How do I install the Caveman — Crew skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add juliusbrussee/cavecrew in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Caveman — Crew safe to use?

SkillMD's automated safety review verdict for this skill is PASS. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: reads secrets. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Caveman — Crew?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Caveman — Crew free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Caveman — Crew?

Julius Brussee (@juliusbrussee) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Caveman — Crew by juliusbrussee — Agent Skill

Name: Caveman — Crew
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: Julius Brussee

File contents

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.

---name: cavecrewdescription: Decides when to delegate to compressed-output subagents (investigator, builder, reviewer) instead of using vanilla agents, saving main-context tokens across long sessions.---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 contractsWhat main thread can rely on per agent:**`cavecrew-investigator`**```<Header>:- path:line — `symbol` — short notetotals: <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):1. `cavecrew-investigator` returns site list.2. Main thread picks 1-2 sites, hands paths to `cavecrew-builder`.3. `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.

Frequently asked questions

Caveman — Crew