Cavecrew skill

Cavecrew = three subagent presets that answer in ultracave voice (tool runs: one status line in, one out; nothing between routine calls). 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

Task	Use
"Where is X defined / what calls Y / list uses of Z"	cavecrew-investigator
Same but you also want suggestions/architecture commentary	Explore (vanilla)
Surgical edit, ≤2 files, scope obvious	cavecrew-builder
New feature / 3+ files / cross-cutting refactor	Main thread, or feature-dev:code-architect if installed
Review diff, branch, or file for bugs	cavecrew-reviewer
Deep code review with rationale + alternatives	Code Reviewer (vanilla) if installed, else main thread
One-line answer you already know	Main 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 comes back as a compressed path:line table instead. 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 accept or reject a subagent's absence claim (No match., No issues., "section missing", "unchanged") without one targeted check of the relevant file, search scope, or diff. Check cited line numbers are within the file before acting.
• 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 when installed.
• 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.