developer Specialists" table above.
Skills: ring:using-dev-team (this), ring:dev-cycle (10-gate workflow), ring:dev-refactor (codebase analysis)
Commands: /ring:dev-cycle (execute tasks), /ring:dev-refactor (analyze codebase)
Note: Missing agents? Check .claude-plugin/marketplace.json for ring-dev-team plugin.
Development Workflows
All workflows converge to the 10-gate development cycle:
| Workflow | Entry Point | Output | Then |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Feature | /ring:pre-dev-feature "description" |
docs/pre-dev/{feature}/tasks.md |
→ /ring:dev-cycle tasks.md |
| Direct Tasks | /ring:dev-cycle tasks.md |
— | Execute 6 gates directly |
| Refactoring | /ring:dev-refactor |
docs/ring:dev-refactor/{timestamp}/tasks.md |
→ /ring:dev-cycle tasks.md |
6-Gate Development Cycle:
| Gate | Focus | Agent(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 0: Implementation | TDD: RED→GREEN→REFACTOR | ring:backend-engineer-*, ring:frontend-bff-engineer-typescript, ring:ui-engineer |
| 1: DevOps | Dockerfile, docker-compose, .env | ring:devops-engineer |
| 2: SRE | Health checks, logging, tracing | ring:sre |
| 3: Testing | Unit tests, coverage ≥85% | ring:qa-analyst |
| 4: Review | 5 reviewers IN PARALLEL | ring:code-reviewer, ring:business-logic-reviewer, ring:security-reviewer, ring:test-reviewer, ring:nil-safety-reviewer |
| 5: Validation | User approval: APPROVED/REJECTED | User decision |
Gate 0 Agent Selection for Frontend:
- If
docs/pre-dev/{feature}/ux-criteria.mdexists → useui-engineer - Otherwise → use
frontend-bff-engineer-typescript
Gate 0 Agent Selection for Frontend:
- If
docs/pre-dev/{feature}/ux-criteria.mdexists → useui-engineer - Otherwise → use
frontend-bff-engineer-typescript
Key Principle: All development follows the same 10-gate process.
Integration with Other Plugins
- ring:using-ring (default) – ORCHESTRATOR principle for all agents
- ring:using-pm-team – Pre-dev workflow agents
- ring:using-finops-team – Financial/regulatory agents
Dispatch based on your need:
- General code review → default plugin agents
- Specific domain expertise → ring-dev-team agents
- Feature planning → ring-pm-team agents
- Regulatory compliance → ring-finops-team agents