route

Decide how much validation the user's change deserves, before they are under pressure to say "not much".

$ARGUMENTS is what they are about to do, in their own words. If it is empty, describe the current change from the working tree instead.

Follow these steps precisely:

1. Work out which files the change touches. If the user named files, use those. Otherwise run git diff --name-only HEAD and git status --porcelain and use the paths from both — staged, unstaged and untracked. If the working tree is clean and $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask what they are about to do and stop.

2. Run the router, passing every touched file with its own --path. Prefer the console script; fall back to the module form, which is what works from an installed plugin where the CLI is not on the PATH:

   validated-memory route "$ARGUMENTS" --path FILE [--path FILE ...]
   # or
   PYTHONPATH="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}" python3 -m validated_memory route "$ARGUMENTS" --path FILE [...]
   

3. Report its answer verbatim first. The level, the matched signals, the model, the effort and the agents. Do not paraphrase and do not soften it. The value of this command is that the reasoning is visible, so the user can disagree with a specific signal rather than with a verdict.

4. If it reports that no signal matched, say so plainly and explain that the level 2 answer is the safe direction rather than a reading of their change. Then ask whether it touches authentication, permissions, money, customer data, migrations, network rules or certificates — and if it does, re-run with that said explicitly in the description.

5. Do not argue the level down. If the user thinks it is too high, the way to change the answer is to change the description or the signal list, both of which are visible and editable. Negotiating the number in conversation is the exact failure this command exists to prevent.

6. Then say what happens next, concretely:

   • Level 1 — one review. Name which of the two agents fits.
   • Level 2 — two independent reviews. State plainly that the agent or person who implemented it is not one of the two, and that reviewing one's own work a second time does not count.
   • Level 3 — three, and one of them has to actively try to break the change. Approving is not the devil's advocate's job.

7. Offer the matching skill for what they are about to do, using pick-the-right-skill if nothing obvious fits. For level 3 specifically, map-the-attack-surface and write-the-rollback-plan-first are almost always worth reading before starting.

Keep the whole response short. This command answers one question; it is not a review, and it never gates anything — it exits 0 by design.