القائمة
Sub-orchestrator for analytical requests. Routes to decomposition, systems analysis, comparison, risk assessment, or synthesis based on what kind of analysis is needed.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | analyze - Analyze a Situation |
| description | Sub-orchestrator for analytical requests. Routes to decomposition, systems analysis, comparison, risk assessment, or synthesis based on what kind of analysis is needed. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user's input:
Interpretation 1 — Decomposition needed: The user has something complex and wants it broken into understandable parts ("break this down", "what are the components?"). Interpretation 2 — Causal analysis: The user wants to understand why something is happening ("what's causing X?", "why does this keep failing?"). Interpretation 3 — Synthesis needed: The user has multiple pieces of information and wants them combined into coherent understanding ("what does all this mean?", "pull this together").
If ambiguous, ask: "Do you need this broken down into parts, or do you need me to find what's causing something, or do you want me to pull multiple findings together?" If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.
Analysis type determines tool. Causal analysis, structural analysis, comparative analysis, risk analysis, and synthesis are fundamentally different operations. Picking the wrong type produces plausible but misleading output. Identify the type before starting.
Situations are analyzed; artifacts are evaluated. /analyze handles situations (markets, dynamics, systems, patterns). /evaluate handles artifacts (documents, plans, code, arguments). If someone hands you a thing to assess, that's /evaluate. If they describe a situation to understand, that's /analyze.
Decomposition precedes synthesis. You can't synthesize what you haven't decomposed. For "analyze this" requests, break it down first (/dcm), then pull conclusions together (/ins). Never skip decomposition.
Every analysis must answer "so what?" Breaking things into parts is not analysis — it's taxonomy. Analysis tells you what the parts mean, how they interact, and what follows from their arrangement.
Multi-dimensional situations need multi-dimensional analysis. A situation that spans strategy, people, and technology needs analysis along all three dimensions. Single-dimension analysis on a multi-dimensional problem produces blind spots.
Analysis terminates in actionable insight. If the analysis doesn't point toward a decision, an action, or a changed understanding, it hasn't finished. "This is complex" is not a finding — it's an admission of incomplete analysis.
Analysis should find what IS as well as what's wrong. If the thing being analyzed is genuinely well-designed in some areas, name those areas with the same rigor you apply to weaknesses. Problem-finding without strength-finding produces a distorted picture.
| Analysis type | Signals | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Causal | "What's causing X?", "Why is X?" | → /diagnose (overlaps — /diagnose handles causal) |
| Structural | "How does this work?", "Break this down" | → /dcm (decomposition) + /sya (systems analysis) |
| Comparative | "How does X compare to Y?" | → /cmp or /cda (cross-domain analogy) |
| Risk | "What could go wrong?" | → /fla (failure anticipation) + /prm (pre-mortem) |
| Data/Empirical | "What does the data show?" | → /sta (statistical analysis) + /dc (data collection) |
| Strategic | "What's our position?" | → /swa (SWOT) + /cma (competitive analysis) |
| Problem | "What's the problem here?" | → /pbi (problem identification) |
| Pattern | "What's the pattern?" | → /sya (systems analysis) |
| Ethical | "Is this right?", "What are the moral dimensions?" | → /eth (ethics analysis) |
| Safety | "Is this safe?", "What are the safety risks?" | → /saf (safety analysis) |
| Future | "Where is this going?", "What happens next?" | → /fut (future analysis) |
| Dominance | "Which option is strictly better?" | → /dom (dominance analysis) |
| Outcome | "What are the possible outcomes?" | → /gop + /obo + /ogo |
| Differentiation | "What makes these different?" | → /difr (differentiation reasoning) |
| General pattern | "What's the general principle?" | → /genl (general analysis) |
| Specific application | "How does this apply to my case?" | → /spcf (specific analysis) |
| Best-case | "What's the ideal outcome?" | → /utp (utopia analysis) |
| Worst-case | "What's the worst that could happen?" | → /dys (dystopia analysis) |
Default (general "analyze this"): → INVOKE: /dcm $ARGUMENTS — decompose into parts → Then INVOKE: /ins [findings] — synthesize conclusions
Causal analysis: → INVOKE: /diagnose $ARGUMENTS
Comparative analysis: → INVOKE: /cmp $ARGUMENTS
Risk analysis: → INVOKE: /fla $ARGUMENTS + /prm $ARGUMENTS
Strategic analysis: → INVOKE: /swa $ARGUMENTS + /cma $ARGUMENTS
Problem identification: → INVOKE: /pbi $ARGUMENTS
Systems analysis: → INVOKE: /sya $ARGUMENTS
Ethical analysis: → INVOKE: /eth $ARGUMENTS
Future analysis: → INVOKE: /fut $ARGUMENTS
Outcome analysis: → INVOKE: /gop + /obo + /ogo $ARGUMENTS
Dominance analysis: → INVOKE: /dom $ARGUMENTS
Differentiation analysis: → INVOKE: /difr $ARGUMENTS
| Situation | Also invoke |
|---|---|
| Need obvious check first | → /obv (obvious check) |
| Obvious bad outcomes | → /obo |
| Obvious good outcomes | → /ogo |
| Self-deception risk | → /sdc (self-deception check) |
| Need to trace implications | → /sycs (so you can see) |
| Situation has a narrative | → /story |
| Need to check hidden assumptions | → /aex (assumption extraction) |
| Involves argument structure | → /agsk (argument analysis) |
| User wants debate format | → /deb |
| Need to expand "etc" or implied items | → /etc or /aso |
| Scope expanding | → /iagca (compress scope) |
| Unresolved sub-questions | → /tbd |
| User wants easy mode | → /ezy |
| User wants hard mode | → /hrd |
| User wants sophisticated analysis | → /soph |
| User wants maximum rigor | → /certainty |
| Failure | Signal | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy without insight | Output lists parts without saying what they mean | Every decomposition must answer "so what?" for each part |
| Wrong analysis type | Causal tools on structural problem, or vice versa | Re-identify the analysis type before proceeding |
| Single-dimension blindness | Multi-dimensional situation analyzed on only one axis | Explicitly identify all relevant dimensions, analyze each |
| Evaluation masquerading as analysis | Assessing quality of an artifact instead of understanding a situation | If it's a thing to assess, route to /evaluate |
| Analysis paralysis | Decomposing endlessly without synthesizing | Set a decomposition depth limit, then force synthesis |
| Missing "so what" | Analysis ends with "it's complex" without actionable insight | Push to: what does this mean for decisions? What should change? |
| Depth | Scope | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1x | Quick — one-pass decomposition, key findings | Component list with 2-3 key insights |
| 2x | Standard — decomposition + synthesis, main interactions identified | Full decomposition, interaction map, synthesized conclusions |
| 4x | Thorough — multi-dimensional decomposition + cross-referencing + synthesis | All dimensions analyzed, cross-dimension interactions, comprehensive synthesis |
| 8x | Exhaustive — all dimensions, all interactions, sensitivity analysis, full synthesis | Complete analytical model with sensitivities, implications, and recommendations |
Report:
After analysis, the user may need:
Route any input through a branching question tree to narrow down the optimal response strategy before writing. Two stages — PERCEIVE (classify input) then ACT (select response). Covers all prompt types.
Generate exhaustive guesses about user input using ALL search methods with coverage tracking. Guessing is SEARCH through possibility space. Tracks space created vs space covered to ensure comprehensive exploration.
Systematically evaluate and select from a set of guesses, options, or possibilities. Combines ARAW analysis with prioritization to determine which guesses are strong, weak, actionable, or eliminable.
Extract hidden assumptions from any content. Surfaces what must be true for claims to hold, enabling deeper analysis.
Assume Right - Deep recursive rightness search. For every claim, assume it's right — find what must follow, then assume THOSE implications are right too. Recurse until bedrock. Track every claim found.
Sub-orchestrator for claims and assertions. Routes to ARAW-based testing with appropriate depth, balance, and supplementary analysis skills.
