メニュー
Strategic system analysis for health assessment, pattern recognition, component deep dives, risk assessment, and architecture review. Use for proactive system understanding beyond reactive incident response.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/fluxforgeai/wrought-plugin --skill analyzeコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
Produce an adversarially-verified, source-cited, full-stack, interactive HTML decision brief for informed go/no-go sign-off at a human decision boundary. MVP mode: pivot-review. Extends /ux-design; consumes /research and /design; feeds /design on GO.
Deep multi-agent code review with algorithmic complexity analysis, data structure review, paradigm enforcement, and efficiency analysis. Complements /simplify with deeper dimensions.
End session and create all handoff documentation
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | analyze |
| description | Strategic system analysis for health assessment, pattern recognition, component deep dives, risk assessment, and architecture review. Use for proactive system understanding beyond reactive incident response. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| argument-hint | [mode] [target] |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, WebFetch, WebSearch, Write |
| effort | xhigh |
| wrought | {"version":"1.0","tools":{"capabilities":["read_file","search_content","find_files","web_fetch","web_search","write_file"]},"platforms":{"claude-code":{"allowed-tools":"Read, Grep, Glob, WebFetch, WebSearch, Write","disable-model-invocation":false}},"agent":{"role":"Systems Analyst","expertise":["system health assessment","pattern recognition","risk prioritization","architecture review"],"non_goals":["implementing fixes","incident response","code changes"]},"execution":{"default_mode":"tot","optional_modes":["react"],"max_iterations":15,"max_refine":2,"stop_conditions":["Analysis written to docs/analysis/","User approved analysis scope and findings","User instructed to stop"]},"output":{"format":"markdown","template":"docs/analysis/{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM}_{scope}.md","required_sections":["Executive Summary","Scope","Findings","Risk Assessment","Recommendations"]},"confidence":{"threshold":"high","low_confidence_behavior":"Flag areas needing deeper investigation"},"context":{"max_tokens":16000,"artifact_loading":"on_demand","handoff_trigger":0.7},"pipeline":{"track":"audit","standalone":true,"prerequisites":[],"produces":["docs/analysis/*.md"],"suggested_next":["finding","investigate","design"]}} |
Trigger: /analyze {mode} [scope]
Purpose: Strategic-level system analysis that goes beyond reactive incident response to provide proactive system health assessment, pattern recognition across incidents, architectural insight, and risk prioritization.
This skill is standalone — it can be invoked at any time without prerequisites.
If this invocation is part of an active workflow, check docs/findings/*_FINDINGS_TRACKER.md
for a relevant tracker and note it for context, but do not enforce stage requirements.
/analyze health # Full system health assessment
/analyze patterns [time-period] # Pattern recognition (default: last-7-days)
/analyze component [scope] # Deep dive on specific component
/analyze risk [scope] # Risk assessment with prioritization
/analyze architecture # Architectural review + doc sync
/analyze discover # Build/refresh System Map only
See system_map_template.md for the system map template and discovery process.
If system map exists at docs/analysis/system-map.md and is <24h old, load it. Otherwise, follow the template to create one.
/analyze discover)Purpose: Build or refresh the System Map without full analysis.
CP1 — Scope Confirmation [multi]: "I'll scan the project to build a System Map. What should I include?" → Backend services* | API layer | Data models | Frontend components | Configuration files | All of the above
CP2 — Exclusions: "Any directories or patterns to exclude from scanning?" → No exclusions (scan everything)* | Exclude tests/ | Exclude vendor/node_modules | Let me specify...
Run Discovery (as specified in system map template)
CP3 — Validation: "I found {N} components. Quick review: {summary table} Does this look correct?" → Yes, save the System Map | Remove some components | Add missing components | Rescan with different options
Save System Map to docs/analysis/system-map.md
STOP and present summary. Await instructions.
/analyze health)Purpose: Overall system reliability assessment.
Load System Map (create if missing)
CP1 — Focus Areas [multi]: "What aspects of system health matter most right now?" → Reliability* | Performance | Maintainability | Observability | All dimensions equally
CP2 — Known Context: "Any known issues or recent changes I should account for?" → No, analyze with fresh eyes* | Yes, known issues (let me describe) | Recent deployment may affect results | In incident recovery mode
Collect Data: Read all docs/RCAs/*.md, docs/incidents/*.md, docs/investigations/*.md, docs/findings/*.md. Search logs for error patterns (last 7 days).
Analyze: Count incidents by component, calculate frequency trends, identify recurring failure modes, assess monitoring coverage.
Score Each Dimension (0-10): Reliability, Performance, Maintainability, Observability.
CP3 — Validate Scores: "Here are the preliminary scores:
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability | X/10 | {note} |
| Performance | X/10 | {note} |
| Maintainability | X/10 | {note} |
| Observability | X/10 | {note} |
| Do these match your experience?" | ||
| → Yes, accurate | Reliability seems off | Performance seems off |
Escalation Check (see Escalation section below)
Generate Report: Write to docs/analysis/{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM}_health.md
STOP and present summary. Await instructions.
/analyze patterns [time-period])Purpose: Identify recurring issues across incidents.
CP1 — Time Period: "What time period should I analyze for patterns?" → Last 7 days* | Last 30 days | Last 90 days | Since last deploy | Custom range
CP2 — Pattern Focus [multi]: "What types of patterns are you most interested in?" → Temporal patterns (time-of-day clustering)* | Causal patterns (same root cause recurring) | Structural patterns (same components failing together) | Cascade patterns (A→B→C failures) | All pattern types
Collect Data: All RCAs and incidents in time range, error logs.
Pattern Types to Look For: Temporal, Causal, Structural, Cascade.
CP3 — Validate Top Patterns (for each significant pattern, top 3): "Pattern Found: {description} Occurrences: {N} times in {period}, Components: {list} Is this pattern..." → New insight — investigate further | Known — being addressed | Known — accepted/deprioritized | False positive
Escalation Check (see Escalation section below)
Generate Report: Write to docs/analysis/{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM}_patterns.md
STOP and present findings. Await instructions.
/analyze component [scope])Purpose: Focused analysis on a specific component.
Scope Resolution: If no scope provided, present discovered components from System Map.
CP1 — Component Selection: "Which component would you like to analyze?" → {Component 1 from System Map} | {Component 2} | {Component 3} | Let me specify by path or description
CP2 — Analysis Depth: "How deep should the analysis go?" → Quick overview (dependencies, recent incidents)* | Standard (+ code patterns, error handling) | Deep dive (+ test coverage, all historical incidents)
CP3 — Context: "Any specific concerns about this component?" → No specific concerns* | Recent failures — focus on reliability | Performance issues | Planning changes — assess impact | Let me describe...
Analyze Component: Read all source files, map dependencies, find related incidents/RCAs/findings, identify error handling patterns, assess test coverage (if requested).
Escalation Check (see Escalation section below)
Generate Report: Write to docs/analysis/{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM}_component_{name}.md
STOP and present findings. Await instructions.
/analyze risk [scope])Purpose: Prioritized risk matrix with likelihood and impact scoring.
CP1 — Scope: "What scope should I assess for risks?" → All components (comprehensive) | External integrations only* | Data pipeline only | Recently changed components | Let me specify...
CP2 — Risk Tolerance: "What's your risk tolerance for this assessment?" → Conservative — flag everything suspicious* | Moderate — likely issues only | Aggressive — critical risks only
CP3 — Business Context: "Any business context that affects risk prioritization?" → No special context* | Preparing for high-traffic event | In stabilization period | Aggressive timeline | Let me describe...
Identify Risks: Single points of failure, missing error handling, no retry logic, hardcoded timeouts, missing monitoring, stale dependencies.
Score Each Risk: Likelihood (1-5) x Impact (1-5). 1-5: Low, 6-12: Medium, 13-19: High, 20-25: Critical.
CP4 — Validate HIGH/CRITICAL (for each high or critical risk): "Risk: {description}, Score: {X} ({severity}). Is this..." → New finding — needs attention | Known — actively being fixed | Known — accepted risk | Not a real risk
Escalation Check (see Escalation section below)
Generate Report: Write to docs/analysis/{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM}_risk.md
STOP and present findings. Await instructions.
/analyze architecture)Purpose: Review architecture, identify discrepancies between docs and code.
WARNING: This mode may modify ARCHITECTURE.md. Interactive confirmation REQUIRED.
CP1 — Scope: "What should the architecture review focus on?" → Full system architecture* | Backend services only | Data flow and pipelines | API design | Let me specify...
CP2 — Documentation Intent: "How should I handle discrepancies between docs and code?" → Assume code is truth, docs are outdated* | Assume docs are truth, code has drifted | Ask me for each discrepancy | Just report discrepancies
Discover Actual Architecture: Scan codebase for services, APIs, models. Build dependency graph. Identify patterns.
Compare to Documentation: Read ARCHITECTURE.md. Identify discrepancies (components in code but not docs, in docs but not code, incorrect relationships, outdated descriptions).
CP3 — Per-Discrepancy (if "ask me" selected): "Discrepancy: Doc says '{X}', code shows '{Y}'" → Update ARCHITECTURE.md (doc outdated) | Flag as tech debt (code should change) | Ignore (intentional)
CP4 — Confirm Changes (REQUIRED before any file edits): "I will make these changes to ARCHITECTURE.md: {diff preview} Apply changes?" → Yes, apply all | Let me review individually | No, cancel (just output report)
Escalation Check (see Escalation section below)
Generate Report: Write to docs/analysis/{YYYY-MM-DD_HHMM}_architecture.md
Apply Changes (only if confirmed in CP4)
STOP and present findings. Await instructions.
When any mode detects a finding that suggests architectural redesign or a corrective fix, trigger an escalation checkpoint.
"Finding: {description}. This suggests a design consideration or corrective fix. How would you like to proceed?" → Explore design inline (quick trade-off) | Design deep dive (recommend /design) | Corrective fix (recommend /finding then /rca-bugfix) | Note it in the report | Accepted limitation
See DESIGN_ESCALATION.md for full design escalation specification.
See report_template.md for the full analysis report template.
--batch Skip interactive checkpoints (use defaults)
NOT allowed for architecture mode
--dry-run Show findings without creating reports
--refresh Force refresh System Map before analysis
--verbose Show all findings, not just significant ones
Note: --batch is NOT allowed for architecture mode (file edits require confirmation).
ALWAYS STOP after generating the report.
Output format:
Analysis complete: docs/analysis/{filename}.md
Interactive decisions: {N} checkpoints
User context applied: {summary of user inputs}
Key Finding: {One-line summary of most important finding}
{Mode-specific metrics}
Health Score: {X}/10 (if health mode)
Risks Found: {N} critical, {N} high (if risk mode)
Patterns Found: {N} recurring issues (if patterns mode)
Design Considerations: {N} design escalation opportunities identified
Fix Escalations: {N} corrective fix opportunities identified
**CRITICAL PIPELINE RULE**: Suggest ONLY the next pipeline step below. Do NOT offer to implement. Do NOT offer to skip `/finding`. Do NOT offer alternatives to the pipeline sequence.
Next step: Run `/finding` with the analysis at `docs/analysis/{filename}.md` to create a Findings Tracker for any discoveries.
Do NOT add commentary suggesting any pipeline step could be skipped or is unnecessary. Awaiting your instructions. Do NOT proceed with fixes or implementations.
| After Analysis... | Consider... |
|---|---|
| Found specific incident pattern | /investigate {pattern} |
| Identified root cause | /rca-bugfix {cause} |
| Design escalation selected "deep dive" | /design tradeoff {topic} |
| Fix escalation selected "corrective fix" | /finding {description} |
| Need implementation plan | Use EnterPlanMode |
| Need ongoing monitoring | /watchdog {component} |
/analyze discover → Interactive: confirms scope, exclusions, validates findings
/analyze health → Interactive: focus areas, known context, validates scores
/analyze patterns → Interactive: time period, pattern types, validates top patterns
/analyze patterns last-30-days → Skips time period question, still asks pattern types
/analyze component → Interactive: component selection, depth, concerns
/analyze component "the batch client" → Skips selection, still asks depth and concerns
/analyze risk → Interactive: scope, tolerance, business context, validates findings
/analyze architecture → Interactive: focus, discrepancy handling, change confirmation
/analyze health --batch → Uses defaults for all checkpoints, still generates report