ny-principal-advisor

name

ny-principal-advisor

description

Consult a Principal Software Engineer / Architect — a fresh-context advisor subagent dispatched on **Fable** (fallback **Opus**) — at real decision points, whatever model runs the current session. Use when: architecture/design tradeoffs aren't resolvable from the code; BLOCKED twice on the same root cause; spec conflicts with empirical reality; about to make a hard-to-reverse structural change (public API, data model, concurrency design, dependency boundary). Trigger phrases: `ask the advisor`, `consult the architect`, `second opinion on this design`, `ปรึกษา advisor`, `ขอความเห็น architect`, `ถาม principal ก่อน`, `ขอ second opinion`, and any time `ny-auto-pipeline` says to call the advisor. The advisor ADVISES; the session model (and ultimately the user) DECIDES. Do NOT use for routine implementation questions, obvious errors, decisions the user already made, or as a substitute for reading the code yourself.

ny-principal-advisor

Overview

A consultation pattern, not a delegation pattern. When the session hits a real decision point — architecture, tradeoff, repeated blocker, spec-vs-reality conflict — dispatch one advisor subagent that plays a Principal Software Engineer / Architect with fresh context, and have it return a structured recommendation. The advisor always runs on the top capability tier (Fable, fallback Opus) even if the session model is Sonnet or Haiku: judgment is exactly the work you never down-tier (see the capability ladder in ny-orchestrate-subagents).

Core principle: the advisor sees the problem with no sunk cost and no attachment to the current approach. You bring the evidence; it brings the judgment; you keep the decision.

When to consult

• Two or more credible designs and the tradeoff isn't resolvable from the code alone.
• A second BLOCKED on the same root cause — two failed attempts mean the approach is suspect, not the implementation.
• Spec or acceptance criteria conflict with what the code/tools actually do.
• You're about to make a hard-to-reverse move: public API surface, persisted data shape, concurrency model, workspace/dependency boundary, spec rewrite.
• You notice you're rationalizing ("just this once", "probably fine") on a structural choice.

When NOT to consult:

• The user already decided — follow the user, don't shop for a counter-opinion.
• The answer is in the code — read it (use ny-codemap/ny-codegraph) first.
• Routine fixes, obvious errors, style questions, anything a reviewer subagent already covers.
• More than ~2 consultations per task: if you keep needing the advisor, the task is under-specified — surface that to the user instead.

Dispatch mechanics

Use the Agent tool, foreground (you cannot proceed without the answer, so blocking is correct here — this is the exception to ny-orchestrate-subagents' background-by-default rule):

• subagent_type: "general-purpose" (or Plan for pure design questions — it's read-only and architecture-oriented).
• model: "fable". If the dispatch errors because Fable is unavailable, retry once with model: "opus". Never lower.
• One advisor per decision. Don't panel-poll three advisors and average — if you need adversarial pressure, ask the one advisor for the strongest case against its own recommendation (the DISSENT field below).

The brief (self-contained — the advisor can't see this chat)

You are a Principal Software Engineer / Architect acting as an advisor.
You advise; you do not implement. Recommend, with explicit tradeoffs.

DECISION QUESTION: <one sentence — the actual choice to make>

CONTEXT: <project shape, constraints, relevant paths the advisor may read>

OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
  A) <option> — evidence for/against, what was already tried, exact errors
  B) <option> — ...

CONSTRAINTS: <hard requirements, spec quotes, things the user already decided>

MY CURRENT LEAN: <your tentative pick and why — be honest, it sharpens the reply>

Reply in exactly this shape:
RECOMMENDATION: <pick one option, or name a better option C>
RATIONALE: <the load-bearing reasons, tied to the evidence above>
RISKS: <what breaks or hurts later if we follow this>
DISSENT: <the strongest argument against this recommendation, and what
         evidence would flip the call>

Paste real evidence — exact error output, spec lines, file paths — not your summary of it. A vague brief returns a vague oracle. Include your current lean: hiding it doesn't make the advisor more objective, it just makes the answer less targeted.

Handling the answer

1. You decide; the advisor advises. Weigh the RECOMMENDATION against the conversation context the advisor doesn't have. Adopting it is your call and stays your responsibility — never report "the advisor made me do it".
2. DISSENT is the test. Before acting, check whether the flip-evidence the advisor named actually exists in your context. If it does, the recommendation just falsified itself — surface that.
3. Advisor contradicts an explicit user decision → stop and ask the user. Don't silently follow either side.
4. Advisor says "stop digging, pivot" (the classic second-BLOCKED outcome) → treat the current approach as dead. Re-dispatch fresh with the new approach; don't blend the corpse of the old one into it.
5. Record one line in your running notes/plan: decision, advisor's recommendation, what you chose, why — so the post-mortem (Phase 7 of ny-auto-pipeline) has the trail.

Relationship to sibling skills

• ny-auto-pipeline names advisor call-points (second BLOCKED, spec vs reality, about-to-bend-the-spec). This skill is the concrete mechanism for those calls.
• ny-orchestrate-subagents owns tiering and background dispatch for work. The advisor is the deliberate exception: always top tier, usually foreground, never doing the work itself.

Anti-patterns

• Decision laundering — consulting so the choice isn't "yours". It still is.
• Oracle-shopping — re-asking with a friendlier brief until you get the answer you wanted.
• Skipping the evidence — sending "X doesn't work, what should we do?" with no error output. The advisor will guess, confidently.
• Down-tiering — a Sonnet "advisor" is just a second implementer opinion. Fable/Opus or don't bother.
• Consulting instead of reading — if codegraph impact answers the question, the advisor is overhead.
• Implementing through the advisor — the moment the brief says "and write the code", it's not an advisor dispatch anymore; use a normal implementer subagent per ny-orchestrate-subagents.