---
description: "Adaptive implementation workflow — routes, plans, waits for approval, then implements"
---

Use the subagent tool to implement the following task. The workflow is ADAPTIVE — first evaluate, then plan, get user approval, then execute.

## Step 1: Route

Run the "router" agent with this task: $@

The router will return a classification (SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE, or HUGE).

## Step 2: Execute based on classification

### If SMALL:
Run a single "coder" agent. No planning or review needed.
After implementation, present what was done. Done.

### If MEDIUM:
Run the "scout" agent, then the "planner" agent as a chain.

**STOP. Present the plan to the user and ask for approval before continuing.**

Once approved (user says ok, go, approved, looks good, etc):
- Run the "coder" agent to implement the plan
- Run "reviewer-quick" on the result
- If NEEDS_FIXES, run the "fixer" agent

### If LARGE:
Run a chain: "scout" → "planner" → "plan-reviewer"

**STOP. Present the plan AND the Opus review to the user. Ask for approval before continuing.**

Once approved:
- Execute the plan steps using "coder" for sequential steps, or "coder-parallel" with parallel tasks if the plan identified parallelizable steps
- Run the "reviewer" agent on all changes
- If NEEDS_FIXES, run the "fixer" agent

If the user requests changes to the plan, revise and present again before implementing.

### If HUGE:
Same as LARGE but use "deep-scout" instead of "scout", and prefer parallel execution with "coder-parallel" for independent steps.

**STOP after planning. Same approval gate as LARGE.**

## Important

- **NEVER skip the approval gate** for MEDIUM, LARGE, or HUGE tasks. Always present the plan and wait.
- When presenting the plan, format it clearly. Highlight: what will change, which files, risks, and the Opus review verdict (if applicable).
- If the user says "with changes" or gives feedback, revise the plan and present again.
- Always pass scout/planner context forward using {previous} in chain mode.
- For parallel coder tasks, clearly assign each coder to specific files to avoid conflicts.
- If any step fails, report what happened and stop.
- After the final step, summarize: what was done, what files changed, what was reviewed, and any remaining concerns.