بنقرة واحدة
genome-analyzer
Cluster genomes into families, retrieve by similarity+utility, run replay, propose patches
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Cluster genomes into families, retrieve by similarity+utility, run replay, propose patches
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
Extracting key findings from AI/ML research papers.
Auditing frontend components for WCAG AA compliance.
Guide users through resolving 4xx and 5xx API errors.
Diagnosing failed GitHub Action or GitLab CI runs.
Framework to analyze and summarize competitor features and market positioning.
Walk new users through the initial setup and configuration.
| name | genome-analyzer |
| description | Cluster genomes into families, retrieve by similarity+utility, run replay, propose patches |
Family-level analysis, retrieval, replay, and patch proposal for Failure Genomes.
Input: A new genome file (FG-NNNNNN.json) Process:
FAMILY_INDEX.json for existing familiesmatch_score = 0
+ 3 if same failure_family
+ 2 if same violated_invariant
+ 1 per overlapping stack_tag
+ 1 per overlapping surface_tag
+ 2 if repair_operator in same neighborhood
Output: Updated FAMILY_INDEX.json
Input: Current incident context (stack tags, surface, failure type) Process:
relevance_score = similarity * 0.4 + utility_score * 0.6Why utility matters: Semantic similarity alone returns "looks similar" genomes. Utility-weighted retrieval returns "similar AND useful" genomes. A genome with utility 0.9 that matches 3 tags beats a genome with utility 0.2 that matches 5 tags.
Input: Proposed patch + genome + family members Process:
FOR EACH family member genome:
1. Read the incident that caused it
2. Mentally simulate: would the proposed patch have caught this?
3. Score: PASS (would have prevented) or FAIL (would not have helped)
FOR 1-2 holdout genomes (different family):
1. Check: does the patch obviously break this scenario?
2. Score: SAFE (no regression) or REGRESS (patch causes harm)
COMPUTE:
family_pass_rate = pass_count / family_total
holdout_safe = all holdouts are SAFE
DECISION:
IF family_pass_rate >= 0.6 AND holdout_safe → PROMOTE
IF family_pass_rate >= 0.6 AND NOT holdout_safe → REVIEW (manual)
IF family_pass_rate < 0.6 → REJECT or REFINE
Output: Updated genome replay field + promotion_decision
Based on the failure genome, recommend which patch type is most effective:
| Family Pattern | Recommended Patch |
|---|---|
| Invariant violation (rule was clear) | verifier_patch — add check |
| Missing knowledge (no rule existed) | rule_patch — add rule |
| Process gap (steps were skipped) | workflow_patch — add step |
| Capability gap (can't do X) | skill_patch — add capability |
| Stale documentation | doc_patch — update docs |
Run cli/tama-genome-report.js to generate:
{
"report_date": "2026-03-18",
"total_genomes": 7,
"total_families": 7,
"families_by_count": [
{ "family": "verification-skipped-before-done", "count": 1, "avg_utility": 0.9 }
],
"repair_operators_by_reuse": [
{ "operator": "add-production-verification-step", "reuse_count": 5 }
],
"patch_types_by_win_rate": [
{ "type": "rule_patch", "promoted": 6, "rejected": 0, "win_rate": 1.0 }
],
"stale_genomes": [],
"low_utility_genomes": [],
"transferred_genomes": {
"successful": 0,
"failed": 0
}
}
After 30 days without use: score *= 0.9
After 90 days without use: score *= 0.7
After each reuse: score *= 1.1 (cap 1.0)
After prevention: score *= 1.2 (cap 1.0)
After negative transfer: score *= 0.5