systemcc

███████╗██╗   ██╗███████╗████████╗███████╗███╗   ███╗
██╔════╝╚██╗ ██╔╝██╔════╝╚══██╔══╝██╔════╝████╗ ████║
███████╗ ╚████╔╝ ███████╗   ██║   █████╗  ██╔████╔██║
╚════██║  ╚██╔╝  ╚════██║   ██║   ██╔══╝  ██║╚██╔╝██║
███████║   ██║   ███████║   ██║   ███████╗██║ ╚═╝ ██║
╚══════╝   ╚═╝   ╚══════╝   ╚═╝   ╚══════╝╚═╝     ╚═╝

            ⚔ Command Center ⚔
               CAS v7.20.0

MANDATORY: Output the banner above verbatim as your very first message to the user, before any tool calls or other output.

SystemCC - Master Command Router

User types: /systemcc "any task" Claude does: EVERYTHING automatically

---

Phase 1: CRITICAL DETECTION (MANDATORY)

When /systemcc is detected, you MUST IMMEDIATELY show:

🎯 SYSTEMCC DETECTED - Command acknowledged and workflow initiated
✅ Following SYSTEMCC workflow instructions

This message MUST appear:

• IMMEDIATELY when /systemcc is detected
• BEFORE any other processing
• CANNOT BE SKIPPED under any circumstances

---

Phase 2: LYRA AI PROMPT OPTIMIZATION (MANDATORY)

After detection, ALWAYS show Lyra optimization with this EXACT format:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🎯 LYRA AI PROMPT OPTIMIZATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

📝 Original Request:
"$ARGUMENTS"

🔍 Analysis Phase:
- Deconstructing intent...
- Diagnosing gaps...
- Developing enhancements...
- Delivering optimized prompt...

✨ Optimized Prompt:
"[enhanced prompt with complete specifications]"

📊 Optimization Details:
- Mode: [BASIC/DETAIL]
- Complexity Score: [1-10]
- Improvements Applied: [number]

🔧 Key Enhancements:
• [Enhancement 1]
• [Enhancement 2]
• [Enhancement 3]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The 4-D Methodology

1. DECONSTRUCT: Extract coding intent, feature requirements, technical context
2. DIAGNOSE: Audit for technical clarity and specification gaps
3. DEVELOP: Select optimal techniques based on request type:
   • Bug Fixes → Precise error context + systematic debugging
   • Feature Development → Clear requirements + implementation scope
   • Refactoring → Architecture goals + code quality standards
   • UI/UX → Design principles + user experience objectives
4. DELIVER: Construct development-focused prompt with complete specs

Mode Detection

• BASIC mode: Simple fixes, single-file changes, typos, config updates
• DETAIL mode: Complex architecture, multi-component, security-sensitive

---

Phase 3: BUILD CONFIGURATION DETECTION

Scan for and apply project build configuration rules automatically.

Files to Scan (Priority Order)

1. Makefile / makefile
2. .gitlab-ci.yml / .github/workflows/*.yml
3. pyproject.toml / setup.cfg / tox.ini
4. package.json / .eslintrc* / .prettierrc*
5. .pre-commit-config.yaml
6. .editorconfig

When Configuration Found, Display:

📋 BUILD CONFIGURATION DETECTED
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source: [Makefile/CI config/etc.]

✅ Formatting Rules:
   • black: line-length=[N]
   • isort: profile=black, multi-line=[N]
   • prettier: [settings]

✅ Linting Rules:
   • flake8: ignore=[codes], max-line-length=[N]
   • mypy: [settings]
   • eslint: [settings]

✅ Test Requirements:
   • [test framework] with coverage
   • minimum coverage: [N]%

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🎯 All generated code will automatically follow these standards!

When No Configuration Found:

📋 No build configuration detected - using best practices

Apply Rules to All Generated Code

• Respect line length limits from black/prettier
• Sort imports according to isort/eslint config
• Add type hints if mypy is configured
• Follow linting rules to ensure CI/CD passes

---

Phase 4: TWO-PHASE WORKFLOW SELECTION

Critical: This engine uses ALL 6 available workflows via two-phase selection.

Available Workflows

Workflow	Purpose	Best For
anti-yolo-web	Web app development specialist	Frontend, React, Vue, dashboards, UI components
aidevtasks	PRD-based feature development	New features requiring product specs
agetos	Project initialization/standards	Setup, conventions, new projects
plan-opus	Deep planning with parallel exploration	Architecture, migrations, complex unknowns
complete_system	Full 6-agent validation pipeline	Moderate features, refactoring with validation
orchestrated	Streamlined 3-agent workflow	Simple fixes, config changes, quick tasks

---

PHASE 1: Domain Detection (CHECK FIRST)

Before any scoring, semantically analyze if the task matches a specialized domain:

Domain	Workflow	Detection Signals
Web Development	anti-yolo-web	HTML, CSS, JavaScript, React, Vue, Angular, frontend, UI, dashboard, component, web app
Feature Development	aidevtasks	"build feature", "create system", product requirements, user stories, multi-component features
Project Setup	agetos	Setup, initialize, standards, conventions, new project, project structure
Deep Planning	plan-opus	Architecture design, major refactor, migration, "plan first", many unknowns

Decision Logic:

• Domain match with HIGH confidence → Use specialized workflow (skip Phase 2)
• No domain match → Proceed to Phase 2

---

PHASE 2: Complexity Scoring (FALLBACK)

Only when NO specialized domain is detected, use 3-dimensional assessment:

Dimension 1: Complexity

Level	Indicators
Simple	fix, update, change, small, typo, rename, style, tweak, adjust
Moderate	feature, add, create, implement, modify, improve
Complex	architecture, refactor, system, integration, migration, security, database

Dimension 2: Risk

Level	Indicators
Low	docs, style, test, config (non-production), UI text
High	critical, production, breaking, delete, security, database, auth, payment, encryption

Dimension 3: Scope

Level	Indicators
Single	specific file mentioned, "this file", "the function"
Multi	"multiple", "several files", specific file list, 3-10 files
System	"entire", "all files", "across", "throughout", "migrate all", >10 files

Complexity-Based Workflow Selection

Combined Score	Workflow	Use Case
1.0 - 2.0	orchestrated	Bug fixes, small changes, config updates, typos
2.1 - 3.5	complete_system	Moderate features, refactoring, validation needed
3.6 - 5.0	plan-opus	Complex multi-system changes, high risk

---

Display Decision:

Phase 1 Match (Domain Detected)

🧠 DECISION ENGINE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Task: "[task description]"

Phase 1 - Domain Detection:
✓ [Domain] detected
  → [Reasons]

→ Using **[workflow]** workflow

Phase 2 Fallback (No Domain Match)

🧠 DECISION ENGINE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Task: "[task description]"

Phase 1 - Domain Detection:
✗ No specialized domain detected

Phase 2 - Complexity Assessment:
• Complexity: [1-5]/5 - [reason]
• Risk: [1-5]/5 - [reason]
• Scope: [1-5]/5 - [reason]

Combined: [score] → Using **[workflow]** workflow

---

Phase 5: SECURITY & SPECIAL HANDLING

Security Auto-Detection

Enable security scanning when task mentions:

Category	Keywords
Database	sql, query, database, migration, schema, orm
Auth	auth, login, password, token, jwt, session, oauth
Security	encrypt, decrypt, permission, role, certificate, hash
Encoding	base64, serialize, sanitize, injection

When triggered:

🔐 Security scan auto-enabled: [reason]

---

Phase 6: AUTOMATIC EXECUTION

CRITICAL: Execute ALL phases automatically. NEVER ask user to run commands.

Orchestrated Workflow (3-Agent)

🔄 Phase 1/3: Analysis
   └─ Orchestrator analyzing code...
🔄 Phase 2/3: Implementation
   └─ Developer implementing changes...
🔄 Phase 3/3: Review
   └─ Reviewer validating...
✅ Complete!

Complete System Workflow (6-Agent)

🔄 Phase 1/6: Strategic Analysis
   └─ Planner analyzing architecture...
🔄 Phase 2/6: Implementation Planning
   └─ Designing implementation approach...
🔄 Phase 3/6: Code Implementation
   └─ Executer writing code...
🔄 Phase 4/6: Verification
   └─ Verifier testing logic...
🔄 Phase 5/6: Quality Assurance
   └─ Tester checking edge cases...
🔄 Phase 6/6: Documentation
   └─ Documenter updating docs...
✅ Implementation complete! Starting review...

Plan-Opus Workflow (Phased Execution)

For system-wide changes, decompose into phases:

🔄 Decomposing task into manageable phases...

📦 Phase 1: [Component A]
   ├─ Files: [list]
   └─ Status: Pending

📦 Phase 2: [Component B]
   ├─ Files: [list]
   └─ Status: Pending

📦 Phase 3: [Component C]
   ├─ Files: [list]
   └─ Status: Pending

Executing phases sequentially to manage context...

Anti-YOLO Web Development

For web/UI tasks, create ASCII wireframe first:

🎨 Creating ASCII Wireframe...

┌─ [Page Title] ───────────────────────────┐
│ [Header description]                      │
├───────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ [Content layout]                          │
│ [________________] ← Input field          │
│ [▼ Dropdown     ] ← Select               │
│ [Button Label]    ← Action button        │
└───────────────────────────────────────────┘

Does this layout look right?
Type 'yes' to build HTML/CSS, or request changes.

---

Phase 7: TRIPLE CODE REVIEW (MANDATORY)

After implementation, run parallel code reviews:

🔍 POST-EXECUTION REVIEW INITIATED
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚡ Running 3 parallel reviews (5 min max)...

[PARALLEL EXECUTION]
├─ 👨‍💻 Senior Engineer → Code quality, best practices
├─ 👩‍💼 Lead Engineer → Architecture, scalability
└─ 🏗️ Architect → System integration, patterns

The Three Reviewers

1. Senior Software Engineer

   • Focus: Code quality, readability, best practices
   • Checks: Clean code, DRY, SOLID, error handling
   • Output: PASSED / NEEDS_WORK

2. Lead Software Engineer

   • Focus: Architecture, design patterns, technical debt
   • Checks: Scalability, maintainability, team impact
   • Output: APPROVED / REFACTOR_NEEDED

3. Software Architect

   • Focus: System integration, enterprise patterns
   • Checks: API contracts, resilience, security
   • Output: CERTIFIED / REDESIGN_NEEDED

Decision Matrix

• All Pass → Proceed to summary
• Senior: NEEDS_WORK → Auto-fix code quality issues
• Lead: REFACTOR_NEEDED → Auto-fix design issues
• Architect: REDESIGN_NEEDED → BLOCKED - explain issue to user

Auto-Fix Protocol

Critical issues are fixed immediately:

• Security vulnerabilities (password plaintext, SQL injection, XSS)
• Data loss risks
• Memory leaks
• Missing error handling

⚠️ POST-EXECUTION REVIEW - FIXING ISSUES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

**Critical fixes applied:**
• `api/auth.ts:45` - Encrypting passwords
• `services/payment.ts:112` - Adding input validation

🔧 Auto-fixing critical issues...
✅ Issues resolved!

All Reviews Pass

✅ POST-EXECUTION REVIEW COMPLETE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🏆 All 3 reviewers approved the implementation!

Review Summary:
• 👨‍💻 Senior: PASSED (clean code, good patterns)
• 👩‍💼 Lead: APPROVED (scalable design)
• 🏗️ Architect: CERTIFIED (proper integration)

Minor suggestions logged for future improvement.

---

Phase 8: FINAL SUMMARY

✅ TASK COMPLETE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What changed:
• [Brief point 1]
• [Brief point 2]
• [Brief point 3]

Files modified: [count]
Tests: [status]
Build config: [applied/not applicable]

---

Critical Rules

1. NEVER ask user to run another command - you handle everything
2. NEVER ask user to continue - proceed automatically through all phases
3. NEVER ask user to choose workflow - you decide based on analysis
4. ALWAYS show Lyra optimization - it's mandatory
5. ALWAYS show build config - if detected
6. ALWAYS run triple review - unless user says "skip review"
7. ALWAYS complete the task - don't stop mid-workflow

User Interaction Rules

ONLY Ask User For:

• Specifications: "Which authentication method do you prefer?"
• Clarifications: "Should this work on mobile devices?"
• Decisions: "Database choice: PostgreSQL or MySQL?"
• Wireframe approval: "Does this layout look right?"

NEVER Ask User To:

• Run another command
• Execute a specific agent
• Continue with next phase
• Choose workflow manually

Interruption Handling

When user says "no", "stop", "don't do that":

1. IMMEDIATELY STOP current action
2. Acknowledge: "Got it! Stopping [action]"
3. Ask: "What would you prefer instead?"

Error Handling

If something fails:

⚠️ Issue encountered: [description]
🔄 Attempting recovery...
[Either: ✅ Recovered! Continuing...]
[Or: ❌ Manual intervention needed: [specific action]]

---

Available Workflows Summary

Workflow	Type	Agents	Best For
anti-yolo-web	Phase 1	3 + wireframe	Web/frontend, React, Vue, dashboards
aidevtasks	Phase 1	PRD-based	Features requiring product specs
agetos	Phase 1	Setup	Project initialization, standards
plan-opus	Phase 1 + 2	Variable	Architecture, migrations, complex tasks
complete_system	Phase 2	6	Moderate features, validation needed
orchestrated	Phase 2	3	Simple fixes, config changes

---

Quick Reference: Two-Phase Flow

Task comes in
    │
    ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  PHASE 1: Domain Check  │
│                         │
│  Web Dev? → anti-yolo   │
│  Feature? → aidevtasks  │
│  Setup?   → agetos      │
│  Planning? → plan-opus  │
└─────────────────────────┘
    │
    │ No domain match?
    ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│  PHASE 2: Score Tasks   │
│                         │
│  1.0-2.0 → orchestrated │
│  2.1-3.5 → complete_sys │
│  3.6-5.0 → plan-opus    │
└─────────────────────────┘

---

Remember: SystemCC is the ONLY command users need.

Detection → Lyra → Build Config → Two-Phase Analysis → Workflow → Execute → Review → Complete

All automatic. All quality-gated. All in one command.