Delegate menial, well-scoped coding tasks to a cheap Qwen-backed subagent via the `claude-9arm` command instead of burning Claude tokens/quota. Use when the work is mechanical and low-risk — bulk renames, formatting, boilerplate, find-replace, grep-style search & summarization, reading/condensing logs or files, test/docstring/comment scaffolding, or running builds/linters/tests and reporting pass-fail. Also use when the user says "use qwen", "delegate this", "send it to 9arm/qwen", or "do this cheaply". Do NOT use for architecture, design, debugging judgment, security-sensitive edits, or anything needing this conversation's context.
Keeps a long Claude Code task on-track — breaks out of looping/circular thinking, watches the context budget, bounds internal reasoning, and triggers a clean handoff before the window fills. Use when the model is repeating steps, re-reading the same files, second-guessing in circles, stuck or spinning, or running a long multi-step task at risk of exhausting context. Also use when the user says it is "looping", "going in circles", "stuck", "repeating itself", or asks for a handoff before running out of context.
Four-mantra debugging discipline — reproduce, trace the fail path, falsify the hypothesis, cross-reference every breadcrumb. Recite the mantra block verbatim at the start of any debugging session, then apply the four steps in order before proposing any fix. Trigger on /debug-mantra and proactively whenever debugging starts — user reports a bug, says something is broken/throwing/failing, asks to debug/diagnose/investigate an issue, or pastes a stack trace or error log.
Write the canonical engineering record of a fixed bug — root cause, mechanism, fix, validation, and how it slipped through. Engineer-audience, code identifiers welcome. Use after a debug session lands a fix, before closing the ticket. Trigger on /post-mortem, when the user says "write the post-mortem / postmortem / RCA / root cause analysis", "document this fix", "write up the root cause", "close out this bug with a writeup", or hands you a fixed-and-validated bug and asks for the writeup.
Outsider-perspective end-to-end review of a plan, PR, or code change. First questions intent and whether a simpler/more elegant approach would achieve the same goal, then traces the actual code path (not just the diff) to verify the change does what it claims. Output is concise, actionable, and every call carries its rationale. Trigger on /scrutinize and proactively whenever the user asks to review, audit, sanity-check, or get a second opinion on a plan, PR, diff, design doc, or proposed code change.
Rewrite engineer-to-engineer content for engineering-org leadership (VPs, directors, PMs, release managers, execs in an engineering-savvy company) and shape it for the channel it is going to — JIRA comment, Slack post, async standup line, email, or meeting talking-points. Trigger when the user asks to write/rewrite for management / exec / VP / director / PM / release manager, asks for an "executive summary / leadership update / status update", says "make this less technical / less jargony", or asks for a slack / email / standup / meeting version of work originally written engineer-to-engineer.