Whole-ladder walks: a subagent, dispatcher's using-cldk-devtools skill
prepended, cwd = this worktree
(/Users/rkrsn/workspace/codellm-devkit/developer-skillset-sdd), instructed
DRY RUN — narrate the ladder end to end, do not implement, and ground every
claim by reading the actual SKILL.md files under skills/ as it goes.
These are validation walks, not RED/GREEN scenario baselines — there is no
no-skill counterpart run for either.
Task (verbatim): "In codeanalyzer-go, call edges to methods on embedded structs are dropped (resolver bug, no schema change needed). Walk the cldk-devtools ladder for this work end to end — do not implement; narrate each skill you would enter, what you would do there, its hard gates, and the exact handoff to the next skill, reading the actual SKILL.md files in skills/ as you go."
The agent routed via the dispatcher's routing table
("Bug fix (analyzer or SDK), behavior-preserving" → maintaining-cldk →
maintain → finishing), correctly staying off the designing-cldk-changes
branch since the task itself states no schema change is needed.
In maintaining-cldk it ran, in order: triage (reproduce-first per
references/triage-playbook.md, flagging that codeanalyzer-go's main is
a stub and the real fixtures live on a feature branch — checked the actual
repo-map note rather than assuming); the HARD-GATE check, quoted
verbatim from the file ("If the fix changes schema v2 output ... or a public
SDK API, STOP") and explicitly reasoned as not tripped (resolver-only,
no new node/edge/field, no public API move); the fix loop; and the
propagation sweep per references/propagation-checklist.md, producing a
verdict in the required shape ("Propagation verdict: codeanalyzer-java
(same-shape gap suspected ...) | none for SDK pins, because neither
python-sdk nor typescript-sdk currently wires codeanalyzer-go").
Handoff out of maintaining-cldk quoted its ## Terminal State verbatim
("The ONLY skill you invoke after maintaining-cldk is finishing-cldk-work
(or designing-cldk-changes via the contract gate; or stop at a triage
verdict if there is nothing to fix)") and correctly took the
finishing-cldk-work branch, carrying the propagation verdict.
In finishing-cldk-work it walked verification gates (per
references/release-gates.md's analyzer matrix — fixture suite, schema
conformance, monotonicity, determinism, cross-projection, re-run "now," not
trusted from an earlier pass — quoting the file's own HARD-GATE on this),
made an explicit ship decision ("a bug fix ... forces a release," per
the file's stated criteria — release warranted even though no SDK pin needs
bumping), release mechanics (tag-triggered PyPI + GitHub Release + Homebrew,
per references/packaging-and-release.md), and closeout — including
following the propagation verdict through to a filed follow-on issue for
codeanalyzer-java, quoting the finishing skill's own line that "a verdict
that names [a repo] and produces zero new issues is a verdict that was read
and then ignored."
PASS criterion met: maintaining-cldk (triage → gate check → fix loop →
propagation verdict) → finishing-cldk-work (gates → ship decision →
closeout); each handoff named the correct next skill, quoting the actual
## Terminal State text from both skills/maintaining-cldk/SKILL.md and
skills/finishing-cldk-work/SKILL.md rather than inferring it from the
dispatcher diagram alone. designing-cldk-changes was never entered.
Task (verbatim): "Add Zig support to CLDK end to end — walk the ladder, do not implement, narrate each skill entry/exit and entry-precondition checks."
The agent routed via the dispatcher's routing table's "New language for
CLDK" row → designing-cldk-changes → design → backend → frontend → finishing, explicitly ruling out maintaining-cldk since this is the
canonical structural-work case.
In designing-cldk-changes it checked its own stated Entry
Preconditions (structural work, not a bare maintenance escalation), ran
the Contract-Impact Triage ("does this change the schema v2 output?" /
"which repos are touched?" against the triage table's "New language" row —
new codeanalyzer-zig, python-sdk + TS SDK, docs), named both design
loops (analyzer-side and SDK-side, run with the user, never solo) as
applicable, and quoted the <HARD-GATE> verbatim ("No implementation rung
may be entered for structural work until the spec exists AND the GitHub
epic + child issues exist"). It then quoted the exact ## Terminal State
handoff ("the first affected rung: codeanalyzer-backend if any analyzer is
touched...") and correctly proceeded to codeanalyzer-backend, since a new
analyzer is touched.
In codeanalyzer-backend it checked entry preconditions (spec + epic must
exist — satisfied by the prior rung's gate), identified Path (A) new
language, walked the level ladder (L1→L2→L3→L4, each gated on "fixture
suite green + schema conformance green"), quoted the <HARD-GATE> on level
advancement and schema divergence, and correctly noted packaging/release is
out of scope here. It quoted the exact Terminal State handoff ("cldk-sdk-
frontend if any SDK is affected... else finishing-cldk-work") and proceeded
to cldk-sdk-frontend, since the spec named python-sdk (+ TS SDK) as
affected.
In cldk-sdk-frontend it explicitly checked both entry gates before
proceeding (analyzer conformant and emitting real output; facade surface
already decided by the prior rung's SDK-side design loop — not re-decided
here), quoted the Iron Rule and its <HARD-GATE> (no public accessor
changes name/signature/return type without going back through design), and
described per-SDK wiring (models → facade → dispatch branch → version pin → tests) and the three testing tiers. It quoted the Terminal State handoff
("finishing-cldk-work. (A future cocoa rung slots in here.)") and proceeded
to finishing-cldk-work.
In finishing-cldk-work it checked entry preconditions correctly for this
arrival path — noting arrivals from codeanalyzer-backend/cldk-sdk- frontend "carry no verdict of their own" and gates must be re-run here, not
assumed (quoting the file) — walked the verification-gates HARD-GATE, made
an explicit ship decision (new language reaching users forces a release),
described release mechanics for both the analyzer and the SDK pin bump, and
closeout. Since this walk originated in designing-cldk-changes rather than
a maintaining-cldk propagation sweep, it correctly noted there is no
propagation verdict to carry forward and the ladder ends here.
PASS criterion met: designing-cldk-changes (triage, both design loops
named, spec+epic gate quoted) → codeanalyzer-backend (levels, gates) →
cldk-sdk-frontend (iron rule, wiring) → finishing-cldk-work, strictly in
that order, with entry preconditions explicitly checked and quoted at every
rung before entering it.
skills/using-cldk-devtools/SKILL.md, skills/designing-cldk-changes/SKILL.md,
skills/maintaining-cldk/SKILL.md, skills/codeanalyzer-backend/SKILL.md,
skills/cldk-sdk-frontend/SKILL.md, skills/finishing-cldk-work/SKILL.md,
plus the references each walk cited (canonical-schema.md,
schema-design-loop.md, sdk-facade-design-loop.md,
epic-and-issue-templates.md, tooling-menu.md, analyzer-architecture.md,
testing-and-validation.md, python-sdk-wiring.md,
typescript-sdk-wiring.md, release-gates.md, packaging-and-release.md,
docs-and-closeout.md, triage-playbook.md, propagation-checklist.md,
repo-map.md). No write actions were taken by either subagent.