/align
Unified alignment command (--project, --docs, --retrofit, --content)
$ npx -y skills add akaszubski/autonomous-dev --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/align
Context preview
What this command does when you run it.
Unified alignment command (--project, --docs, --retrofit, --content)
Command definition
align.mdname: align
description: "Unified alignment command (--project, --docs, --retrofit, --content)"
argument-hint: "[--project | --docs | --retrofit | --content] [--dry-run] [--auto]"
version: 3.1.0
category: core
allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob]
disable-model-invocation: true
user-invocable: true
user_facing: true
/align - Unified Alignment Command
**Purpose**: Validate and fix alignment between PROJECT.md, documentation, and codebase.
**Default**: `/align` runs full alignment check (docs + code + hooks review)
**Modes**:
- `/align` - Full alignment (PROJECT.md + CLAUDE.md + README vs code + hooks review)
- `/align --docs` - Documentation only (ensure all docs consistent with PROJECT.md)
- `/align --retrofit` - Brownfield retrofit (5-phase project transformation)
- `/align --content` - Content allocation audit (CLAUDE.md/PROJECT.md/MEMORY.md sizing + de-dup)
---
Quick Usage
# Default: Full alignment check
/align
# Documentation consistency only
/align --docs
# Brownfield project retrofit
/align --retrofit
/align --retrofit --dry-run
/align --retrofit --auto
# Content allocation audit
/align --content
/align --content --dry-run
/align --content --auto
---
Mode 1: Full Alignment (Default)
**Purpose**: Comprehensive check that PROJECT.md, CLAUDE.md, README, and codebase are all aligned.
**Time**: 10-30 minutes
**What it does**:
Phase 1: Quick Scan (GenAI or Regex)
Run manifest alignment validation:
# With OpenRouter (recommended - cheap GenAI validation)
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-... python plugins/autonomous-dev/lib/genai_validate.py manifest-alignment
# Without API key (hybrid validator with regex fallback)
python plugins/autonomous-dev/lib/hybrid_validator.py --mode regex-only
**Validates**:
- Count mismatches (agents, commands, hooks, skills) vs install_manifest.json
- Version consistency (CLAUDE.md, PROJECT.md, manifest)
- Semantic alignment (GenAI mode only)
**Options**:
- **OpenRouter** (recommended): ~$0.001 per validation, uses Gemini Flash
- **Claude Code**: Semantic analysis in conversation (uses Max subscription)
- **Regex only**: Fast, free, catches count mismatches
Phase 2: Semantic Validation (GenAI)
Check the following:
**PROJECT.md vs Code**:
- Do GOALS match what's implemented?
- Is SCOPE (in/out) respected in code?
- Are CONSTRAINTS followed?
- Does ARCHITECTURE match directory structure?
**CLAUDE.md vs Reality**:
- Do workflow descriptions match actual behavior?
- Do agent descriptions match capabilities?
- Do command descriptions match what they do?
- Are documented features actually implemented?
**README vs Reality**:
- Do feature claims match implementation?
- Are installation instructions accurate?
- Do examples actually work?
Phase 3: Hooks/Rules Review
MUST review validation hooks for inflation:
- Are hooks still necessary?
- Do hook rules match current standards?
- Any redundant or conflicting hooks?
Phase 4: Interactive Resolution (Bidirectional)
For each conflict found, determine which source is correct:
**Documentation vs Reality conflicts:**
CONFLICT: CLAUDE.md says "10 active commands"
Reality: 7 commands exist (example - already fixed)
What should we do?
A) Update CLAUDE.md to say "7 commands"
B) This is correct (explain why)
Your choice [A/B]:
**Code vs PROJECT.md conflicts (Bidirectional):**
CONFLICT: /create-issue exists in code/docs but not in PROJECT.md SCOPE
Which is correct?
A) Code/docs are right → Update PROJECT.md to include /create-issue
B) PROJECT.md is right → This shouldn't have been built (flag for removal)
Your choice [A/B]:
If A: Propose PROJECT.md update (requires approval) If B: Log conflict for manual resolution
Example Output
/align
Phase 1: Quick Scan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
✓ Scanning file system for truth...
Agents: 20, Commands: 7, Hooks: 45, Skills: 28
Found 5 count mismatches, 3 dead refs
→ Will address in Phase 4
Phase 2: Semantic Validation
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Checking PROJECT.md alignment...
✓ GOALS: 4/4 implemented
✓ SCOPE: No out-of-scope code found
⚠ ARCHITECTURE: docs/ structure doesn't match documented pattern
Checking CLAUDE.md alignment...
✓ Workflow descriptions accurate
⚠ Agent count outdated (says 18, actual 20)
⚠ Command list missing /create-issue
Checking README alignment...
✓ Installation instructions work
✓ Examples are accurate
Phase 3: Hooks Review
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Reviewing 45 hooks for inflation...
⚠ validate_project_alignment.py duplicates alignment_fixer.py logic
⚠ 3 hooks reference archived commands
Phase 4: Resolution
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Found 8 issues to resolve...
[Interactive fixing begins]
---
Mode 2: Documentation Alignment (`--docs`)
**Purpose**: Ensure all documentation is internally consistent and matches PROJECT.md (source of truth).
**Time**: 5-15 minutes
**What it does**:
Checks Performed
1. **PROJECT.md as Source of Truth**
- All other docs reference PROJECT.md correctly
- No contradictions between docs and PROJECT.md
- Version/date consistency
2. **Internal Doc Consistency**
- CLAUDE.md matches README claims
- Agent docs match AGENTS.md
- Command docs match COMMANDS.md
- No orphaned documentation
3. **Architecture Documentation**
- Documented file structure matches reality
- API documentation matches actual endpoints
- Database schema docs match migrations
4. **Count/Reference Accuracy**
- All counts (agents, commands, hooks) correct
- No dead links or references
- Examples use correct syntax
What It Doesn't Do
- Doesn't check if code implements what docs say (use default `/align` for that)
- Doesn't modify code, only documentation
- Doesn't retrofit project structure
Example Output
/align --docs
Validating documentation consistency...
Source of Truth: PROJECT.md
Read more
name: align description: "Unified alignment command (--project, --docs, --retrofit, --content)" argument-hint: "[--project | --docs | --retrofit | --content] [--dry-run] [--auto]" version: 3.1.0 category: core allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob] disable-model-invocation: true user-invocable: true user_facing: true
/align - Unified Alignment Command
**Purpose**: Validate and fix alignment between PROJECT.md, documentation, and codebase.
**Default**: `/align` runs full alignment check (docs + code + hooks review)
**Modes**:
- `/align` - Full alignment (PROJECT.md + CLAUDE.md + README vs code + hooks review)
- `/align --docs` - Documentation only (ensure all docs consistent with PROJECT.md)
- `/align --retrofit` - Brownfield retrofit (5-phase project transformation)
- `/align --content` - Content allocation audit (CLAUDE.md/PROJECT.md/MEMORY.md sizing + de-dup)
---
Quick Usage
# Default: Full alignment check /align # Documentation consistency only /align --docs # Brownfield project retrofit /align --retrofit /align --retrofit --dry-run /align --retrofit --auto # Content allocation audit /align --content /align --content --dry-run /align --content --auto
---
Mode 1: Full Alignment (Default)
**Purpose**: Comprehensive check that PROJECT.md, CLAUDE.md, README, and codebase are all aligned.
**Time**: 10-30 minutes
**What it does**:
Phase 1: Quick Scan (GenAI or Regex)
Run manifest alignment validation:
# With OpenRouter (recommended - cheap GenAI validation) OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-... python plugins/autonomous-dev/lib/genai_validate.py manifest-alignment # Without API key (hybrid validator with regex fallback) python plugins/autonomous-dev/lib/hybrid_validator.py --mode regex-only
**Validates**:
- Count mismatches (agents, commands, hooks, skills) vs install_manifest.json
- Version consistency (CLAUDE.md, PROJECT.md, manifest)
- Semantic alignment (GenAI mode only)
**Options**:
- **OpenRouter** (recommended): ~$0.001 per validation, uses Gemini Flash
- **Claude Code**: Semantic analysis in conversation (uses Max subscription)
- **Regex only**: Fast, free, catches count mismatches
Phase 2: Semantic Validation (GenAI)
Check the following:
**PROJECT.md vs Code**:
- Do GOALS match what's implemented?
- Is SCOPE (in/out) respected in code?
- Are CONSTRAINTS followed?
- Does ARCHITECTURE match directory structure?
**CLAUDE.md vs Reality**:
- Do workflow descriptions match actual behavior?
- Do agent descriptions match capabilities?
- Do command descriptions match what they do?
- Are documented features actually implemented?
**README vs Reality**:
- Do feature claims match implementation?
- Are installation instructions accurate?
- Do examples actually work?
Phase 3: Hooks/Rules Review
MUST review validation hooks for inflation:
- Are hooks still necessary?
- Do hook rules match current standards?
- Any redundant or conflicting hooks?
Phase 4: Interactive Resolution (Bidirectional)
For each conflict found, determine which source is correct:
**Documentation vs Reality conflicts:**
CONFLICT: CLAUDE.md says "10 active commands" Reality: 7 commands exist (example - already fixed) What should we do? A) Update CLAUDE.md to say "7 commands" B) This is correct (explain why) Your choice [A/B]:
**Code vs PROJECT.md conflicts (Bidirectional):**
CONFLICT: /create-issue exists in code/docs but not in PROJECT.md SCOPE Which is correct? A) Code/docs are right → Update PROJECT.md to include /create-issue B) PROJECT.md is right → This shouldn't have been built (flag for removal) Your choice [A/B]:
If A: Propose PROJECT.md update (requires approval) If B: Log conflict for manual resolution
Example Output
/align Phase 1: Quick Scan ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✓ Scanning file system for truth... Agents: 20, Commands: 7, Hooks: 45, Skills: 28 Found 5 count mismatches, 3 dead refs → Will address in Phase 4 Phase 2: Semantic Validation ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Checking PROJECT.md alignment... ✓ GOALS: 4/4 implemented ✓ SCOPE: No out-of-scope code found ⚠ ARCHITECTURE: docs/ structure doesn't match documented pattern Checking CLAUDE.md alignment... ✓ Workflow descriptions accurate ⚠ Agent count outdated (says 18, actual 20) ⚠ Command list missing /create-issue Checking README alignment... ✓ Installation instructions work ✓ Examples are accurate Phase 3: Hooks Review ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Reviewing 45 hooks for inflation... ⚠ validate_project_alignment.py duplicates alignment_fixer.py logic ⚠ 3 hooks reference archived commands Phase 4: Resolution ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Found 8 issues to resolve... [Interactive fixing begins]
---
Mode 2: Documentation Alignment (`--docs`)
**Purpose**: Ensure all documentation is internally consistent and matches PROJECT.md (source of truth).
**Time**: 5-15 minutes
**What it does**:
Checks Performed
1. **PROJECT.md as Source of Truth**
- All other docs reference PROJECT.md correctly
- No contradictions between docs and PROJECT.md
- Version/date consistency
2. **Internal Doc Consistency**
- CLAUDE.md matches README claims
- Agent docs match AGENTS.md
- Command docs match COMMANDS.md
- No orphaned documentation
3. **Architecture Documentation**
- Documented file structure matches reality
- API documentation matches actual endpoints
- Database schema docs match migrations
4. **Count/Reference Accuracy**
- All counts (agents, commands, hooks) correct
- No dead links or references
- Examples use correct syntax
What It Doesn't Do
- Doesn't check if code implements what docs say (use default `/align` for that)
- Doesn't modify code, only documentation
- Doesn't retrofit project structure
Example Output
/align --docs Validating documentation consistency... Source of Truth: PROJECT.md
A harness that wraps Claude Code with enforcement, specialist agents, and alignment gates to deliver consistent, production-grade software engineering outcomes.
Repo: akaszubski/autonomous-dev
Other commands on autonomous-dev.
- /advise
Critical thinking analysis - validates alignment, challenges assumptions, identifies risks
Open command - /audit
Comprehensive quality audit - code quality, documentation, coverage, security
Open command - /autoresearch
Autonomous experiment loop — hypothesize, modify, benchmark, commit or revert
Open command - /create-issue
Create GitHub issue with automated research (--quick for fast mode)
Open command - /drain-queue
Autonomous queue drainer — picks the top /triage cluster, applies safety gates, drains via /implement --issues, pushes, deploys.
Open command - /goa
Governance, Observability, Audit — autonomous infra-health observer for autonomous-dev itself. Subcommands: start | stop | status.
Open command

