> Extracted from implement/SKILL.md (Mode: implement) — moved verbatim 2026-08-25, ticket [org-internal #3381].

### Mode: implement (default)

The standard implementation workflow for work items from an approved
iteration plan. Implement a single work item, guided by the approved design,
and self-verify before passing to code review.

#### Pre-flight

The pre-flight self-check prompt format ([org-internal #2599]), prepended to the Developer
sub-agent's task prompt when `routes.{Kind}.preflight` is non-empty:

```
Pre-flight self-check (evidence-based, from retrospective — verify each
BEFORE writing code; if one is already satisfied, note why in impl-notes):
1. {item} (evidence: {evidence})
2. ...
```

#### Process Overview

Every diamond below is a gate agents rationalize skipping. None are optional.

```dot
digraph implement {
    rankdir=TB;
    node [shape=box, fontname="Helvetica"];

    pre      [shape=diamond, label="Preconditions\n(artifacts + reviews\nconverged)?"];
    abort    [label="ABORT: list every\nmissing item"];
    p1       [label="Phase 1: Parse Context"];
    p2       [label="Phase 2: Plan\n(≤3 files per WI)"];
    scope    [shape=diamond, label="Scope ≤3 files\nAND maps to a\ndesign component?"];
    gap      [label="Flag design gap,\nDO NOT invent decisions"];
    p3       [label="Phase 3: Implement\n(design-exact, tests cover AC)"];
    p4       [label="Phase 4: Self-Check\n(typecheck + lint +\ntest:changed + review checklist)"];
    clean    [shape=diamond, label="0 BLOCKERs\nand 0 MAJORs?"];
    p5       [label="Phase 5: Report\n(AC → test traceability)"];
    p6       [shape=doublecircle, label="Phase 6: Handoff\nto review-code"];

    pre   -> abort [label="no"];
    pre   -> p1    [label="yes"];
    p1    -> p2;
    p2    -> scope;
    scope -> gap   [label="no"];
    scope -> p3    [label="yes"];
    p3    -> p4;
    p4    -> clean;
    clean -> p4    [label="no: fix + re-run"];
    clean -> p5    [label="yes"];
    p5    -> p6;
}
```

#### Tester focus for implement

The Tester role in implement writes **boundary + contract tests**:

- **Contract tests** — for every public API signature in `impl-notes.md`,
  verify the documented inputs/outputs, error paths, and side effects.
  Each acceptance criterion (node `acceptance_criteria` in `{epic-slug}/dag`;
  historically `04-plan-05-acceptance-criteria`) MUST map to at least one
  test.
- **Boundary tests** — empty values, malformed input, permission
  boundaries, concurrency edges, and the edge cases the node spec's decision
  tables / state machines imply.
- **Failure-path tests** — every error scenario the node's cross-session
  edge contracts (historically the interface design,
  `03-design-04-interface-design`) specify.

The Developer's Phase 4 self-check (`bun run test:changed` to green) covers
the happy path and existing tests; the Tester's job is the cases the
Developer is structurally biased to miss.

#### Preconditions

> **Publish target (tiered targeting retired, [org-internal #3072] phase 3)**: the
> `Size/*`-tiered publish rule (`rules/workflow-routing.md` §"Publish target
> by Size/* tier — RETIRED") was retired with the legacy producer skills.
> Artifacts publish where the live mode puts them: DAG task mode → node spec
> in the frozen `{epic-slug}/dag` copy (see the DAG-mode input path below);
> standalone bugfix → `{slug}/bugfix-report` + issue body per bugfix Phase 5.
> Legacy tiered locations (`{slug}/02-03-req-design`, `{slug}/04-plan-*`, …)
> stay readable for historical runs via `_shared/gitea-read-patterns.md`.

> **DAG-mode input path** (DAG ticket pipeline — `Kind/Epic` / `Kind/Feature`
> DAG parent, routes-table direct):
> DAG-routed tickets **ignore `Size/*`** (`core/skills/analyze-dag/SKILL.md`).
> When the ticket routes through the DAG pipeline, the tiered Preconditions
> below are replaced by the node spec: the work item and its acceptance
> criteria resolve from the **frozen DAG copy** wiki page `{epic-slug}/dag`
> (and the `{epic-slug}/dag-nodes/{node-id}` subpages when AC detail is sunk)
> plus the node ticket's issue body — there is no `{slug}/04-plan-*` page and
> no `Size/*`-tiered req/design page. The design-space + iteration-plan review
> convergence preconditions are replaced by the **review-dag single-gate
> convergence**: `octopus review status --stage review-dag` must show state
> `success` before the node is implemented.

> **DAG-route read map** (applies to Phase 1 read inputs and the Phase 3/4
> artifact references below — mirror `verify/SKILL.md`'s DAG branch): when
> DAG-routed, resolve each legacy tiered artifact reference (any mention below
> of `{slug}/04-plan-*` / `{slug}/03-design-*` pages) from the frozen
> DAG copy instead:
>
> - Work item — `{slug}/04-plan-04-iteration-assignment` / issue body → the
>   node spec in `{epic-slug}/dag` + the node ticket's issue body.
> - Acceptance criteria — `{slug}/04-plan-05-acceptance-criteria` / issue body
>   → the node `acceptance_criteria` in `{epic-slug}/dag` (+
>   `{epic-slug}/dag-nodes/{node-id}` subpages when AC detail is sunk) + the
>   node ticket's issue body.
> - `test_id` (測試用例 ID) declared in `04-plan-05-acceptance-criteria` → the
>   `test_id` declared on the node AC in `{epic-slug}/dag`.
> - Design sections — `{slug}/03-design-**` / `{slug}/02-03-req-design` → the
>   node spec + cross-session edge contracts in the frozen DAG copy (design
>   detail is folded into node AC + contracts; there is no `{slug}/03-design-*`
>   page).
> - Interface design — `03-design-04-interface-design` → the node's
>   cross-session edge contracts in `{epic-slug}/dag`.
> - Component mapping — `{slug}/03-design-08-traceability` → the node
>   `req_refs` + component field in `{epic-slug}/dag`.
>
> At Phase 6 handoff, pass `mode: "dag-task"` to review-code (its DAG Task
> Mode keys off the same frozen-DAG-copy detection).

Before starting implementation, confirm:

> **Legacy pipeline preconditions retired ([org-internal #3072] phase 3, 2026-08-21)**: the
> tier-dependent requirements/design/plan artifact-existence checks and the
> design-space / iteration-plan review-convergence checks that used to head
> this list belonged to the archived legacy pipeline (`<instance-root>/archive/`).
> Live input modes: DAG task mode (node spec from the frozen
> `{epic-slug}/dag` copy — see the DAG-mode input path above; convergence
> precondition = `octopus review status --stage review-dag` shows `success`)
> and standalone modes (bugfix / refactor / port — the request itself is the
> spec). Historical req/design/plan pages stay readable via
> `_shared/gitea-read-patterns.md`.

- [ ] Work item is specified (DAG node ticket `{node-id}`, or a clear task
      description in standalone modes).
- [ ] `core/checklists/implementation.md` is accessible.
- [ ] `slug` matches the run's slug (DAG: `{epic-slug}`).
- [ ] 跨阶段门控清单: `core/checklists/pipeline-gate.md` is accessible and
      its DAG 路由变体 section has been confirmed item by item. Specifically:
      the frozen DAG copy exists and the single gate has converged; the
      node's cross-session upstream dependencies are at terminal state
      (`ready`). If any dependency is not complete → abort, listing the
      blocked nodes.

**If any precondition is unmet, abort and inform the user.** Refer to
`core/checklists/pipeline-gate.md` for the complete gate checklist. List
every missing artifact, every un-converged review, and every blocked dependency
explicitly so the user knows exactly what upstream work remains before
implementation can begin. Refer to the Recovery Protocol in
`core/checklists/pipeline-gate.md` to determine the recovery action for
each missing item.

#### Work-item selection

When the user requests implementation without specifying a work item, resolve
the work-item list from the frozen DAG copy: the ready/pending task nodes in
`{epic-slug}/dag` (via `wiki 读写 API（见 TERMINOLOGY）`), cross-checked against the
node tickets on the Epic's `## DAG 状态` table. (Legacy tier-based resolution
via `{slug}/04-plan-04-iteration-assignment` was archived 2026-08-21,
[org-internal #3072] phase 3.) Present the current ready nodes for selection:

```
Current iteration: Iteration {N}: {Goal}
Available work items:
| Work Item | Description | Complexity | Status |
|-----------|-------------|------------|--------|
| WI-001 | ... | 3 | PENDING |
| WI-002 | ... | 2 | PENDING |

→ Which work item should be implemented?
```

---

#### Phase 1 — Parse Context

> **Pipeline stage**: if the source issue exists, move it to the `implement`
> column on the Pipeline Stages board per `_shared/gitea-write-patterns.md`
> Pattern 7.5. Skip if no source issue exists.

Read the upstream artifacts to build a complete implementation context.
Resolve inputs per the DAG-route read map (Preconditions above); standalone
modes read the request/bug report instead:

1. **Work item** — the node spec in `{epic-slug}/dag` (+ the
   `{epic-slug}/dag-nodes/{node-id}` subpage when detail is sunk) and the
   node ticket's issue body:
   - Node id, title, complexity (`size_attrs`).
   - Requirements covered (`req_refs`).
   - Component(s) involved (node component field).

2. **Acceptance criteria** — the node `acceptance_criteria` in
   `{epic-slug}/dag` (+ sunk subpages) and the node ticket's issue body:
   - Every falsifiable AC (`AC-{n}`) and `NFR:` entry.
   - The declared 测试用例 ID (`test_id`) for each criterion — these drive the
     Red → Green test-first order in Phase 3 and are the handshake with `verify`
     (DOD-1.6).

3. **Design context** — the node spec + the node's cross-session edge
   contracts in the frozen DAG copy (design detail is folded into node AC +
   contracts; there is no separate design page). Historical
   `{slug}/03-design-*` pages from legacy runs stay readable.

4. **Existing codebase** — use `glob` and `grep` to locate:
   - Existing files in the component's directory.
   - Existing tests.
   - Existing type definitions, schemas, configuration files the work item
     touches.

**Output**: internal only. The Developer MUST have read every referenced
design file before writing a single line of code.

---

#### Phase 2 — Plan Implementation

Before writing code, produce a brief implementation plan:

```markdown
## Implementation Plan: {WI-ID}

**Work item**: {description}
**Files to create**:

- `path/to/new/file.ts` — {purpose}

**Files to modify**:

- `path/to/existing/file.ts` — {what changes, why}

**Design compliance**:

- Component: {COMP-XXX} from {design-file}
- Interface: {iface-name} from {design-file}
- Data entity: {entity-name} from {design-file}

**Acceptance criteria to satisfy**:

- [ ] {criterion 1}
- [ ] {criterion 2}
```

**Rules**:

- If the implementation plan reveals that the work item touches > 3 files,
   pause and ask: "This work item spans {N} files. Is the scope correct, or
   should it be split?" The Builder (or user) MUST split it into smaller
   work items each touching ≤ 3 files before proceeding.
- If the work item requires a file that doesn't map to any design component,
  flag a design gap and abort. Do NOT invent design decisions.

Present the plan to the user:

```
Implementation plan for {WI-ID}:
- {N} files to create, {M} files to modify
- {K} acceptance criteria

→ Proceed? (yes / no / revise)
```

---

#### Phase 3 — Implement

Write code following these rules:

##### Design Discipline

- Component interfaces, method signatures, and return types MUST match the
  design document exactly.
- Data model fields, types, and relationships MUST match the data design.
- API endpoints, request/response schemas, and status codes MUST match the
  interface design.
- If a design decision proves impossible in practice, stop and report the gap
  to the Builder. Do NOT silently deviate.

##### Code Quality

- Follow existing project conventions (read neighbor files first to
  understand patterns).
- Use existing libraries and utilities already in the codebase — do not
  introduce new dependencies without explicit justification.
- Keep functions small and single-purpose — but per `rules/style-guide`, do NOT
  preemptively extract single-use helpers; inline at the call site unless the
  helper is reused, hides a genuinely complex boundary, or has a clear
  independent name that improves the caller.
- Handle errors at the appropriate layer (matching the design's error
  handling strategy).
- Write self-documenting code; add comments only for genuinely non-obvious
  logic.
- Document all new/modified public APIs inline (JSDoc/TSDoc/pydoc/etc.)
  with parameter descriptions, return types, and thrown errors.
- If the project has an API documentation file (e.g. OpenAPI spec, API.md),
  update it to reflect the new endpoints, schemas, or behavior changes.

##### Test Discipline

- **Test-first (Red → Green) for declared test_ids.** For every acceptance
  criterion (node AC in `{epic-slug}/dag`, whose `test_id` mapping is declared
  inline; historically the `04-plan-05-acceptance-criteria` table) that
  declares a `test_id`, write that test FIRST and confirm it fails for the
  intended reason (Red) before writing the implementation that satisfies it
  (Green). The test's `file-path :: test-name` MUST match the declared
  `test_id` exactly — this is the implement-side handshake with `verify`
  (DOD-1.6). A `test_id` marked `MANUAL` or `BENCH:<script>` is implemented
  per its method and is exempt from the Red step. If a test already passes
  against existing code (the behavior is already present), note it in the
  Phase 5 report rather than forcing an artificial failure.
- Write tests that verify the acceptance criteria.
- Tests must be independent (no shared mutable state).
- Test edge cases identified in the acceptance criteria.
- Test failure paths that the design specifies.

##### Incremental Commitments

- Implement in dependency order within the work item: shared types first,
  then data access, then business logic, then API handlers.
- After each coherent unit, run typecheck to catch errors early.

---

#### Common Rationalizations

Implementation fails far more often from **pressure** than from ignorance — the
Developer knows the rules and rationalizes skipping them under context or time
pressure. These are the excuses that precede every review blocker and silent
defect. If you catch yourself thinking any row's "Excuse", stop: the "Reality"
column is the exact rule you are about to break, and breaking it is what turns
a one-pass implementation into a multi-round review.

| Excuse | Reality (the rule being broken) |
|--------|---------------------------------|
| "Design says X, but Y is simpler/better" | Silent deviation is a hidden design gap. Phase 3 Design Discipline: stop and report to the Builder — never silently deviate. |
| "Small change, a test is overkill" | A one-line edit can break a contract. Every acceptance criterion maps to ≥1 test (Phase 4 Brownfield check). 30 seconds now vs. a review blocker later. |
| "I'll write tests after it works" | Tests-after verify what you built, not what was required — you test your own bias, not the spec. |
| "Typecheck passed, lint is cosmetic" | Lint is a Phase 4 gate, not optional polish. Failing lint is an automatic review blocker. |
| "Self-check passed, I'll trust it" | Rubber-stamping misses the MAJORs the formal review will catch. Rule: if YOU can find a MAJOR, fix it now — the first review should never discover what you could have. |
| "This neighbor looks buggy, I'll fix it too" | Scope creep. Log it as an observation in the report; do not fix unrelated code (Greenfield/Brownfield rule). |
| "Spans 5 files but it's one logical change" | The ≤3-files rule is structural, not aesthetic. Split the work item via the Builder (Phase 2 rule). |
| "Design is ambiguous here, I'll pick the obvious option" | Inventing a design decision is a Phase 2 abort condition. Flag the gap; do not guess. |
| "Already manually verified it works" | Manual ≠ systematic — no record, can't re-run, can't bisect. `bun run test:changed` is the evidence the report demands. |
| "Report is busywork, the diff speaks for itself" | No report → review-code cannot trace AC→test. Phase 5 is the handoff contract; skip it and the review stalls. |
| "X× improvement — assumed, no measurement" | Quick-measure before it becomes an AC. Unverified assumptions in ACs waste framing cost ([org-internal #1932]: YAML token density assumed 2-3×, measured 0.95 — hypothesis rejected by data). |

---

#### Phase 4 — Self-Check

After writing all code, run the project's verification commands:

1. **Typecheck**: `bun typecheck` (or project-equivalent). Fix all type errors.
2. **Lint**: `bun oxlint --deny-warnings` (repo root — the review-code
   mechanical gate's canonical lint invocation; `bun lint` is the package-script
   alias). Fix all lint errors.
 3. **Tests**: `bun run test:changed` (or project-equivalent). All affected tests must pass.
4. **Post-deletion cleanup** (mandatory when any code was removed): If files or code blocks were deleted (dead code, test cleanup, refactored-out modules), re-run `bun oxlint --deny-warnings` specifically to catch orphaned imports and unused variables — these are the most common post-deletion regressions. Re-run `bun typecheck` to catch orphaned type references to deleted modules.

Then self-check against `core/checklists/implementation.md`:

- Verify every checklist item marked PRE (pre-implementation) was satisfied
  before coding.
- Verify every checklist item marked POST (post-implementation) is satisfied
  now.
- For any failed checklist item, fix the code before reporting.

##### Brownfield Self-Check (additional)

For brownfield work items, additionally:

1. **Design spec cross-check**: Re-read the node's cross-session edge
   contracts in the frozen DAG copy (historically the design's interface
   design section, `03-design-04-interface-design`). Verify every interface
   promise — method signatures, return types, output formats, error messages,
   config field names, param descriptions — is satisfied exactly as specified.
   Schema annotations MUST match actual code behavior.
2. **Test coverage**: For each new function, method, or exported API added,
   confirm at least one test exercises it. If `bun run test:changed` reports zero new
   tests, add them before handoff.

##### Review Readiness Self-Check (mandatory before handoff)

Before submitting to code review, the Developer MUST self-attest against the
code review checklist. This reduces round-trips by catching common defects
before the first review submission. **The self-check must achieve 0 BLOCKERs
and 0 MAJORs before handoff** — if the Developer can find a MAJOR issue during
self-check, the formal reviewers will find it too.

1. **Run the code review checklist**: Read `core/checklists/code-review.md`
   and self-attest that the code likely passes, for each of its 10 dimensions
   (COR, DGN, SEC, PERF, TST, STY, DBT, A11Y, DOC, TRC — the authoritative
   dimension set lives in the checklist's section headers and
   `review-code/reference/code-review-dimensions.md`; do NOT hand-maintain a
   copy here).
2. Record the self-attestation in the Phase 5 report under "Review Readiness"
   as a pass/fail per dimension. Any FAIL dimension MUST be fixed before handoff.
3. **Hard gate**: self-check MUST find 0 BLOCKERs and 0 MAJORs. If the
   Developer finds even one MAJOR, fix it and re-run self-check before handoff.
   The first formal code review should never discover issues the Developer
   could have caught themselves.

---

#### Phase 4.5 — Iteration Completion Commit

After ALL work items in the current iteration have been implemented and passed
Self-Check (Phase 4), create a git commit BEFORE proceeding to the next
iteration. This preserves per-iteration traceability and enables `git bisect`
per iteration.

##### Commit Rules

1. Commit after the last WI of the iteration is done and self-checked.
2. Commit message format: `[{chunk-id}][{iteration}] {summary}`.
   - Example: `[chunk-resolution][iter-1] feat: add two-pass chain resolution engine`
3. **Commit body is REQUIRED for non-trivial commits** (any commit touching > 1 file
   or > 20 LOC). The body MUST contain:
   - **What**: a 1-3 line summary of the changes (files + purpose), including
     the work item ID (`WI-{NNN}`) the commit delivers — code-review TRC 10.1
     requires the commit/PR description to carry the work item ID.
   - **Why**: the design/requirement motivation (cite REQ-ID or ADR if applicable).
   - **Evidence**: test names or verification commands run (e.g. `90 compaction
     tests pass`).
   - Subject-only commits are acceptable only for single-line fixes or doc tweaks.
4. Include all source + test files from the iteration.
5. After commit, proceed to Phase 4.6 (Issue Checklist Sync), then Phase 5
   (Report) for the iteration, then start the next iteration's WIs.

##### Multi-Iteration Workflow

```
Iteration 1 WIs → Self-Check → Commit [iter-1] → Checklist Sync → Code Review →
Iteration 2 WIs → Self-Check → Commit [iter-2] → Checklist Sync → Code Review → Merge
```

---

#### Phase 4.6 — Issue Checklist Sync (progressive)

After committing the iteration, sync the source issue's checklist so
stakeholders see progress in real time. This is mandated by the
`issue-checklist-sync` L1 rule — follow its "How to sync (each point)"
procedure (identify source issue → fetch body → map → update, preserving
non-checklist content); this phase adds only the implement-specific annotation:

- **Stage-specific row**: for each `- [ ]` item the iteration's work satisfies,
  mark `- [x]` and append `_(commit {sha}: file/component)_` or
  `_(PR #NNN: file)_`.
- **Do NOT touch items outside this iteration's scope** — they will be caught
  at a later sync point (next iteration, DAG-freeze aggregation sync, or
  verify Phase 5.6). Only check off what this iteration actually delivered.

This is a **progressive** sync: the checklist fills in incrementally as
iterations complete, giving stakeholders a live view of progress without
waiting for the final verify gate.

#### Phase 4.7 — PR-Creation Sync

The session pushes its branch and reports `status=done branch=<ref> verify=…
risk=…`; the orchestrator admits the PR (serially, one open at a time) —
workers never open PRs (TD-678/[org-internal #4425]; `uncoordinated` self-open only when
the orchestrator is unreachable). Once that PR exists, update the source
issue so stakeholders see the mergeable state without waiting for code
review. Mandated by the `issue-checklist-sync` L1 rule; skip if no source
issue exists.

> PR shape per mode: default = one 1:1 PR per task (body carries the worker
> report); batch-mode epics ([org-internal #3731], per-epic opt-in) = the orchestrator
> composes ONE batch PR per iteration via the `land-batch` skill. This phase
> then runs per member issue as usual (N times), each pointing at its PR
> (batch: the single batch PR); the poller writes the PR/CI/review rows
> against every member issue (multi-close-ref fan-out).

1. Re-fetch the issue body via `工单 API（见 TERMINOLOGY）get`.
2. **Ensure the `## 当前状态` live-status section exists** (create it if
   absent — MANDATORY for incident / standalone-bugfix flows; for quiet
   pipeline flows, create it only if it already exists, otherwise skip). The
   `PR` row itself is written by the `status-sync` poller
   (`.gitea/scripts/status-sync-poll.ts`), NOT this skill — do NOT manually
   `工单 API（见 TERMINOLOGY）update` the PR / 代码评审 / CI rows (per
   `issue-checklist-sync.md` § Automated sync).
3. If this is an Epic task list, append the PR reference to the row that this
   iteration's work corresponds to.
4. Preserve all non-checklist content.
5. **Never hand-sync main into the PR branch.** Keeping the PR mergeable is
   the keep-mergeable workflow's job: once review converges the orchestrator
   labels the PR `ready-to-merge` and the server-side keep-mergeable cron
   (`.gitea/scripts/keep-mergeable.ts`, driven by
   `script/keep-mergeable-cron.sh` under a systemd timer) fetches the PR head,
   probes `merge-tree --write-tree`, and pushes a non-force `commit-tree` merge
   into the head branch (the retired `POST /pulls/{n}/update-branch` API path
   returned 405 on this instance — see AGENTS.md "PR keep-mergeable").
   Hand-written `chore: merge origin/main (keep PR mergeable)` commits are
   retired — each one re-triggered the full CI surface for near-zero re-tested
   risk.

> **Kanban column lifecycle**: automated (`POST <gitea-base-url>/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues` → Backlog,
> `POST .../pulls` → Review; no manual moves). Single shared reference:
> `_shared/gitea-write-patterns.md` Pattern 7.5; column semantics: wiki
> `kanban-lifecycle`.

---

#### Phase 5 — Report

Produce an implementation report:

```markdown
## Implementation Report: {WI-ID}

**Work item**: {description}
**Iteration**: {iteration number}: {goal}

### Files Changed

| File               | Action   | Purpose        |
| ------------------ | -------- | -------------- |
| `path/to/file.ts`  | created  | {purpose}      |
| `path/to/other.ts` | modified | {what changed} |

### Acceptance Criteria

| Criterion     | Status | Evidence                           |
| ------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------- |
| {criterion 1} | ✅     | {test name or manual verification} |
| {criterion 2} | ✅     | {test name or manual verification} |

### Verification Results

- Typecheck: {pass / fail + error count}
- Lint: {pass / fail + warning count}
- Tests: {N} passed, {M} failed, {K} skipped

### Design Deviations

{list any intentional deviations from design with rationale, or "None"}

### Open Items

{anything incomplete with reason, or "None"}

---

**Handoff**: Ready for `core/skills/review-code/SKILL.md`
```

**Persist before returning ([org-internal #2847])**: the Developer MUST write the final
report above to disk as its LAST action, BEFORE returning it —
`<runs-root>/{slug}/workers/{chunk-id}-worker-{seq}.md` when the Tier 1
run workspace exists, else `/tmp/octopus/{chunk-id}-worker-{seq}.md`
(`{chunk-id}`/`{seq}` come from the dispatch prompt — see
`../_shared/worker-report-persistence.md`). The persisted copy is the
report of record; the task notification is a convenience copy. The same
step applies to EVERY mode's report phase (bugfix Phase 5, refactor
Phase 6, port report) — no worker return may exist only in the task
notification.

---

#### Phase 6 — Handoff to Code Review

Present the report to the user and signal readiness for review:

```
Implementation of {WI-ID} complete.
- {N} files changed ({C} created, {M} modified)
- {T} tests passing
- All acceptance criteria satisfied
- Typecheck + lint clean

→ Run code review? (yes / no)
```

Do NOT mark the work item as complete until code review passes.

To notify workflow completion, call the `signal_stage_done` tool.

#### Legacy notes

> **Publish target (tiered targeting retired, [org-internal #3072] phase 3)**: the
> `Size/*`-tiered publish rule (`rules/workflow-routing.md` §"Publish target
> by Size/* tier — RETIRED") was retired with the legacy producer skills.
> Artifacts publish where the live mode puts them: DAG task mode → node spec
> in the frozen `{epic-slug}/dag` copy (see the DAG-mode input path above);
> standalone bugfix → `{slug}/bugfix-report` + issue body per bugfix Phase 5.
> Legacy tiered locations (`{slug}/02-03-req-design`, `{slug}/04-plan-*`, …)
> stay readable for historical runs via `_shared/gitea-read-patterns.md`.