| name | logic-explain |
| description | Explain what a specific piece of code actually does for a given input by producing a step-by-step execution trace (interprocedural, with name resolution and type transitions). Trigger when the user is confused about behavior or asks why code produces X instead of Y — "walk me through this", "trace through X with input Y", "why does this return X", "what does yield-from do here", "explain the execution path". SCOPE HARD RULE: a specific function + a specific input scenario. If the user wants to find bugs without a scenario in mind, use logic-review; two-version comparison uses logic-diff; concrete failures use logic-locate; codebase-wide audit uses logic-health. Do NOT trigger for: finding bugs without a behavioral question, style or design discussion, or concept explanations not tied to specific code.
|
Logic-Lens — Execution Explain
Setup
Use lazy loading per ../_shared/common.md §13:
- Read
../_shared/common.md only for language, report header variants, scope routing, and loading budget.
- Read only the relevant step in
logic-explain-guide.md as you reach it.
- Load
../_shared/semiformal-guide.md, ../_shared/semiformal-checklist.md, and ../_shared/report-template.md on demand when the current step needs them.
Note: logic-risks.md is intentionally skipped — logic-explain does not produce L-code findings, and Remedy is intentionally out of scope for this mode. If the trace reveals a bug, stop and recommend logic-review or logic-locate. When handing off, do not discard work already done — present the premises established and trace steps completed under a "Partial trace context (carry into next skill):" heading so the user can pass them directly to the follow-on skill.
Process
Step 0. Language + scope routing. Detect language per common.md §1. Confirm a single function + a single input scenario. If the user wants bug-finding without a scenario, hand off to logic-review.
Step 1. Entry point and scenario (guide Step 1) — name the function, the input scenario, and what the user is trying to understand.
Step 2. Build premises (guide Step 2) — resolve every non-obvious name, state the types of key variables at entry, note global/module state accessed.
Step 3. Produce step-by-step trace (guide Step 3) — numbered, interprocedural, active voice; cross function boundaries whenever relevant to the user's scenario. Keep the trace scenario-bound; do not branch into alternative paths unless they explain the user's confusion.
Step 4. Highlight non-obvious behavior (guide Step 4) — name resolutions, implicit coercions, hidden side effects; the "gotchas" the casual reader would miss.
Step 5. Summarize actual vs. assumed (guide Step 5) — one sentence each; this is the core value for the user.
Mode line in report: Execution Explain (Chinese: 执行解释).
Note: Execution Explain is descriptive, not evaluative. Omit the Logic Score / Fault Confidence / Verdict line from the report header.
