Night Market Skill — ported from claude-night-market/abstract. For the full experience with agents, hooks, and commands, install the Claude Code plugin.

Table of Contents#

• Overview
• The Iron Law
• When to Escalate
• When NOT to Escalate
• Decision Framework
• 1. Have I understood the problem?
• 2. Have I investigated systematically?
• 3. Is escalation the right solution?
• 4. Can I justify the trade-off?
• Escalation Protocol
• Common Rationalizations
• Agent Schema
• Orchestrator Authority
• Red Flags - STOP and Investigate
• Integration with Agent Workflow
• Quick Reference

Escalation Governance#

Overview#

Model escalation (haiku→sonnet→opus) trades speed/cost for reasoning capability. This trade-off must be justified.

Core principle: Escalation is for tasks that genuinely require deeper reasoning, not for "maybe a smarter model will figure it out."

The Iron Law#

text

NO ESCALATION WITHOUT INVESTIGATION FIRST

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Escalation is never a shortcut. If you haven't understood why the current model is insufficient, escalation is premature.

When to Escalate#

Legitimate escalation triggers:

TriggerDescriptionExampleGenuine complexityTask inherently requires nuanced judgmentSecurity policy trade-offsReasoning depthMultiple inference steps with uncertaintyArchitecture decisionsNovel patternsNo existing patterns applyFirst-of-kind implementationHigh stakesError cost justifies capability investmentProduction deploymentAmbiguity resolutionMultiple valid interpretations need weighingSpec clarification

When NOT to Escalate#

Illegitimate escalation triggers:

Anti-PatternWhy It's WrongWhat to Do Instead"Maybe smarter model will figure it out"This is thrashingInvestigate root causeMultiple failed attemptsSuggests wrong approach, not insufficient capabilityQuestion your assumptionsTime pressureUrgency doesn't change task complexitySystematic investigation is fasterUncertainty without investigationYou haven't tried to understand yetGather evidence first"Just to be safe"False safety - wastes resourcesAssess actual complexity

Decision Framework#

Before escalating, answer these questions:

1. Have I understood the problem?#

• Can I articulate why the current model is insufficient?
• Have I identified what specific reasoning capability is missing?
• Is this a capability gap or a knowledge gap?

If knowledge gap: Gather more information, don't escalate.

2. Have I investigated systematically?#

• Did I read error messages/outputs carefully?
• Did I check for similar solved problems?
• Did I form and test a hypothesis?

If not investigated: Complete investigation first.

3. Is escalation the right solution?#

• Would a different approach work at current model level?
• Is the task inherently complex, or am I making it complex?
• Would breaking the task into smaller pieces help?

If decomposable: Break down, don't escalate.

4. Can I justify the trade-off?#

• What's the cost (latency, tokens, money) of escalation?
• What's the benefit (accuracy, safety, completeness)?
• Is the benefit proportional to the cost?

If not proportional: Don't escalate.

Escalation Protocol#

When escalation IS justified:

1. Document the reason - State why current model is insufficient
2. Specify the scope - What specific subtask needs higher capability?
3. Define success - How will you know the escalated task succeeded?
4. Return promptly - Drop back to efficient model after reasoning task

Common Rationalizations#

ExcuseReality"This is complex"Complex for whom? Have you tried?"Better safe than sorry"Safety theater wastes resources"I tried and failed"How many times? Did you investigate why?"The user expects quality"Quality comes from process, not model size"Just this once"Exceptions become habits"Time is money"Systematic approach is faster than thrashing

Agent Schema#

Agents can declare escalation hints in frontmatter:

yaml

model: haiku
escalation:
  to: sonnet                 # Suggested escalation target
  hints:                     # Advisory triggers (orchestrator may override)
    - security_sensitive     # Touches auth, secrets, permissions
    - ambiguous_input        # Multiple valid interpretations
    - novel_pattern          # No existing patterns apply
    - high_stakes            # Error would be costly

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Key points:

• Hints are advisory, not mandatory
• Orchestrator has final authority
• Orchestrator can escalate without hints (broader context)
• Orchestrator can ignore hints (task is actually simple)

Orchestrator Authority#

The orchestrator (typically Opus) makes final escalation decisions:

Can follow hints: When hint matches observed conditions Can override to escalate: When context demands it (even without hints) Can override to stay: When task is simpler than hints suggest Can escalate beyond hint: Go to opus even if hint says sonnet

The orchestrator's judgment, informed by conversation context, supersedes static hints.

Red Flags - STOP and Investigate#

If you catch yourself thinking:

• "Let me try with a better model"
• "This should be simple but isn't working"
• "I've tried everything" (but haven't investigated why)
• "The smarter model will know what to do"
• "I don't understand why this isn't working"

ALL of these mean: STOP. Investigate first.

Integration with Agent Workflow#

text

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.
Agent starts task at assigned model
├── Task succeeds → Complete
└── Task struggles →
    ├── Investigate systematically
    │   ├── Root cause found → Fix at current model
    │   └── Genuine capability gap → Escalate with justification
    └── Don't investigate → WRONG PATH
        └── "Maybe escalate?" → NO. Investigate first.

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Quick Reference#

SituationActionTask inherently requires nuanced reasoningEscalateAgent uncertain but hasn't investigatedInvestigate firstMultiple attempts failedQuestion approach, not modelSecurity/high-stakes decisionEscalate"Maybe smarter model knows"Never escalate on this basisHint fires, task is actually simpleOverride, stay at current modelNo hint fires, task is actually complexOverride, escalate

Model Capability Notes#

MCP Tool Search (Claude Code 2.1.7+): Haiku models do not support MCP tool search. If a workflow uses many MCP tools (descriptions exceeding 10% of context), those tools load upfront on haiku instead of being deferred. This can consume significant context. Consider escalating to sonnet for MCP-heavy workflows or ensure haiku agents use only native tools (Read, Write, Bash, etc.).

Claude.ai MCP Connectors (Claude Code 2.1.46+): Users with claude.ai connectors configured may have additional MCP tools auto-loaded, increasing the total tool description footprint. This makes it more likely that haiku agents will exceed the 10% tool search threshold. When escalation decisions involve MCP-heavy workflows, factor in claude.ai connector tool count via /mcp.

Effort Controls as Escalation Alternative (Opus 4.6 / Claude Code 2.1.32+): Opus 4.6 introduces adaptive thinking with effort levels ( low, medium, high). The max level was removed in 2.1.72 for Opus 4.6, and high became the ceiling on that model. Claude Code 2.1.111 reintroduced max and added xhigh (between high and max) for Opus 4.7 only; on other models xhigh falls back to high. Symbols: ○ (low) ◐ (medium) ● (high) ◉ (xhigh) ★ (max). Use /effort (interactive slider since 2.1.111) or /effort auto to reset. Before escalating between models, consider whether adjusting effort on the current model would suffice:

Instead of...Consider...WhenHaiku → SonnetStay on HaikuTask is still deterministic, just needs more contextSonnet → OpusOpus@mediumModerate reasoning, not deep architectural analysisOpus@medium → "maybe try again"Opus@high or "ultrathink"Genuine complexity needing deeper reasoningOpus 4.7@high → escalateOpus 4.7@xhigh or @maxDeep architectural analysis on Opus 4.7 specifically

Default effort change (2.1.68+): Opus 4.6 now defaults to medium effort for Max and Team subscribers. Use /model to change effort level, or type "ultrathink" in your prompt to enable high effort for the next turn.

Opus 4/4.1 removed (2.1.68+): Opus 4 and 4.1 are no longer available on the first-party API. Users with these models pinned are automatically migrated to Opus 4.6. No action needed for agents using model frontmatter, as the migration is transparent.

Sonnet 4.5 → 4.6 migration (2.1.69+): Sonnet 4.5 users on Pro/Max/Team Premium are automatically migrated to Sonnet 4.6. Agent model frontmatter referencing Sonnet resolves transparently. The --model flags for claude-opus-4-0 and claude-opus-4-1 now correctly resolve to Opus 4.6 instead of deprecated versions.

Effort parameter fix (2.1.70+): Fixed API 400 error This model does not support the effort parameter when using custom Bedrock inference profiles or non-standard Claude model identifiers. Effort controls now work reliably across all deployment configurations.

Default Opus 4.6 on providers (2.1.73+): Bedrock, Vertex, and Microsoft Foundry now default to Opus 4.6 (was Opus 4.1). Subagent model: opus/ sonnet/ haiku aliases now resolve to the current version on all providers; previously they were silently downgraded to older versions (e.g., Opus 4.1 instead of 4.6). This fix means agent dispatch workflows on third-party providers now match first-party API behavior.

modelOverrides setting (2.1.73+): Maps model picker entries to provider-specific IDs (Bedrock inference profile ARNs, Vertex version names, Foundry deployment names). Use when routing model selections to specific inference profiles. See the model optimization guide for configuration details.

/output-style deprecated (2.1.73+): Use /config instead. Output style is now fixed at session start for better prompt caching.

Full model IDs in agent frontmatter (2.1.74+): Agent model: fields now accept full model IDs (e.g., claude-opus-4-6) in addition to aliases ( opus, sonnet, haiku). Previously, full IDs were silently ignored. Agents now accept the same values as --model.

Effort controls do NOT replace the escalation governance framework: they provide an additional axis. The Iron Law still applies: investigate before changing either model or effort level.