# Quick-Dev - Flexible Development Workflow Communicate in {communication_language}, tailored to {user_skill_level} Execute continuously until COMPLETE - do not stop for milestones Flexible - handles tech-specs OR direct instructions ALWAYS respect {project_context} if it exists - it defines project standards Load and execute {advanced_elicitation}, then return Load and execute {party_mode_workflow}, then return Load and execute {create_tech_spec_workflow} Check if {project_context} exists. If yes, load it - this is your foundational reference for ALL implementation decisions (patterns, conventions, architecture). Parse user input: **Mode A: Tech-Spec** - e.g., `quick-dev tech-spec-auth.md` → Load spec, extract tasks/context/AC, goto step 3 **Mode B: Direct Instructions** - e.g., `refactor src/foo.ts...` → Offer planning choice Load tech-spec, extract tasks/context/AC step_3 Evaluate escalation threshold against user input (minimal tokens, no file loading): **Triggers escalation** (if 2+ signals present): - Multiple components mentioned (e.g., dashboard + api + database) - System-level language (e.g., platform, integration, architecture) - Uncertainty about approach (e.g., "how should I", "best way to") - Multi-layer scope (e.g., UI + backend + data together) - Extended timeframe (e.g., "this week", "over the next few days") **Reduces signal:** - Simplicity markers (e.g., "just", "quickly", "fix", "bug", "typo", "simple", "basic", "minor") - Single file/component focus - Confident, specific request Use holistic judgment, not mechanical keyword matching. **[t] Plan first** - Create tech-spec then implement **[e] Execute directly** - Start now Load and execute {create_tech_spec_workflow} Continue to implementation after spec complete Any additional guidance before I begin? (patterns, files, constraints) Or "go" to start. step_2 Load {project_levels} and evaluate user input against detection_hints.keywords Determine level (0-4) using scale-adaptive definitions **[t] Plan first** - Create tech-spec then implement **[e] Execute directly** - Start now Load and execute {create_tech_spec_workflow} Continue to implementation after spec complete Any additional guidance before I begin? (patterns, files, constraints) Or "go" to start. step_2 This looks like a focused feature with multiple components. **[t] Create tech-spec first** (recommended) **[w] Seems bigger than quick-dev** — see what BMad Method recommends (workflow-init) **[e] Execute directly** Load and execute {create_tech_spec_workflow} Continue to implementation after spec complete Load and execute {workflow_init} EXIT quick-dev - user has been routed to BMad Method Any additional guidance before I begin? (patterns, files, constraints) Or "go" to start. step_2 This sounds like platform/system work. **[w] Start BMad Method** (recommended) (workflow-init) **[t] Create tech-spec** (lighter planning) **[e] Execute directly** - feeling lucky Load and execute {workflow_init} EXIT quick-dev - user has been routed to BMad Method Load and execute {create_tech_spec_workflow} Continue to implementation after spec complete Any additional guidance before I begin? (patterns, files, constraints) Or "go" to start. step_2 Identify files to modify, find relevant patterns, note dependencies Create mental plan: tasks, acceptance criteria, files to touch For each task: 1. **Load Context** - read files from spec or relevant to change 2. **Implement** - follow patterns, handle errors, follow conventions 3. **Test** - write tests, run existing tests, verify AC 4. **Mark Complete** - check off task [x], continue HALT and request guidance Fix before continuing Continue through ALL tasks without stopping Verify: all tasks [x], tests passing, AC satisfied, patterns followed Update tech-spec status to "Completed", mark all tasks [x] **Implementation Complete!** **Summary:** {{implementation_summary}} **Files Modified:** {{files_list}} **Tests:** {{test_summary}} **AC Status:** {{ac_status}} --- **Before committing (Recommended): Copy this code review prompt to a different LLM** ``` You are a cynical, jaded code reviewer with zero patience for sloppy work. These uncommitted changes were submitted by a clueless weasel and you expect to find problems. Find at least five issues to fix or improve in it. Number them. Be skeptical of everything. ``` You must explain what was implemented based on {user_skill_level}