thelobbi Deep Code Intelligence
Use this skill when the task is too important, ambiguous, or coupled for a fast “implement first” approach.
Goal
Increase solution quality by forcing Claude to gather evidence, expose hidden assumptions, and compare multiple paths before changing code.
Core loop
1. Build a repo fingerprint
Collect only the facts that change the decision:
- key modules and ownership boundaries
- hot paths and integration seams
- build/test entrypoints
- persistence and migration surfaces
- feature flags / config gates
2. Extract constraints
Split into:
- explicit constraints — user asks, tests, types, configs, docs
- implicit constraints — backward compatibility, ordering, idempotency, auth, observability, performance envelopes
3. Create a hypothesis ladder
Do not settle on one explanation early. Generate:
- most likely explanation,
- strongest competing explanation,
- weird but costly explanation.
Prefer the next step that invalidates bad theories quickly.
4. Build an evidence matrix
Use a compact table:
| Topic | Evidence | Confidence | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cause of failure | stack trace + source path + failing test | 0.78 | reproduce with logging |
If confidence is low, say so plainly.
5. Compare options
Every serious recommendation should beat at least one credible alternative. Score options on:
- correctness
- complexity
- blast radius
- reversibility
- validation speed
- long-term maintainability
6. Stage validation
Front-load cheap validation:
- static checks / grep / type clues
- unit or focused tests
- integration checks
- runtime observation
- broad regression sweep
7. Capture residual risk
End with what is still unknown and what would change the recommendation.
Heuristics
- Prefer narrow fixes when system understanding is weak.
- Prefer structural fixes when the same class of defect is likely to recur.
- Prefer observability improvements when certainty is low.
- Prefer reversible migrations over one-shot transformations.
- Prefer behavior-oriented tests over implementation snapshots.
Escalation guide
| Situation | Escalate to | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Need repo-wide synthesis | principal-engineer-strategist |
Better architectural judgement and option scoring. |
| Need multi-track execution | team-orchestrator |
Handles parallel work and audit loops. |
| Need library or framework truth | research-orchestrator + Context7 |
Reduces hallucination risk and validates API usage. |
| Need final pressure-test | audit-reviewer or /cc-council |
Catches blind spots before delivery. |
Minimal output standard
A good response should include:
- problem frame,
- evidence summary,
- constraints,
- at least 2 options,
- recommendation,
- validation plan,
- residual risk.