
advisor-triggers
by akaszubski
Production-ready Claude Code 2.0 setup for autonomous development
SKILL.md
name: advisor-triggers version: 1.0.0 type: automation description: Detects when user requests warrant critical analysis via /advise command auto_activate: false allowed-tools: [Read, Grep, Glob] keywords:
- advisor
- triggers
- automation
- detection
- patterns
- analysis
Advisor Auto-Invoke Triggers
Purpose
Detect patterns in user requests that indicate a need for critical thinking analysis. Suggests running /advise when users propose significant changes without first considering trade-offs.
Detection Patterns
Pattern 1: New Dependencies
Triggers:
- "add [package/library/service]"
- "use [technology]"
- "integrate [external service]"
- "switch to [different tool]"
Examples:
- "Let's add Redis for caching"
- "Use TensorFlow for ML"
- "Integrate Stripe for payments"
- "Switch to PostgreSQL"
Why advise? New dependencies increase complexity and maintenance burden.
Pattern 2: Architecture Changes
Triggers:
- "refactor to [pattern]"
- "restructure as [architecture]"
- "migrate to [architecture]"
- "convert to [pattern]"
Examples:
- "Refactor to microservices"
- "Restructure as event-driven"
- "Migrate to serverless"
- "Convert to monorepo"
Why advise? Architectural changes have far-reaching implications.
Pattern 3: Scope Expansions
Triggers:
- "also add [feature]"
- "extend to [capability]"
- "support [new use case]"
- "make it [do more]"
Examples:
- "Also add real-time collaboration"
- "Extend to mobile platforms"
- "Support multi-tenancy"
- "Make it work offline"
Why advise? Scope creep can derail projects.
Pattern 4: Technology Replacements
Triggers:
- "[X] instead of [Y]"
- "replace [X] with [Y]"
- "swap [X] for [Y]"
Examples:
- "GraphQL instead of REST"
- "Replace Express with Fastify"
- "Swap MySQL for MongoDB"
Why advise? Tech replacements have migration costs.
Pattern 5: Scale Changes
Triggers:
- "handle [large number]"
- "scale to [big metric]"
- "support [many users]"
Examples:
- "Handle 1M requests/day"
- "Scale to 100K users"
- "Support 10K concurrent"
Why advise? Premature optimization is common.
Detection Logic
function shouldInvokeAdvisor(userRequest: string): boolean {
const triggers = [
// Dependencies
/add (redis|mongodb|postgres|graphql|webpack|docker)/i,
/use (tensorflow|pytorch|react|vue|angular)/i,
/integrate (stripe|auth0|sendgrid|aws)/i,
/switch to (typescript|rust|go|kubernetes)/i,
// Architecture
/refactor to (microservices|serverless|event-driven)/i,
/restructure as/i,
/migrate to/i,
/convert to/i,
// Scope
/also add/i,
/extend to/i,
/support (mobile|multi-tenant|real-time|offline)/i,
// Technology replacement
/instead of/i,
/replace \w+ with/i,
/swap \w+ for/i,
// Scale
/scale to/i,
/handle \d+[kmb]/i, // 1k, 1m, 1b
/support \d+k/i
];
return triggers.some(pattern => pattern.test(userRequest));
}
Response Format
When trigger detected:
⚠️ **Significant decision detected**
Your request involves [architecture change / new dependency / scope expansion].
Consider running critical analysis first:
/advise "{user's proposal}"
This will provide:
- Alignment check with PROJECT.md
- Complexity assessment
- Trade-off analysis
- Alternative approaches
- Risk identification
Takes 2-3 minutes, could save weeks.
Proceed with analysis? [Y/n]
Configuration
# .claude/config.yml
advisor_triggers:
enabled: true
# Sensitivity
sensitivity: medium # low | medium | high
# Specific triggers
triggers:
new_dependencies: true
architecture_changes: true
scope_expansions: true
technology_swaps: true
scale_changes: true
# Auto-activation (don't ask, just run)
auto_activate: false # If true, runs /advise automatically
Integration Points
Point 1: Before /plan Command
User: "Let's add Redis caching"
↓
advisor-triggers: Detected new dependency
↓
[Suggest /advise]
↓
User: Accepts suggestion
↓
/advise "Add Redis caching"
↓
User: Reviews analysis, decides
↓
/plan [chosen approach]
Point 2: Before /auto-implement
User: "/auto-implement add WebSocket support"
↓
advisor-triggers: Detected architecture change
↓
[Suggest /advise first]
↓
User: Either runs /advise or proceeds anyway
Point 3: In Orchestrator Agent
orchestrator receives feature request
↓
Check advisor-triggers
↓
IF significant decision detected
↓
Invoke advisor agent first
↓
Present analysis to user
↓
THEN proceed with planning
False Positives
Some requests trigger falsely:
False Positive:
- "Fix bug in Redis connection" ← mentions Redis but not adding it
- "Document the microservices" ← mentions architecture but not changing it
Solution: Context-aware detection:
// Only trigger if action verb present
if (containsActionVerb(request) && containsTriggerKeyword(request)) {
return true;
}
Override
Users can bypass:
# Explicit skip
/plan --skip-advisor "Add Redis caching"
# Or acknowledge in prompt
"Add Redis caching (already analyzed, proceeding)"
Success Metrics
This skill is successful if:
- ✅ Catches 80%+ of significant decisions
- ✅ False positive rate < 20%
- ✅ Users find suggestions helpful (not annoying)
- ✅ Reduces regretted decisions (measured via rollbacks)
Example Outputs
Example 1: New Dependency
User: "Let's add Elasticsearch for search"
⚠️ Significant decision detected
Your request involves adding a new dependency (Elasticsearch).
Consider critical analysis first:
/advise "Add Elasticsearch for full-text search"
This will check:
- Alignment with PROJECT.md goals
- Complexity cost (Elasticsearch cluster, maintenance)
- Alternatives (PostgreSQL full-text search, simple indexing)
- Trade-offs (features vs operational complexity)
Takes 2-3 minutes. Run analysis? [Y/n]
Example 2: Architecture Change
User: "Refactor to event-driven architecture"
⚠️ Significant decision detected
Your request involves a major architectural change.
Consider critical analysis first:
/advise "Refactor to event-driven architecture"
This will evaluate:
- Alignment with current architecture (PROJECT.md:78)
- Migration complexity (message bus, event schemas)
- Pros/cons of event-driven vs current approach
- Alternative patterns (queue-based, CQRS lite)
This is a 6-8 week decision. Run analysis? [Y/n]
Example 3: Scope Expansion
User: "Also add mobile app support"
⚠️ Significant decision detected
Your request expands project scope to mobile platforms.
Consider critical analysis first:
/advise "Add mobile app (iOS + Android)"
This will check:
- Alignment with PROJECT.md scope (currently web-only)
- Effort estimate (React Native vs native vs PWA)
- Trade-offs (mobile features vs maintenance burden)
- MVP options (PWA first, native later)
Major scope change. Run analysis? [Y/n]
Disabling
If users find this annoying:
# Disable globally
echo "advisor_triggers:\n enabled: false" >> .claude/config.yml
# Or reduce sensitivity
echo "advisor_triggers:\n sensitivity: low" >> .claude/config.yml
Version History
- 1.0.0 (2025-10-26): Initial release
- Pattern detection for 5 trigger types
- Configurable sensitivity
- Integration with /advise command
Philosophy: Help users pause and think before committing to significant changes. The goal is not to slow down development, but to prevent costly mistakes.
Score
Total Score
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
1ヶ月以内に更新
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon



