Context
The v2 command port intentionally keeps slash commands as prompt-template admission only. The old v1 command path could convert commands into subtasks, and there is a related question of whether commands should be able to automatically background work.
The v1 command path also had prompt-like template affordances such as @agent and @file mentions. Those are intentionally deferred in the v2 command port because prompt submit/attachment behavior needs a clearer native design before commands synthesize extra prompt attachments.
Decision needed
- Should v2 commands support subtask execution at all, or should that stay owned by explicit subagent/tool flows?
- If command subtasks are supported, should they use the existing subagent child-session mechanism or a separate command-specific primitive?
- Should commands be able to request automatic backgrounding, or should backgrounding remain a user/tool/session-level action?
- Should command templates support
@agent mentions, or should commands rely on command metadata (agent) and explicit prompt attachments only?
- Should command templates support
@file mentions, and if so should they resolve into prompt file attachments or remain plain text for the model/tools to interpret?
Current behavior
- Built-in and config commands resolve into normal session prompt input.
- MCP prompts are exposed as command-shaped entries and resolve into normal prompt input.
/review is treated as a normal command for now.- Shell interpolation with
!...`` is supported for command templates.
- Command-level subtask/background behavior is intentionally deferred.
- Command-template
@agent and @file mention resolution is intentionally deferred; command text is submitted without synthesizing attachments from those mentions.
Context
The v2 command port intentionally keeps slash commands as prompt-template admission only. The old v1 command path could convert commands into subtasks, and there is a related question of whether commands should be able to automatically background work.
The v1 command path also had prompt-like template affordances such as
@agentand@filementions. Those are intentionally deferred in the v2 command port because prompt submit/attachment behavior needs a clearer native design before commands synthesize extra prompt attachments.Decision needed
@agentmentions, or should commands rely on command metadata (agent) and explicit prompt attachments only?@filementions, and if so should they resolve into prompt file attachments or remain plain text for the model/tools to interpret?Current behavior
/reviewis treated as a normal command for now.!...`` is supported for command templates.@agentand@filemention resolution is intentionally deferred; command text is submitted without synthesizing attachments from those mentions.