cavecrew

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Decision guide for delegating to caveman-style subagents. Tells the main thread WHEN to spawn `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit), or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of doing the work inline or using vanilla `Explore`. Subagent output is caveman-compressed so the tool-result injected back into main context is ~60% smaller — main context lasts longer across long sessions. Trigger: "delegate to subagent", "use cavecrew", "spawn investigator/builder/reviewer", "save context", "compressed agent output".

1.2kinstalls

Sourcejuliusbrussee/caveman

Added on2026-05-01

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add juliusbrussee/caveman cavecrew

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Cavecrew = three subagent presets that emit caveman output. 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`
Review diff, branch, or file for bugs	`cavecrew-reviewer`
Deep code review with rationale + alternatives	`Code Reviewer` (vanilla)
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

returns ~700 tokens. 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):

```
cavecrew-investigator
```
returns site list.
Main thread picks 1-2 sites, hands paths to
```
cavecrew-builder
```
.
```
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 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.
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.