bmad-code-org__bmad-method/docs/reference/dev-auto.md

---
title: Autonomous Development Loops
description: Reference for running unattended BMad development loops with bmad-dev-auto as the single-iteration worker.
sidebar:
  order: 7
---

To use BMad in an autonomous development loop, use the `bmad-dev-auto` skill. It is like [Quick Dev](../explanation/quick-dev.md), but designed to keep moving without human interaction. You can use it in an interactive session, but its main purpose is to be used by an orchestrator.

## What It Does

`bmad-dev-auto` performs one unattended development-loop iteration:

1. Clarify the incoming intent
2. Create (or find and resume) a spec file
3. Implement the change
4. Review the result
5. Finish by writing a terminal status to the spec file or fallback result artifact.

## Prerequisites

This skill relies on an ability to run subagents. If subagents are unavailable, the workflow halts `blocked` with `no subagents`. If you invoke the skill itself in a subagent session, e.g. "hey, Claude, implement stories 2-10, using a subagent running bmad-dev-auto skill for each story", that session will need to spawn its own subagents.

Version control, while optional, is strongly recommended. If it's present, there must be no uncommitted changes.

## Inputs

### Primary Invocation Input

The main input is the invocation prompt. `bmad-dev-auto` treats that prompt as workflow input, not as a finished implementation plan.

Supported intent shapes include:

- A short free-form change request
- A ticket, issue, or story identifier
- A path to an intent file
- A path to an existing spec file generated by this workflow
- A spec folder plus a story id, with no specific spec file path (**folder+id dispatch** — see below)

### Resume Input

If the invocation points to an existing spec file with one of the known `status` values in the frontmatter, the workflow resumes from that state:

| Spec status | Entry point |
| --- | --- |
| `draft` | plan |
| `ready-for-dev` | implement |
| `in-progress` | implement |
| `in-review` | review |
| `done` | review again as a fresh follow-up pass |
| `blocked` | halt immediately |

### Folder+ID Dispatch

Instead of a spec-file path, the invocation prompt can supply a spec folder and a story id, with no specific spec file path. Any further prompt text (e.g. `invoke_dev_with` guidance a caller appends) is carried forward as extra planning context, not a competing description of the work.

The workflow reads `<spec-folder>/stories.yaml` and looks up the entry whose `id` matches. It takes only that entry's `title` and `description` — `spec_checkpoint`, `done_checkpoint`, and `invoke_dev_with` are the dispatching caller's fields and are never read from the file itself.

It then checks `<spec-folder>/stories/<story-id>-*.md` (id-prefix match) to tell a first dispatch from a resume:

| On-disk match | Outcome |
| --- | --- |
| None | First dispatch. Requires `<spec-folder>/SPEC.md` to exist (otherwise halts `blocked` / `no epic spec found`). Loads `SPEC.md` and its companions, then proceeds to planning. |
| Exactly one | Resume: routes on that file's `status` exactly like the Resume Input table above. A `blocked` status here reports blocking condition `story already blocked`, not `blocked spec supplied` — dev-auto discovered the file by id, the caller didn't hand it a blocked spec. A missing or unrecognized `status` halts `blocked` / `unrecognized status in existing story file`. |
| More than one | Halts `blocked` / `ambiguous story file match`. |

A `blocked` story file is permanent: every later dispatch of that id halts with `story already blocked`, even after the cause is fixed. To retry, delete the story file — the id then reads as pending and the next dispatch starts fresh.

Whenever planning runs — on a first dispatch, or on a resume of interrupted planning (`draft`) — the workflow also loads every other file matching `<spec-folder>/stories/*.md` and carries forward each one's Code Map, Design Notes, Spec Change Log, Tasks & Acceptance checklist state, and Auto Run Result details as extra planning context, so planning for one story can see what other stories in the same folder have already decided or produced. Resumes that skip planning skip this too.

Exactly one `stories.yaml` entry is dispatched per invocation: the workflow never reads another entry or advances to a different story id, regardless of outcome.

### Context Inputs

On activation, the workflow resolves:

- BMad configuration from `_bmad/config.toml` and its override layers
- Any configured workflow customizations from `customize.toml`, team overrides, and user overrides
- Persistent facts listed in workflow config
- `project-context.md` files, if present

It may also look at:

- BMAD planning artifacts
- A cached or newly compiled epic context file for epic-based work
- The most recent completed prior-story spec from the same epic for continuity
- Other `stories/*.md` records in the same spec folder, under folder+id dispatch (see Folder+ID Dispatch above)

## Spec Status

The spec frontmatter `status` is the main machine-readable state for orchestration:

| Spec Status | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| `draft` | Spec exists but has not passed ready-for-dev validation |
| `ready-for-dev` | Spec is complete enough to implement |
| `in-progress` | Implementation is underway |
| `in-review` | Review/triage is underway |
| `done` | Workflow completed successfully |
| `blocked` | Workflow cannot safely continue unattended |

### On `ready-for-dev`

`ready-for-dev` is normally a resume state the workflow passes straight through on its way to implementation. It becomes a genuine halt outcome when the invocation prompt directs a halt after planning: once the spec passes the READY FOR DEVELOPMENT gate, the workflow sets status `ready-for-dev` and stops there instead of continuing to implementation. Re-dispatching the same spec (or the same spec folder and story id) resumes at implementation via the routing above.

### On `done`

On successful completion, the workflow writes or updates the spec with:

- Final `status: done`
- An `Auto Run Result` section containing:
  - Summary of implemented change
  - Files changed
  - Review findings breakdown
  - Verification performed
  - Residual risks
- `followup_review_recommended` flag. True if LLM decided another review pass seems worthwhile. It's a suggestion, not a must. Simplest way to give it a second review pass is to re-run the skill pointing it at the spec file.
- `baseline_revision` and `final_revision` — HEAD before implementation and after the final commit. Together they bracket the run's commits: `git log baseline_revision..final_revision` lists exactly what it produced, and equal values mean no commits were made. Both are `NO_VCS` when version control is unavailable.

If version control is available, the workflow commits the change. It does not push.

### On `blocked`

On blocked completion, the workflow writes:

- Final `status: blocked` when a spec exists
- A blocking condition
- Supporting detail in the spec or fallback result artifact

Typical blocking conditions include:

- `unclear intent`
- `intent gap`
- `no subagents`
- `missing spec_file before implementation`
- `implementation verification failed`
- `review repair loop exceeded 5 iterations (non-convergence)`
- `blocked spec supplied` (a directly-invoked spec file already had `status: blocked`)
- `no stories.yaml found`
- `story id not found in stories.yaml`
- `no epic spec found`
- `ambiguous story file match`
- `unrecognized status in existing story file`
- `story already blocked` (folder+id dispatch only — contrast with `blocked spec supplied` above)

An `intent gap` means the captured intent cannot answer a question the run hit — it can halt the planning step (before any code exists) or the review step. When review halts on it, the working tree is reverted as usual, but the attempted change is first saved as a patch file in `{implementation_artifacts}`, referenced from the spec's triage log and the halt output. The patch shows which reading of the intent the run implemented — concrete evidence for repairing the intent. If the attempted reading turns out to be correct, `git apply` the patch and set the spec status to `in-review` to resume review on it instead of re-running from scratch.

## Output Artifacts

The workflow always tries to leave behind a durable artifact describing what happened.

### Primary Spec Artifact

For new work, the workflow creates:

`{implementation_artifacts}/spec-<slug>.md`

That spec is the contract between planning, implementation, and review. It contains:

- Frontmatter status
- The immutable `<intent-contract>` block
- Code map
- Tasks and acceptance criteria
- Spec change log
- Review triage log
- Verification notes

### Story Spec Artifact (Folder+ID Dispatch)

Under folder+id dispatch, the workflow writes to `<spec-folder>/stories/<story-id>-<slug>.md` instead of the primary spec or fallback result paths — including for halts before planning starts. The fallback result artifact below is never used in this mode.

When a halt happens before a slug can be derived from the story's title, the write-back falls back to a fixed slug segment instead:

| Situation | Slug segment used |
| --- | --- |
| `stories.yaml` missing/unparseable, or no entry matches the story id | `unresolved` |
| More than one on-disk file already matches `<story-id>-*.md` | `ambiguous` |
| Entry resolved and no on-disk ambiguity | slug derived from `title` (and `description` if needed) |

If the resolved path already exists, the workflow updates its `status` frontmatter and appends result details under `## Auto Run Result`, same as the primary spec artifact. If it doesn't exist, the workflow creates a skeletal story spec: frontmatter status, a heading (the entry's title, or `Story <story_id>` if the entry couldn't be resolved or the on-disk match was ambiguous), and an `## Auto Run Result` section.

### Fallback Result Artifact

If the workflow halts before it has a valid `spec_file` (outside folder+id dispatch — see above), it writes:

`{implementation_artifacts}/bmad-dev-auto-result-<slug-or-timestamp>.md`

This records the terminal status and blocking condition.

### Additional Artifacts

Depending on the route, the workflow may also write:

- `{implementation_artifacts}/epic-<N>-context.md`
- `{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md`
- A patch file preserving the attempted change when the review step halts on `intent gap` (path recorded in the spec's triage log)

## Orchestrator Responsibilities

An orchestrator integrating `bmad-dev-auto` should:

- Pass one coherent intent at a time
- Prefer passing a spec path when resuming prior work — or the same spec folder and story id, under folder+id dispatch
- Monitor the produced spec file, story spec artifact, or fallback result file for terminal state
- Read `status`, `blocking condition`, and `followup_review_recommended` rather than inferring success from chat output alone
- Use `baseline_revision..final_revision` to identify the commits the run produced, rather than inferring them from git state
- Expect autonomous file changes and possibly a local commit
- Handle `blocked` as a routing signal, not just a failure signal

In practice, `blocked` usually means the workflow ran into a situation where unattended execution would be unsafe. That is often the point where a higher-level orchestrator, another workflow, or a human should take over.

After resolving a blocked run, the orchestrator should usually start a fresh `bmad-dev-auto` run. If it reuses prior work, it should pass an explicit known-good spec path rather than relying on implicit discovery.