triz-analysis

name	triz-analysis
version	0.2.10
description	Run a systematic TRIZ contradiction audit against a codebase, architecture, or workflow to identify hidden trade-offs and innovation opportunities. Use this skill when facing design trade-offs, contradictory requirements, or when needing to identify innovation opportunities through systematic contradiction analysis — even if they just say "run a TRIZ audit" or "find contradictions in this design". Not for triz-solver.
category	analysis
license	MIT

TRIZ Analysis

Systematic innovation audit for software systems, architectures, and workflows.

When to Use

• Auditing a repository for technical contradictions
• Reviewing a CI/CD pipeline or workflow for hidden trade-offs
• Analyzing an architecture for scalability vs. complexity bottlenecks
• Performing a swarm-based TRIZ audit on a project

Input Requirements

• Target Scope: The specific directory, pipeline, or framework to analyze (e.g., scripts/, CI pipeline, agent-coordination skill).

Output Convention

All agent-generated analysis must be written to the analysis/ directory using the following naming convention: analysis/triz-<scope>-YYYY-MM-DD.md

Example: analysis/triz-scripts-2025-05-20.md

Audit Process

1. SCOPE SCAN: Examine the target scope for existing "pain points" or "trade-offs".
2. CONTRADICTION DISCOVERY: Identify technical contradictions: "Improving [X] in this scope causes [Y] to worsen".
3. PRINCIPLE MAPPING: Map discovered contradictions to TRIZ inventive principles.
4. INNOVATION ROADMAP: Propose specific architectural or process changes based on TRIZ resolutions.
5. REPORT: Document findings in the analysis/ directory.

Core Protocol

Contradiction-First Approach

1. SCAN the scope
2. IDENTIFY contradiction: "Improving [X] causes [Y] to worsen"
3. CHECK if contradiction is real or apparent
4. RESOLVE using separation principles
5. DOCUMENT findings in analysis/

Ideal Final Result (IFR) for Audits

"The ideal system performs its function with zero overhead"

1. What is the ideal outcome for this scope?
2. What prevents reaching it? (current architecture/process constraints)
3. Which constraints are real vs assumed?

Contradiction Matrix (Software)

Improving	vs Worsening	→ Principle
Functionality	vs Complexity	#1, #9, #15
Performance	vs Maintainability	#7, #13, #17
Flexibility	vs Simplicity	#6, #2, #3
Security	vs Usability	#12, #4, #17
Scalability	vs Resource Cost	#1, #13, #35

Integration with Other Skills

• agent-coordination: Can be orchestrated as a swarm sub-task where multiple agents analyze different parts of the scope.
• goap-agent: Use to break down a large repository audit into smaller, scoped TRIZ analyses (Phase 2).

Quality Checklist

✓ Target scope clearly defined ✓ Discovered contradictions explicitly stated ✓ Recommendations mapped to TRIZ inventive principles ✓ Findings saved to analysis/triz-<scope>-YYYY-MM-DD.md

See Also

• triz-solver — Problem-solving mode (vs audit mode)
• goap-agent — Orchestrator that uses TRIZ analysis; also breaks down audit findings into tasks

Rationalizations

Rationalization	Reality
"This code works fine, no contradictions exist"	Every system has trade-offs; the audit's purpose is to surface hidden ones, not confirm existing state.
"TRIZ is too theoretical for my codebase"	TRIZ principles map directly to software patterns like IoC, segmentation, and polymorphism.

Red Flags

• Skipping the contradiction statement and jumping straight to solutions
• Defining contradictions too vaguely to map to specific TRIZ principles
• Not saving findings to the analysis/ directory as specified

References

• references/principles.md - All 40 TRIZ principles with software examples
• references/patterns.md - Common software contradiction patterns and resolutions
• references/evolution.md - TRIZ evolution trends for system design

Voice & Context

• Default: professional + blog
• Reference: voice-profiles skill for definitions and auto-detection.