shaun0927/codex-superskills/analyze

<Purpose> Analyze performs deep investigation of architecture, bugs, performance issues, and dependencies. It routes to the architect agent or Codex MCP for thorough analysis and returns structured findings with evidence. </Purpose>

<Use_When>

• User says "analyze", "investigate", "debug", "why does", or "what's causing"
• User needs to understand a system's architecture or behavior before making changes
• User wants root cause analysis of a bug or performance issue
• User needs dependency analysis or impact assessment for a proposed change
• User asks for broad codebase analysis and wants hotspots or refactor priorities
• A complex question requires reading multiple files and reasoning across them

</Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

• User wants code changes made -- use executor agents or ralph instead
• User wants a full plan with acceptance criteria -- use plan skill instead
• User wants a quick file lookup or symbol search -- use explore agent instead
• User asks a simple factual question that can be answered from one file -- just read and answer directly

</Do_Not_Use_When>

<Why_This_Exists> Deep investigation requires a different approach than quick lookups or code changes. Analysis tasks need broad context gathering, cross-file reasoning, and structured findings. Routing these to the architect agent or Codex ensures the right level of depth without the overhead of a full planning or execution workflow. </Why_This_Exists>

<Execution_Policy>

• Prefer Codex MCP for analysis when available (faster, lower cost)
• Fall back to architect Codex agent when Codex is unavailable
• Always provide context files to the analysis tool for grounded reasoning
• Return structured findings, not just raw observations

</Execution_Policy>

<Codebase_Analysis_Playbook> When the user asks for broad codebase analysis, return this minimum structure:

• Architecture map: Key modules, responsibilities, and primary data/control flow
• Risk hotspots: Fragile, high-churn, or high-blast-radius files with evidence
• Quality gaps: Test gaps, observability blind spots, and dependency risks
• Prioritized actions: Top 3-5 improvements with effort level and expected impact
• Unknowns: Open questions or assumptions that block certainty

If scope is too large, do a fast first-pass over high-signal directories, then recommend a narrowed second pass. </Codebase_Analysis_Playbook>

<Steps>

1. Identify the analysis type: Architecture, bug investigation, performance, or dependency analysis
2. Gather relevant context: Read or identify the key files involved
3. Route to analyzer:

• Preferred: ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" and relevant context_files
• Fallback: Task(subagent_type="superskills:architect", model="high-reasoning", prompt="Analyze: ...")

1. Return structured findings: Present the analysis with evidence, file references, and actionable recommendations

</Steps>

<Tool_Usage>

• Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools
• Use ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" as the preferred analysis route
• Pass context_files with all relevant source files for grounded analysis
• Use Task(subagent_type="superskills:architect", model="high-reasoning", ...) as fallback when ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable
• For broad analysis, use explore agent first to identify relevant files before routing to architect

</Tool_Usage>

<Examples> <Good> User: "analyze why the WebSocket connections drop after 30 seconds" Action: Gather WebSocket-related files, route to architect with context, return root cause analysis with specific file:line references and a recommended fix. Why good: Clear investigation target, structured output with evidence. </Good>

<Good> User: "investigate the dependency chain from src/api/routes.ts" Action: Use explore agent to map the import graph, then route to architect for impact analysis. Why good: Uses explore for fact-gathering, architect for reasoning. </Good>

<Bad> User: "analyze the auth module" Action: Returning "The auth module handles authentication." Why bad: Shallow summary without investigation. Should examine the module's structure, patterns, potential issues, and provide specific findings with file references. </Bad>

<Bad> User: "fix the bug in the parser" Action: Running analysis skill. Why bad: This is a fix request, not an analysis request. Route to executor or ralph instead. </Bad> </Examples>

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

• If analysis reveals the issue requires code changes, report findings and recommend using ralph or executor for the fix
• If the analysis scope is too broad ("analyze everything"), provide a first-pass hotspot report and ask for narrowed follow-up scope
• If Codex is unavailable and the architect agent also fails, report what context was gathered and suggest manual investigation paths

</Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

<Final_Checklist>

• [ ] Analysis addresses the specific question or investigation target
• [ ] Findings reference specific files and line numbers where applicable
• [ ] Root causes are identified (not just symptoms) for bug investigations
• [ ] Actionable recommendations are provided
• [ ] Analysis distinguishes between confirmed facts and hypotheses
• [ ] For broad codebase requests, output includes architecture map, hotspots, and prioritized next actions

</Final_Checklist>

Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}