critical-analysis-patterns

name	critical-analysis-patterns
description	Philosophical/meta project analysis - critical analysis framework that asks "why?"
allowed-tools	["Read","Glob","Grep","Task"]

Critical Analysis Patterns

Beyond technical validation, analyze alignment between intent and implementation.

---

Canonical Implementation Principle 📐

skillmaker aims for "canonical implementation" of plugins, agents, and marketplaces.

Active Recommendation

When analyzing projects, actively recommend skillmaker's "good practices" for similar/equivalent features:

Domain	Canonical Pattern	Skill to Load
MCP integration	Daemon SSE isolation	mcp-gateway-patterns
Skill structure	Progressive disclosure	skill-design
Agent design	Context isolation	orchestration-patterns
Behavior enforcement	Hookification	hook-templates
Multi-stage workflow	State files + gates	workflow-state-patterns
Skill discovery	Keyword triggers	skill-activation-patterns

When Project Uses Different Approach

If the project uses a different method, determine:

Question	Verdict	Action
"Is this approach inferior?"	Deficient	Recommend canonical pattern
"Is this a valid domain-specific choice?"	Respectable	Acknowledge and document trade-offs
"Is this actually better?"	Superior	Learn from it, consider adopting

Evaluation Criteria

## Deficiency Indicators (recommend change)
- Reinventing what skillmaker already solved
- Missing enforcement (MUST keywords without hooks)
- Ignoring known anti-patterns
- Unnecessary complexity vs canonical approach

## Domain-Specific Indicators (respect choice)
- Different constraints that invalidate canonical approach
- Performance requirements that justify deviation
- Ecosystem compatibility requirements
- Documented rationale for deviation

Example: MCP Analysis

When project uses MCP:

1. Load: Skill("forge-editor:mcp-gateway-patterns")
2. Check: Is Daemon SSE pattern being used?
3. If not:
   • Is there a documented reason?
   • Does their approach handle subagent isolation?
   • Recommend Daemon pattern if deficient

Core Questions (6 Questions)

Ask these questions for every component:

1. Existence Justification

- "Why is this here?"
- "What breaks if we remove it?"
- "Can it be replaced with something else?"

2. Intent-Implementation Alignment

- "Does the name reflect the actual role?"
- "Does declared purpose match actual behavior?"
- "Are documentation and code synchronized?"

3. Consistency

- "Are similar things being handled differently?"
- "Are patterns A and B mixed?"
- "Is exceptional handling justified?"

4. Unused Capabilities

- "Is there something declared but not used?"
- "Is there something implemented but never called?"
- "Why isn't it being used?"

5. Complexity Justification

- "Is this complexity truly necessary?"
- "Is there a simpler alternative?"
- "Is this over-engineering?"

6. Fundamental Redesign 🔥

"Idiots, this solves everything - why can't you see it?"

Beyond conservative solutions (deletion, exceptions, workarounds), ask questions that eliminate constraints themselves:

- "If this problem keeps recurring, isn't the system itself wrong?"
- "Are we taking this constraint/limitation for granted?"
- "Is there a completely different approach?"
- "If there's a 10x better method, what is it?"
- "If we rebuilt this from scratch, how would we do it?"

When to apply:

• Same type of problem found 3+ times
• Conservative solution feels like a "band-aid"
• Feeling of "why is this so complicated?"

---

Analysis Process

Step 1: Component Inventory

# Collect all components
agents/*.md, skills/*/SKILL.md, commands/*.md, hooks/hooks.json

Step 2: Relationship Mapping

From	To	Relationship
command	agent	invokes via Task
agent	skill	loads via Skill() or frontmatter
hook	agent/skill	triggers on events

Step 3: Apply Core Questions

Apply 6 questions to each component and discover inconsistencies

Step 4: Organize Findings

Output Format

### Philosophical Analysis Results

| Finding | Question | Suggestion |
|---------|----------|------------|
| {what} | {why?} | {alternative} |

---

Red Flags (Signals That Require Immediate Questioning)

Signal	Question	Details
In agents/ but tools: []	"Is this an agent or documentation?"	Read("references/intent-vs-implementation.md")
Declared skills unused	"Why declared but not used?"	Read("references/unused-capability-detection.md")
90%+ similar workflows separated	"Is there a reason not to consolidate?"	Read("references/architectural-smell-catalog.md")
20+ Hooks	"Is this over-engineering?"	Complexity justification required
Components with overlapping responsibilities	"Are boundaries clear?"	Role redefinition required
Non-canonical pattern used	"Is skillmaker's canonical approach applicable?"	Load relevant skill and compare

---

Solution Synthesis

Diagnosis + Prescription = Consulting

When problems are found, provide solutions at two levels:

Level 1: Conservative Solutions

Solutions found within existing patterns/skills:

Finding Pattern	Related Skill	Solution Reference
MCP/Gateway issues	mcp-gateway-patterns	references/daemon-shared-server.md
Skill design issues	skill-design	references/structure-rules.md
Agent orchestration	orchestration-patterns	references/context-isolation.md
Hook related	hook-templates	references/full-examples.md
Workflow state	workflow-state-patterns	references/complete-workflow-example.md

Level 2: Radical Solutions 🔥

"If you're confident, propose it even if it's not in existing patterns"

When conservative solutions feel like band-aids, consider:

Situation	Radical Question	Possible Proposal
Same problem recurring	"Is the system structure wrong?"	Full architecture redesign
Exceptions outnumber rules	"Is the rule itself wrong?"	Discard and redefine rules
Complex workarounds	"Why not tackle it head-on?"	Remove the constraint itself
Compatibility band-aids	"What if we drop legacy?"	Execute breaking change
Slow improvements	"What if we rebuild from scratch?"	Clean slate reconstruction

Criteria for proposing radical solutions:

1. First explain limits of conservative solution
2. Explicitly state trade-offs of radical solution
3. Indicate confidence level (High/Medium/Exploratory)
4. Provide concrete execution steps

Output format:

### 🔥 Radical Solution: {proposal}

**Why this is right**:
{rationale - fundamental limits of existing approach}

**Trade-off**:
- Gains: {benefits}
- Losses: {costs}

**Confidence Level**: High | Medium | Exploratory

**Execution Steps**:
1. {step 1}
2. {step 2}
...

Detailed process: Read("references/solution-synthesis.md")

---

Quick Checklist

Items to verify quickly during analysis:

• Do all agents/ actually function as agents?
• Do skill declarations match Skill() usage?
• Can similar Hooks be extracted into common patterns?
• Are there old architecture remnants in documentation?
• Can each component's existence be explained in one sentence?
• Does the project follow skillmaker's canonical patterns?
• If different approach used, is there documented rationale?