agentleFS
Sign inStart free
john-data-chenjohn-data-chen/hermes-agent-backup/skills/cavecrew/SKILL.md

cavecrew

Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Decision guide for delegating to caveman-style subagents. Tells the main thread WHEN to spawn `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit), or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of doing the work inline or using vanilla `Explore`. Subagent output is caveman-compressed so the tool-result injected back into main context is ~60% smaller — main context lasts longer across long sessions. Trigger: "delegate to subagent", "use cavecrew", "spawn investigator/builder/reviewer", "save context", "compressed agent output".

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 1 is common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 1

    Common

    Most of the 37 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Don't use cavecrew-builder when you don't already know the file.

    line 75
  2. Very specific:

    Don't chain cavecrew-investigator → cavecrew-builder for a 5-file refactor.

    line 76
  3. Very specific:

    Don't ask cavecrew-reviewer for "general feedback" — it returns findings only, no architecture opinions.

    line 77
  4. Common:

    Don't expect prose. Cavecrew output is structured, sometimes terse to the point of cryptic.

    line 78

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 37 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Cavecrew = three subagent presets that emit caveman output. Same job as Anthropic defaults (Explore, edit-style agents, reviewer); difference is the tool-result they return is compressed, so main context shrinks per delegation.

When to use cavecrew vs alternatives

TaskUse
"Where is X defined / what calls Y / list uses of Z"cavecrew-investigator
Same but you also want suggestions/architecture commentaryExplore (vanilla)
Surgical edit, ≤2 files, scope obviouscavecrew-builder
New feature / 3+ files / cross-cutting refactorMain thread or feature-dev:code-architect
Review diff, branch, or file for bugscavecrew-reviewer
Deep code review with rationale + alternativesCode Reviewer (vanilla)
One-line answer you already knowMain thread, no subagent

Rule of thumb: if you'd want the subagent's output in 1/3 the tokens, pick cavecrew. If you'd want prose, pick vanilla.

Why this exists (the real win)

Subagent tool results get injected into main context verbatim. A vanilla Explore that returns 2k tokens of prose costs 2k tokens of main-context budget every time. The same finding from cavecrew-investigator returns ~700 tokens. Across 20 delegations in one session that's the difference between context exhaustion and finishing the task.

Output contracts

What main thread can rely on per agent:

cavecrew-investigator

<Header>:
- path:line — `symbol` — short note
totals: <counts>.

Or No match. Always file-path-first, line-number-attached, backticked symbols. Safe to grep with path:\d+.

cavecrew-builder

<path:line-range> — <change ≤10 words>.
verified: <re-read OK | mismatch @ path:line>.

Or one of: too-big. / needs-confirm. / ambiguous. / regressed. (terminal first token).

cavecrew-reviewer

path:line: <emoji> <severity>: <problem>. <fix>.
totals: N🔴 N🟡 N🔵 N❓

Or No issues. Findings sorted file → line ascending.

Chaining patterns

Locate → fix → verify (most common):

  1. cavecrew-investigator returns site list.
  2. Main thread picks 1-2 sites, hands paths to cavecrew-builder.
  3. cavecrew-reviewer audits the diff.

Parallel scout (when investigation is broad): Spawn 2-3 cavecrew-investigator calls in one message (different angles: defs vs callers vs tests). Aggregate in main thread.

Single-shot edit (when site is already known): Skip investigator. Hand exact path:line to cavecrew-builder directly.

What NOT to do

  • Don't use cavecrew-builder when you don't already know the file. Spawn investigator first or main thread will eat tokens passing context.
  • Don't chain cavecrew-investigator → cavecrew-builder for a 5-file refactor. Builder will return too-big. and you'll have wasted a turn.
  • Don't ask cavecrew-reviewer for "general feedback" — it returns findings only, no architecture opinions. Use Code Reviewer for that.
  • Don't expect prose. Cavecrew output is structured, sometimes terse to the point of cryptic. If a human will read it directly, paraphrase.

Auto-clarity (inherited)

Subagents drop caveman → normal English for security warnings, irreversible-action confirmations, and any output where fragment ambiguity could be misread. Resume caveman after.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free