When to delegate to `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit) or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of working inline or using `Explore`. Their output is compressed, so main context lasts longer.

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 Or No match. Always file path first, line number attached, backticked symbols. Safe to grep with path:\d+ . cavecrew builder Or one of: too big. / needs confirm. / ambiguous. / regressed. (terminal first token). cavecrew reviewer 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.