claude-config

Scanner-grounded security audit, distinct from the built-in /security-review. Runs the right scanners (semgrep, osv-scanner, trivy, gitleaks, bandit), queries live CVE data via MCP, applies a 24-category threat-model checklist, and produces a triaged report. Trigger on "deep security review", "full security audit", "check for CVEs", "scan my dependencies" — and proactively after changes touching auth, input handling, file/network I/O, crypto, or dependency upgrades.

In-depth, tool-grounded code review, distinct from the built-in /code-review. Default scope is the WHOLE codebase (runs linters/tests, reads architecture, checks for AI slop, renders a Continue/Refactor/Rebuild verdict); scopes down to a deep change review only when the user names a PR, commit, or diff. Trigger on "deep code review", "review this codebase", "is this good code", "audit this project". For "is this exploitable?" use security-review-deep.

Use any time you generate or rewrite prose for the user — emails, documents, posts, proposals, any written content — so it reads like a sharp human wrote it: direct, specific, no AI tells. Also trigger on "make this sound less like AI", "clean this up", "rewrite this", "tighten this". For critique without rewriting, use editor.

Run a real decision through a council of five AI advisors who each analyze it from a different thinking lens, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a single verdict. Adapted from Karpathy's LLM Council. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'war room this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS when paired with a genuine decision and a real tradeoff: 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'is this the right move', 'I'm torn between', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives'. Do NOT trigger on factual lookups, simple yes/no questions, creation tasks ('write me X'), or a casual 'should I' with no real stakes. DO trigger when the user brings a decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that wants pressure-testing from several angles. Claude Code only — it spawns sub-agents.

Slow, exhaustive planning sessions: question the user one decision at a time until requirements are fully confirmed, then optionally chain into research scouts, a readiness audit, an architecture draft, and a staged roadmap. Trigger on "help me plan", "let's design", "I want to build", "deep planner", or /plan. Built-in plan mode is the lightweight alternative; this is the opt-in careful path.

Macro-first pipeline for multi-page documents where structure matters as much as prose (proposals, papers, grants, reports): intake -> outline contract -> draft -> developmental, structural, specificity, voice, and persona reviews -> human-writer copy pass. Trigger on "deep writing pass", "this reads like AI even with no AI tells", or any long-form piece for a specialist audience. Under ~1 page use human-writer; for critique only, editor.

Design slide content and narrative for decks, talks, and pitches — what each slide says and why, not visual layout. Trigger on "help me with my deck", "what should this slide say", "plan my talk", "build out my presentation", or an outline the user wants turned into slides. Substantive content, not corporate filler; knows the user's presentation-template repo.

Check current community and web sources (Reddit, HN, forums, news) before answering on fast-moving topics. Trigger on what's new/best/trending, and whenever recency matters even unasked: version numbers, prices, release status, "still", "latest", the current state of a named tool or model. Skip when a stale answer wouldn't mislead. For academic literature use deep-research.

Generate a self-contained Markdown handoff document — plus a file inventory and proposed workspace layout if the session produced files — for moving work to another AI agent. Trigger ONLY on explicit asks: "handoff doc", "session handoff", "I'm moving this to Claude Code", "wrap this up so I can continue elsewhere". Not for generic chat summaries.