Features: - 30+ Custom Skills (cognitive, development, UI/UX, autonomous agents) - RalphLoop autonomous agent integration - Multi-AI consultation (Qwen) - Agent management system with sync capabilities - Custom hooks for session management - MCP servers integration - Plugin marketplace setup - Comprehensive installation script Components: - Skills: always-use-superpowers, ralph, brainstorming, ui-ux-pro-max, etc. - Agents: 100+ agents across engineering, marketing, product, etc. - Hooks: session-start-superpowers, qwen-consult, ralph-auto-trigger - Commands: /brainstorm, /write-plan, /execute-plan - MCP Servers: zai-mcp-server, web-search-prime, web-reader, zread - Binaries: ralphloop wrapper Installation: ./supercharge.sh
4.9 KiB
4.9 KiB
Delegation Triggers
This file defines when to delegate to GPT experts via Codex.
IMPORTANT: Check These Triggers on EVERY Message
You MUST scan incoming messages for delegation triggers. This is NOT optional.
Behavior:
- PROACTIVE: On every user message, check if semantic triggers match → delegate automatically
- REACTIVE: If user explicitly mentions GPT/Codex → delegate immediately
When a trigger matches:
- Identify the appropriate expert
- Read their prompt file from
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/prompts/[expert].md - Follow the delegation flow in
rules/orchestration.md
Available Experts
| Expert | Specialty | Use For |
|---|---|---|
| Architect | System design, tradeoffs | Architecture decisions, complex debugging |
| Plan Reviewer | Plan validation | Reviewing work plans before execution |
| Scope Analyst | Pre-planning analysis | Catching ambiguities before work starts |
| Code Reviewer | Code quality, bugs | Reviewing code changes, finding issues |
| Security Analyst | Vulnerabilities, threats | Security audits, hardening |
Explicit Triggers (Highest Priority)
User explicitly requests delegation:
| Phrase Pattern | Expert |
|---|---|
| "ask GPT", "consult GPT" | Route based on context |
| "review this architecture" | Architect |
| "review this plan" | Plan Reviewer |
| "analyze the scope" | Scope Analyst |
| "review this code" | Code Reviewer |
| "security review", "is this secure" | Security Analyst |
Semantic Triggers (Intent Matching)
Architecture & Design (→ Architect)
| Intent Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| "how should I structure" | "How should I structure this service?" |
| "what are the tradeoffs" | "Tradeoffs of this caching approach" |
| "should I use [A] or [B]" | "Should I use microservices or monolith?" |
| System design questions | "Design a notification system" |
| After 2+ failed fix attempts | Escalation for fresh perspective |
Plan Validation (→ Plan Reviewer)
| Intent Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| "review this plan" | "Review my migration plan" |
| "is this plan complete" | "Is this implementation plan complete?" |
| "validate before I start" | "Validate my approach before starting" |
| Before significant work | Pre-execution validation |
Requirements Analysis (→ Scope Analyst)
| Intent Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| "what am I missing" | "What am I missing in these requirements?" |
| "clarify the scope" | "Help clarify the scope of this feature" |
| Vague or ambiguous requests | Before planning unclear work |
| "before we start" | Pre-planning consultation |
Code Review (→ Code Reviewer)
| Intent Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| "review this code" | "Review this PR" |
| "find issues in" | "Find issues in this implementation" |
| "what's wrong with" | "What's wrong with this function?" |
| After implementing features | Self-review before merge |
Security (→ Security Analyst)
| Intent Pattern | Example |
|---|---|
| "security implications" | "Security implications of this auth flow" |
| "is this secure" | "Is this token handling secure?" |
| "vulnerabilities in" | "Any vulnerabilities in this code?" |
| "threat model" | "Threat model for this API" |
| "harden this" | "Harden this endpoint" |
Trigger Priority
- Explicit user request - Always honor direct requests
- Security concerns - When handling sensitive data/auth
- Architecture decisions - System design with long-term impact
- Failure escalation - After 2+ failed attempts
- Don't delegate - Default: handle directly
When NOT to Delegate
| Situation | Reason |
|---|---|
| Simple syntax questions | Answer directly |
| Direct file operations | No external insight needed |
| Trivial bug fixes | Obvious solution |
| Research/documentation | Use other tools |
| First attempt at any fix | Try yourself first |
Advisory vs Implementation Mode
Any expert can operate in two modes:
| Mode | Sandbox | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory | read-only |
Analysis, recommendations, review verdicts |
| Implementation | workspace-write |
Actually making changes, fixing issues |
Set the sandbox based on what the task requires, not the expert type.
Examples:
// Architect analyzing (advisory)
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: "Analyze tradeoffs of Redis vs in-memory caching",
sandbox: "read-only"
})
// Architect implementing (implementation)
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: "Refactor the caching layer to use Redis",
sandbox: "workspace-write"
})
// Security Analyst reviewing (advisory)
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: "Review this auth flow for vulnerabilities",
sandbox: "read-only"
})
// Security Analyst hardening (implementation)
mcp__codex__codex({
prompt: "Fix the SQL injection vulnerability in user.ts",
sandbox: "workspace-write"
})