Moai Alfred Proactive Suggestions

Alfred Proactive Suggestions - Intelligent Pattern Recognition

Skill Metadata

What It Does

Alfred proactively identifies risks, optimization opportunities, and learning moments during workflow execution. Suggestions are contextual, actionable, and limited to prevent interruption.

Key capabilities:

• ✅ Risk detection (6 patterns): Database migrations, breaking changes, destructive operations
• ✅ Optimization patterns (3 types): Automation, parallel execution, shortcuts
• ✅ Learning opportunities: Best practices, common pitfalls, Skill recommendations
• ✅ Non-intrusive: Max 1 suggestion per 5 minutes
• ✅ Risk-based decision making: Low/Medium/High classification

When to Use

Automatic activation:

• Risk patterns detected during command execution
• Repetitive manual operations observed
• Beginner users encountering learning opportunities
• Complex workflows with optimization potential

Manual reference:

• Understanding Alfred's suggestion logic
• Customizing suggestion thresholds
• Learning risk classification criteria

Three Suggestion Categories

🚨 Risk Detection (Safety First)

Purpose: Prevent data loss, production outages, security vulnerabilities

6 Risk Patterns:

1. Database Migration: Schema changes, data migrations
2. Destructive Operations: File deletion, force push, reset commands
3. Breaking Changes: API changes, dependency updates
4. Production Operations: Deployment without staging test
5. Security Concerns: Exposed credentials, insecure configs
6. Large File Operations: Editing 100+ line files without tests

Suggestion style: Warning + mitigation checklist + confirmation

⚡ Optimization Patterns (Efficiency Boost)

Purpose: Reduce manual effort, speed up workflows, suggest automation

3 Optimization Patterns:

1. Repetitive Tasks: Same operation on 3+ files
2. Parallel Execution: Independent tasks executed sequentially
3. Manual Workflows: GUI-equivalent actions that could use commands

Suggestion style: Observation + time savings estimate + automation offer

🎓 Learning Opportunities (Knowledge Growth)

Purpose: Educate users on best practices, prevent future mistakes

Trigger conditions:

• Beginner expertise level detected
• First-time feature usage
• Common pitfall encountered
• Suboptimal pattern detected

Suggestion style: Educational + Skill recommendation + example

Risk Classification System

Low Risk

Characteristics:

• Read-only operations
• Documentation updates
• Typo corrections
• SPEC edits (non-implementation)

Confirmation threshold:

• Beginner: Confirm
• Intermediate: Skip
• Expert: Skip

Example: Fix typo in README.md

Medium Risk

Characteristics:

• Code changes affecting behavior
• Test modifications
• Configuration updates
• Dependency version bumps

Confirmation threshold:

• Beginner: Confirm + explanation
• Intermediate: Confirm
• Expert: Skip

Example: Update authentication logic

High Risk

Characteristics:

• Database migrations
• Production deployments
• Breaking API changes
• Destructive git operations (force push)
• Large refactoring (10+ files)

Confirmation threshold:

• Beginner: Confirm + checklist
• Intermediate: Confirm + checklist
• Expert: Confirm

Example: Migrate 10K user records to new schema

Risk Pattern Details

Pattern 1: Database Migration

Detection:

• SPEC contains "migration", "schema", "database"
• SQL files modified
• ORM model changes detected

Suggestion:

High-risk operation detected: Database migration

Recommended safeguards:
1. Create database backup
2. Test on staging environment
3. Prepare rollback script
4. Schedule maintenance window
5. Verify migration in dry-run mode

Proceed?
  [Yes, precautions taken] [No, cancel] [Show checklist]

Pattern 2: Destructive Operations

Detection:

• Commands: rm, git reset --hard, git push --force
• File deletion requests
• Irreversible data changes

Suggestion:

Destructive operation detected: Force push to main branch

Risks:
- Rewrites shared git history
- Breaks collaborator branches
- Potential data loss

Alternatives:
- Use regular push if possible
- Create new branch instead
- Discuss with team before force push

Are you absolutely sure?
  [Cancel] [Proceed with force push]

Pattern 3: Breaking Changes

Detection:

• API endpoint signature changes
• Public function parameter changes
• Dependency major version update

Suggestion:

Breaking change detected: API endpoint signature modified

Impact analysis:
- 3 frontend clients affected
- 5 external integrations impacted
- Migration guide required

Recommended actions:
1. Create deprecation notice (v1 → v2)
2. Maintain backward compatibility for 2 versions
3. Document migration path
4. Notify stakeholders

Proceed with breaking change?
  [Yes, create migration plan] [No, use non-breaking approach]

Pattern 4: Production Operations

Detection:

• Deployment target: production
• No staging test recorded
• Critical infrastructure change

Suggestion:

Production deployment without staging verification

Checklist:
- [ ] Tested on staging environment
- [ ] Rollback plan prepared
- [ ] Monitoring alerts configured
- [ ] Team notified
- [ ] Backup created

Deploy to production?
  [Yes, checklist complete] [No, test on staging first]

Pattern 5: Security Concerns

Detection:

• Credentials in code
• API keys in environment files
• Public S3 bucket configuration
• Insecure HTTP endpoints

Suggestion:

Security concern detected: API key in code

Risk: Exposed credentials if committed to git

Recommended fix:
1. Move to environment variable (.env)
2. Add .env to .gitignore
3. Use secret management (AWS Secrets, Vault)
4. Rotate compromised key

Fix automatically?
  [Yes, move to .env] [I'll fix manually]

Pattern 6: Large File Operations

Detection:

• Editing file >100 lines
• No test coverage for file
• Complex logic modification

Suggestion:

Large file edit detected: 250 lines modified

Risk: Regression without test coverage

Recommendation:
1. Write tests before refactoring (TDD)
2. Break into smaller changes
3. Use /alfred:2-run for TDD workflow

Proceed?
  [Pause, write tests first] [Continue without tests]

Optimization Pattern Details

Pattern 1: Repetitive Tasks

Detection:

• Same operation on 3+ files
• Similar edits detected
• Pattern recognition threshold reached

Suggestion:

Repetitive pattern detected: Updating import statements in 5 files

Automation opportunity:
- Analyze your last 2 edits
- Generate batch script
- Apply to remaining 3 files
- Estimated time saved: 10 minutes

Create automation?
  [Yes, generate script] [No, continue manually]

Pattern 2: Parallel Execution

Detection:

• Sequential tasks with no dependencies
• Independent test suites
• Multiple API calls in sequence

Suggestion:

Parallel execution opportunity detected

Current workflow:
1. Run unit tests (2 min)
2. Run integration tests (3 min)
3. Run E2E tests (5 min)
Total: 10 minutes sequential

Optimized workflow:
1. Run all test suites in parallel
Total: 5 minutes (max of 3 durations)

Time saved: 5 minutes (50%)

Enable parallel execution?
  [Yes, run in parallel] [No, keep sequential]

Pattern 3: Manual Workflows

Detection:

• Performing git operations manually
• Manual file creation instead of commands
• Repetitive confirmation steps

Suggestion:

Manual workflow detected: Creating SPEC files by hand

Automation available:
- Use /alfred:1-plan for automated SPEC creation
- Includes EARS validation
- Auto-generates @TAGs
- Ensures completeness

Time saved per SPEC: 15 minutes
Quality improvement: +30% (validation)

Switch to /alfred:1-plan?
  [Yes, use command] [No, prefer manual]

Learning Opportunity Patterns

Beginner: First-Time Feature Usage

Detection:

• User invokes /alfred:* command for first time
• Complex workflow initiated
• Expertise level: Beginner

Suggestion:

First-time SPEC creation detected

Learning resources:
- Skill("moai-foundation-specs") - SPEC structure guide
- Skill("moai-foundation-ears") - EARS requirements format
- Skill("moai-alfred-spec-metadata-validation") - Validation rules

Would you like a step-by-step walkthrough?
  [Yes, guide me] [No, I'll explore]

Intermediate: Suboptimal Pattern

Detection:

• User creates tests after implementation (not TDD)
• Missing @TAG references
• Skipping TRUST 5 validation

Suggestion:

Observation: Tests written after implementation

Best practice: TDD (Test-First)
- Write failing test first (RED)
- Implement to pass test (GREEN)
- Refactor with safety net (REFACTOR)

Benefits:
- 40% fewer bugs (industry data)
- Better code design
- Confidence in refactoring

Learn TDD workflow:
- Skill("moai-foundation-trust") - TRUST 5 principles

Switch to TDD next time?
  [Yes, remind me] [No, I prefer current approach]

Expert: Advanced Technique

Detection:

• Complex workflow detected
• Expert expertise level
• Rare suggestion opportunity

Suggestion:

Advanced technique available: Custom agent creation

Your workflow could benefit from specialized agent:
- Pattern: Frequent API integration testing
- Candidate: api-integration-tester sub-agent
- Time saved: 20 min/week

Would you like guidance on custom agent creation?
  [Yes, show me how] [No, not now]

Suggestion Frequency Limits

Non-intrusive constraint: Max 1 suggestion per 5 minutes

Rationale:

• Avoid alert fatigue
• Maintain user flow state
• Prioritize high-value suggestions

Priority ranking (when multiple suggestions eligible):

1. High-risk warnings (always shown)
2. Medium-risk warnings (shown if no high-risk)
3. Optimization patterns (shown if no risks)
4. Learning opportunities (lowest priority)

Integration with Expertise Detection

Suggestion threshold by expertise level:

Key Principles

1. User Retains Control: All suggestions are optional
2. Non-Intrusive: Limited frequency prevents alert fatigue
3. Contextual: Suggestions based on current workflow state
4. Actionable: Every suggestion includes clear next steps
5. Educational: Explain rationale and benefits

End of Skill | 2025-11-02