Critical, opinionated developer personas as autonomous agents. Claude invokes them automatically based on task context, or you can invoke manually.
Auto-invoked for feature design and implementation planning. Critical, explores alternatives, creates actionable plans.
Workflow:
- Interrogates requirements
- Challenges assumptions
- Explores 2-3 alternatives with trade-off analysis
- Asks you to choose
- Creates implementation plan in
.claude/experts/plans/[slug].md
Auto-invoked when: Designing features, architecture decisions, implementation planning
Auto-invoked for debugging production issues and infrastructure problems. Methodical and systematic. Assumes the simplest breakage reason first (Occam's Razor).
Phase 0 — Environment Readiness (mandatory before any fix):
- Git state: destination branch pulled, submodules synced recursively
- Caches & build artifacts: reset to clean
- Environment files: validated against examples, dependency versions checked
- LSP & static analysis: no critical errors in changed files vs baseline
- Dramatic changes flagged — user asked for explanation if unclear
Workflow (after environment is verified clean):
- Gathers evidence (symptoms, timing, changes)
- Forms hypotheses ranked simplest → most complex
- Tests systematically, escalating complexity only when simpler causes are ruled out
- Provides diagnostic commands and investigation path
Auto-invoked when: Production issues, mysterious bugs, deployment failures
Auto-invoked for Rust code review and refactoring. Hunts un-Rusty patterns.
Focus:
- Ownership & borrowing issues
- Error handling patterns
- Type system usage
- Async correctness
- Performance optimizations
- Safety violations
Refactoring Mode: Invoke with "refactor for maintainability" to get comprehensive refactoring plans saved to .claude/plans/[slug]-ref.md
Auto-invoked when: Rust code review, idiom improvements, refactoring requests
Auto-invoked for Python code review and refactoring. Hunts un-Pythonic code. Mandates UV and msgspec.
Focus:
- Type safety (hints, msgspec validation)
- Async pitfalls
- Error handling
- Modern Python features (3.10+)
- Data structures (dataclasses, TypedDict)
- Code smells
Mandates: UV for package management, msgspec for validation (not Pydantic)
Refactoring Mode: Invoke with "refactor for maintainability" to get comprehensive refactoring plans saved to .claude/plans/[slug]-ref.md
Auto-invoked when: Python code review, modernization, refactoring requests
Auto-invoked for C++ code review and refactoring. HFT mindset. Hunts UB, memory bugs, latency killers.
Focus:
- Use-after-free, dangling refs, missing RAII
- Hot path allocations, cache misses, false sharing
- Memory ordering bugs, ABA problems
- Integer overflow, bounds violations
- Concepts over SFINAE, constexpr everywhere
Refactoring Mode: Invoke with "refactor for maintainability" to get comprehensive refactoring plans saved to .claude/plans/[slug]-ref.md
Auto-invoked when: C++ code review, performance optimization, modernization, refactoring requests
Auto-invoked for comprehensive code review before commits/PRs. 40 years experience. Reads EVERY line.
Catches:
- Security holes
- Race conditions
- Performance sins (O(n²), N+1 queries)
- Edge cases (empty inputs, overflow, concurrent access)
- Maintainability issues
Output: Line-by-line analysis with specific fixes
Auto-invoked when: Pre-merge review, security audit, bug hunting
Auto-invoked when writing tests for new features. Writes comprehensive, real-world tests. No fake tests or useless comments.
Workflow:
- Understands test infrastructure
- Analyzes changes
- Identifies test cases (happy path, edge cases, errors)
- Writes real tests with actual data
Auto-invoked when: Writing tests, improving coverage
❤️ RED = architect, devops (deciders, coordinators)
💙 BLUE = cpp-dev, python-dev, rust-dev, tester (builders)
💛 YELLOW = reviewer (checker)
flowchart TD
USER([USER]) --> architect[/"architect<br/>🔴 Plans & Decides"/]
subgraph planning [Planning Phase]
architect -->|"design"| plan["📋 Implementation Plan"]
end
subgraph implementation [Implementation Phase]
plan --> coders
coders["Language Experts 💙<br/>cpp-dev / python-dev / rust-dev"]
coders -->|"challenge each other"| coders
end
subgraph testing [Testing Phase]
coders -->|"code ready"| tester["tester 💙<br/>Writes tests"]
end
subgraph review [Review Phase]
tester -->|"tests ready"| reviewer["reviewer 💛<br/>Validates everything"]
end
reviewer -->|"issues found"| coders
reviewer -->|"✅ approved"| done["🚀 Ready"]
devops["devops 🔴<br/>(when production breaks)"] -.->|"Phase 0: env readiness"| readiness{"Environment<br/>clean?"}
readiness -->|"yes"| investigate["investigate"]
readiness -->|"no — fix env first"| readiness
investigate -.->|"diagnose"| coders
Phases:
- Plan:
architectdesigns feature, explores 2-3 alternatives, creates plan - Implement: Language experts (
cpp-dev/python-dev/rust-dev) build it, can challenge each other - Test:
testerwrites comprehensive tests - Review:
reviewervalidates code quality, sends back if issues - Ship: Ready for merge
Bug Hunting: For systematic bug hunting with spec reconstruction and adversarial validation, see bug-hunters. Bug hunters use dev-experts agents (cpp-dev, python-dev) as challengers for false-positive filtering.
/plugin marketplace add git@github.com:DeevsDeevs/agent-system.git
/plugin install dev-experts@deevs-agent-system