Review software architecture, including package cohesion and inter-package coupling
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Five-Whys Root-Cause Analysis.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
@${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-control.md @${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-skill.md @${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../meta/ase-getopt.md
<purpose name="ase-meta-why"> Five-Whys Root-Cause Analysis </purpose><expand name="getopt" arg1="ase-meta-why" arg2="--depth|-d=5 --width|-w=1"> $ARGUMENTS </expand>
<objective> Apply the *Five-Whys* *root-cause analysis* technique to investigate the following problem:<problem>Why <getopt-arguments/>?</problem>
For this, iteratively ask "why" to drill down from symptoms to the root-cause. This helps to identify the fundamental reason behind a problem rather than just addressing surface-level symptoms. </objective>
<flow>State the problem statement.
<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-signal/> **PROBLEM**: <problem/> </template> </step>Find the root-cause of <problem/> by following this iteration cycle. Start with a <question/> set equal to the <problem/>.
Determine the maximum chain length from <getopt-option-depth/>: set <depth/> to <getopt-option-depth/>; if <getopt-option-depth/> is non-numeric or less than or equal to 0, use the default 5 instead.
Determine the maximum chain width from <getopt-option-width/>: set <width/> to <getopt-option-width/>; if <getopt-option-width/> is non-numeric or less than or equal to 0, use the default 1 instead.
Walk a single causality chain (the classic Five-Whys):
Start with <n>1</n> (set iteration counter to one).
<while condition="<n/> is less than or equal to <depth/>">Ask <question/> and document the answer in <answer/> with the following template.
Don't stop at symptoms; keep digging for systemic issues.
Consider technical, domain-specific, process-related, or organizational causes.
<template>
<ase-tpl-bullet-secondary/> **WHY <n/>**: <answer/>
</template>
Then, for the next iteration, set <question/> now to be the last <answer/>.
The magic is NOT in exactly <depth/> "Whys" -- you can <break/>
the iteration when you have already reached the root-cause.
Finally, set <n/> to <n/> + 1 (increment iteration counter).
</while>
</if>
Walk a widened causality chain: at each "why" level, surface up to <width/> candidate sub-causes, then commit to the single most significant one and descend into it (the chain stays single-rooted -- the extra candidates are not each drilled to their own root-cause). Their purpose is to guard against premature commitment to the wrong sub-cause: by enumerating the plausible alternatives at each level, the chosen descent is a justified selection rather than the first plausible answer, and the unchosen candidates remain on record as fallbacks to backtrack into (see STEP 3) should the chosen path fail validation.
Remember the unchosen candidates of every level (keep them in <fallbacks/>, tagged by their level <n/>), so STEP 3 can backtrack into them.
Start with <n>1</n> (set iteration counter to one).
<while condition="<n/> is less than or equal to <depth/>">Ask <question/> and surface up to <width/> *distinct*,
*non-overlapping* candidate sub-causes, each documented in <answer-k/>.
Let <count/> be the number of candidates you actually surfaced
(at least one, at most <width/>).
Don't stop at symptoms; keep digging for systemic issues.
Explore *different* candidates -- technical, domain-specific,
process-related, or organizational causes -- and avoid restating
the same cause in different words.
Start with <k>1</k> (set candidate counter to one).
<while condition="<k/> is less than or equal to <count/>">
<template>
<ase-tpl-bullet-secondary/> **WHY <n/>.<k/>**: <answer-k/>
</template>
Set <k/> to <k/> + 1 (increment candidate counter).
</while>
Then choose, among the <answer-k/>, the *most causally-significant*
candidate -- the one most likely to lead to the true root-cause --
set <chosen-k/> to its candidate index (the <k/> of the chosen
<answer-k/>), and *justify* the choice in one line (state explicitly
*why* it beats the other candidates, e.g. it alone also explains the
timing, scope, or magnitude of the level's fact). A bare "most
significant" is *not* sufficient; if no candidate clearly dominates,
say so.
<template>
<ase-tpl-bullet-secondary/> **WHY <n/> → chosen <n/>.<chosen-k/>**: <justification/>
</template>
Record the remaining candidates as <fallbacks/> for level <n/>.
Then, for the next iteration, set <question/> to the chosen candidate.
You can <break/> the iteration when the chosen candidate has already
reached its root-cause.
Finally, set <n/> to <n/> + 1 (increment iteration counter).
</while>
</if>
Validate the root-cause by working backwards along the chosen causality chain: check, level by level, that each chosen sub-cause genuinely causes the fact above it (and that fixing the final root-cause would dissolve the whole chain up to the original <problem/>).
When <width/> is greater than 1 and this backward validation fails at some level <m/> -- i.e. the chosen sub-cause does not adequately explain the fact above it -- backtrack: discard the chosen sub-cause (and every chosen sub-cause below it) from level <m/> downward, pick the next-best candidate from level <m/>'s <fallbacks/>, and resume the STEP 2 widened descent: set <n/> to <m/> (reset the iteration counter to the failed level), set <question/> to the picked candidate, and re-enter STEP 2's <while condition="<n/> is less than or equal to <depth/>"/> loop at that level -- so the original <depth/> budget is honored from <m/> downward. Repeat until a chain survives backward validation or level <m/>'s <fallbacks/> are exhausted (then report the strongest chain found and note that no candidate fully validated). This is the payoff of <width/> greater than 1: the enumerated alternatives let the analysis recover from a wrong turn instead of committing to a mis-rooted chain.
Propose a solution that addresses and solves the validated root-cause. For the proposed solution, optionally directly propose corresponding source code changes.
<template> <ase-tpl-bullet-signal/> **SOLUTION**: <solution/> </template> </step>まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Review software architecture, including package cohesion and inter-package coupling
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Discover additional, third-party components (libraries/frameworks) for the technology stack to provide needed functionality.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Analyze the source code for problems in either the logic and semantics and its related control flow, performance and efficiency, or security.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Craft Source Code: Use when user wants to "create", "add", or "craft" a new feature from scratch.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Edit Source Code: Use when the user wants to "edit" the code base in one shot from a query or a bare analyzer issue id like "P1", fusing crafting, refactoring, and resolving with optional grilling, verification, looping, and Git worktree isolation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Explains code with WHAT, WHY, ANALOGY, DIAGRAM, CRUXES, and GOTCHAS. Use when you want to know how code works or when the user asks "how does this work?"
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。