project-implementation

To enforce an evidence-based workflow, the system routes implementation requests to a specific execution lane like build, debug, or ship, and forces proof-aligned first actions. This prevents broad exploration and ensures outputs include code changes or runtime validation results backed by concrete proof.

Preparing release readiness requires routing the request to the review or ship execution lanes. This enforces minimum-read execution that produces review readiness findings and release or rollback actions aligned to the chosen lane, minimizing wrong-first-step churn.

Routing debugging tasks correctly requires detecting the main action and selecting the debug or fix path first. The system reads only the required initial child skill, then optionally adds specialists when a specific evidence gap exists, avoiding unnecessary context reads.

You should fall back to project definition when success criteria, scope, or API and data contracts remain unclear. The implementation workflow routes back to defining specs instead of improvising, ensuring the project has necessary definitions before building begins.

Yes, you can add specialist enhancers during test proof generation, but only when a targeted evidence gap exists. The workflow requires selecting exactly one primary child path first and adding enhancers solely to fill specific proof or validation gaps.