Plugin Help — Interactive Command Advisor

Helps users find the right command, skill, or agent for their situation.

Usage

/ha:help                          # Analyze context, suggest commands
/ha:help how do I debug this?     # Route to /ha:investigate
/ha:help add a new feature        # Route to /ha:plan -> /ha:work

Arguments

• $ARGUMENTS — optional description of what the user wants to do
• Empty = analyze current context (git status, existing plans, file patterns)

Execution Flow

Step 1: Gather Context

If $ARGUMENTS is non-empty, use it as primary signal.

Always gather ambient context (run in parallel):

1. Check for existing plans: use Glob on .claude/plans/*/plan.md — active work in progress?
2. Check git status: uncommitted changes? which files?
3. Check for solution docs: use Glob on .claude/solutions/**/*.md — prior knowledge?

Step 2: Classify Intent

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/tool-catalog.md for the full routing table.

Map the user's situation to one of these categories:

Category	Signals	Primary Commands
Starting out	No plans, new to plugin	/ha:intro
Ideation	"explore", "brainstorm", "not sure", "how to approach", "vague idea"	/ha:brainstorm
New feature	"add", "build", "implement", multi-file	/ha:plan → /ha:work
Quick change	Single file, <50 lines, "fix typo"	/ha:quick
Bug	Error, stack trace, "broken", "failing"	/ha:investigate
Review	"check", "review", PR ready	/ha:review
Performance	"slow", "blocking I/O", "memory", "event loop"	/ha:perf, /ha:blocking-io-check, /ha:lit-render-audit
Research	"how to", "best practice", "evaluate lib"	/ha:research
Resume work	Existing plan with unchecked tasks	/ha:work --continue
Post-fix	"that worked", solved a hard bug	/ha:compound
Full cycle	Large feature, new domain area	/ha:full
Project health	"audit", "tech debt", "overall quality"	/ha:audit, /ha:techdebt
Dep update audit	"audit deps", "supply chain", "after a requirements bump", "review manifest requirements PR"	/ha:deps-audit
Manual dep vetting	"vet this package", "approve dep", "trust ledger", "after /ha:deps-audit findings"	/ha:deps-vet
Submit a PR	"submit", "open a PR", "ready for core", "breaking change"	/ha:verify then /ha:submit
Permissions	"too many prompts", "allow", "permission fatigue"	/ha:permissions
Returning after time off	"what did I miss", "back from vacation", "catch up", "what changed while I was out"	/catchup (companion plugin, separate install)

Step 3: Respond or Clarify

If high confidence (clear match to one category): Present the recommendation with:

• The command to run (with exact syntax)
• One-line explanation of what it does
• What artifacts it creates (if any)
• Suggested next step after it completes

If medium confidence (2-3 possible matches): Use AskUserQuestion with the top options, each with a one-line explanation.

If low confidence (vague or no signal): Ask ONE focused clarifying question. Examples:

• "Are you starting something new or continuing existing work?"
• "Is this a bug fix or a new feature?"
• "How many files do you expect to change?"

Then recommend based on the answer.

Step 4: Offer Follow-up

After recommending, always add:

• "Run /ha:help anytime to get routing advice"
• If they seem new: "Try /ha:intro for a full plugin walkthrough"

Iron Laws

1. ONE recommendation — don't dump the full catalog, pick the best match
2. MAX ONE clarifying question — don't interrogate, make your best guess
3. Show exact syntax — /ha:plan Add a new cloud integration not just "use the plan command"
4. Context over keywords — existing plans + git state matter more than word matching
5. NEVER block — if user already knows what they want, DO NOT redirect

Integration

• Complements intent-detection (auto-trigger) with explicit invocation
• References same routing logic but adds interactive clarification
• Can recommend /ha:intro for onboarding