analyze

name	analyze
description	Run read-only deep repository analysis and return a ranked synthesis with explicit confidence, concrete file references, and clear evidence-vs-inference boundaries. Use when a user says 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing', or needs grounded cross-file explanation before any changes are proposed.

Analyze — Read-Only Deep Analysis

Use this skill to answer the user’s question through read-only repository analysis. The goal is to explain what the codebase most likely says about the question, not to drift into implementation, debugging theater, or generic fix planning.

Use $analyze when

• the user wants a grounded explanation, not code changes
• the answer requires reading multiple files or tracing behavior across boundaries
• there are several plausible explanations and they need to be ranked
• confidence should reflect the strength of the available evidence
• the user wants to understand architecture, behavior, causality, impact, or tradeoffs before changing anything

Examples:

• why a workflow behaves a certain way
• how a feature is wired across modules
• what likely explains a failure, regression, or mismatch
• what would be impacted by changing a dependency or contract
• which interpretation of the current codebase is best supported

Do not use $analyze when

• the user explicitly wants code edits, a fix, or execution — use the appropriate implementation lane instead
• the user wants a new product plan or acceptance criteria — use $plan / $ralplan
• the request is a simple one-file fact lookup — read the file and answer directly
• the request is purely about running the OMX tmux team runtime — use $team only when OMX runtime is active

Non-negotiable contract

Analyze is read-only by contract.

• Do not edit files.
• Do not turn the answer into an implementation plan.
• Do not recommend fixes as the primary output.
• Do not silently switch into execution work.
• Do not overclaim certainty.
• Do not invent facts that are not supported by repository evidence.
• Do not use judgmental, normative, or speculative language that outruns the evidence.

If a next step is helpful, keep it to a discriminating read-only probe that would reduce uncertainty.

Question-aligned synthesis

Answer the user’s actual question first.

• Start from the asked question, not a generic debugger template.
• Keep the synthesis scoped to what the user needs to know.
• Scale the depth to the request: for simple or obvious questions, reduce swarm intensity and answer directly after enough reading.
• For broader questions, expand the search surface but keep the final answer tightly synthesized.

Evidence rules

Maintain an explicit evidence-vs-inference distinction. Every material claim must be labeled as one of:

1. Evidence — directly supported by concrete repository artifacts
2. Inference — a reasoned conclusion drawn from evidence
3. Unknown — a question the current repository evidence does not resolve

Never present an inference as if it were direct evidence. Never present a guess as if it were an inference. Call out uncertainty explicitly when the codebase does not settle the question.

Acceptable evidence

Prefer stronger evidence over weaker evidence:

1. direct code paths, contracts, tests, generated artifacts, configs, or docs with concrete file references
2. multiple independent files pointing to the same conclusion
3. localized behavioral inference from well-supported code structure
4. weaker contextual clues that remain explicitly marked as tentative

Unsupported speculation is not evidence.

Parallel exploration policy

Parallel exploration is allowed when it improves quality, but it must stay runtime-safe.

• Default to direct read-only analysis when the answer is simple.
• When parallelism helps, prefer native subagents by default or equivalent in-session parallel exploration when available.
• Keep parallel lanes bounded: each lane should answer a concrete sub-question or inspect a specific subsystem.
• Use $team only when OMX runtime is active and durable tmux-based coordination is actually needed.
• Do not imply that $team is available in plain Codex/App sessions.

A good default split for complex analysis is:

• one lane for primary code path / contracts
• one lane for config / orchestration / generated surfaces
• one lane for tests / docs / secondary corroboration

Execution policy

• Default to outcome-first progress and completion reporting: state the question, evidence, inference boundaries, and stop condition before adding process detail.
• Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints.
• If the user says continue, keep working from the current analysis state instead of restarting discovery.

Working method

1. Restate the question in one sentence.
2. Identify the smallest set of files most likely to answer it.
3. Read for direct evidence first.
4. If needed, open bounded parallel exploration lanes.
5. Compare competing explanations.
6. Rank the explanations by support.
7. Return a synthesis that clearly separates evidence from inference.

Output contract

Structure the answer so the user can see what is known, what is inferred, and how confident the synthesis is.

Question

[Restate the user’s question briefly]

Ranked synthesis

Rank	Explanation	Confidence	Basis
1	...	High / Medium / Low	strongest supporting evidence
2	...	High / Medium / Low	why it trails
3	...	High / Medium / Low	why it remains possible

Evidence

• path/to/file:line-line — what this artifact directly shows
• path/to/file:line-line — corroborating evidence

Inference

• What the evidence most strongly implies
• Why weaker alternatives were down-ranked

Unknowns / limits

• What the repository evidence does not establish
• What would need to be checked next to reduce uncertainty

Quality bar

A good analyze response is:

• read-only and question-aligned
• ranked rather than flat
• explicit about confidence
• concrete about file references
• careful about evidence vs inference
• free of unsupported speculation
• free of normative drift or judgmental filler
• explicit about the evidence-vs-inference distinction
• concise for simple cases, broader only when the question truly needs it