analyze

---
name: analyze
description: Universal multi-perspective analyzer for any topic, file, idea, or decision. Extract key points, find gaps/risks, identify improvements with actionable plans.
license: MIT
---

# Universal Analyzer

**A standalone skill for multi-perspective analysis of any topic, file, idea, or decision.**

Use when:
- Need to extract KEY POINTS from anything
- Want multi-perspective gap/risk analysis (4-10 experts)
- Need improvement opportunities with actionable plans
- Want quick summary OR deep analysis mode
- Need first-principles brief that challenges assumptions

Triggers: "analyze", "key points", "what's important", "improve this", "review", "examine", "assess", "analysis", "deep analysis", "run deep analysis", "brief", "challenge assumptions", "first principles"

## Agent Capabilities

| Capability | Used For | Required | Fallback |
|------------|----------|----------|----------|
| File read | Load target files/folders | Yes | — |
| Sub-agent dispatch | Parallel perspective analysis | Recommended | Sequential in main thread |
| Codebase intelligence (`npx codebase-intelligence`) | Structural analysis for TS/TSX software domain | No | Pure reasoning from file contents |

This skill remains fully functional without CLI tools. Codebase intelligence is an optional enhancement for the software domain only.

---

## Table of Contents

1. [Quick Start](#quick-start)
2. [Analysis Modes](#analysis-modes)
3. [Execution Flow](#execution-flow)
4. [Output Formats](#output-formats)
5. [Perspectives Library](#perspectives-library)
6. [Thinking Framework](#thinking-framework)
7. [First-Principles Analysis](#first-principles-analysis)
8. [Examples](#examples)

---

## Quick Start

```bash
# Quick analysis (fast key points)
analyze quick "our pricing strategy"
analyze brief src/api/auth.ts

# Standard analysis (default)
analyze "SaaS product for developers"
analyze "should I accept this job offer"
analyze package.json

# Deep analysis (comprehensive)
analyze deep "company rebrand strategy"
analyze thorough "migration to microservices"
```

---

## Analysis Modes

| Mode | Triggers | Agents | Duration | Output |
|------|----------|--------|----------|--------|
| **Quick** | "quick", "fast", "brief", "summary" | 0-1 | 30-60s | Key Points + Actions |
| **Standard** | (default) | 4-6 | 2-4min | Multi-Perspective + Roadmap |
| **Deep** | "deep", "thorough", "comprehensive" | 6-10 | 5-8min | Full Synthesis + Detailed Plan |

---

## Execution Flow

### Phase 0: Detection
1. **Mode**: Detect from keywords (quick/standard/deep)
2. **Domain**: Auto-detect from content/keywords
3. **Target**: Load file/folder content if path provided
4. **TypeScript detection**: If target is a code path and `tsconfig.json` exists:
   - Detection gate: `tsconfig.json` exists + `npx codebase-intelligence --help` succeeds
   - For full CLI reference, fetch `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bntvllnt/codebase-intelligence/main/llms.txt`
   - If available: gather structural data in Phase 1
   - If unavailable: proceed with pure file-reading context gathering

### Phase 1: Context Gathering
- **File/folder path** → Read files
- **Software domain + TypeScript + CI available** → Augment file reading with:
  - `npx codebase-intelligence overview --json <path>` → project structure snapshot
  - `npx codebase-intelligence modules --json <path>` → module boundaries and cross-deps
  - `npx codebase-intelligence groups --json <path>` → directory-level aggregates
  Include as structured context alongside file contents. If CI unavailable: read files only.
- **Topic/idea** → Use provided context
- **Unfamiliar domain** → Optional web search

### Phase 2: Analysis

#### Quick Mode
Direct analysis by primary agent, no sub-agents

#### Standard Mode
1. Select 4-6 perspectives based on domain
2. Launch all perspectives in parallel (single message block)
3. Each agent answers 7 core questions

#### Deep Mode
1. Select 6-10 perspectives based on domain
2. Launch all perspectives in parallel (single message block)
3. Each agent answers 12 questions (7 core + 5 deep)

#### Software Domain Enhancement (TypeScript + CI available)

Include pre-computed structural data in software domain agent prompts:
- `npx codebase-intelligence hotspots --json --metric complexity --limit 20` → complexity/churn hotspots
- `npx codebase-intelligence forces --json` → cohesion/coupling tensions per module
- `npx codebase-intelligence dead-exports --json --limit 20` → unused export analysis
- `npx codebase-intelligence clusters --json` → dependency community clusters

Agents receive this as structured context alongside the target content. Supplements their analysis — does not replace independent reasoning. If CI unavailable: agents analyze from file contents only.

### Phase 3: Synthesis
After ALL agents complete:
1. Aggregate Failure Hypotheses → prioritize Critical→High→Med→Low
2. Extract TOP 10 key points → rank by consensus
3. Identify gaps → Critical/High/Medium/Low
4. Generate actionable roadmap with dependencies

---

## Output Formats

### Quick Mode

```markdown
# Quick Analysis: [Target]

**Mode**: Quick | **Domain**: [Domain] | **Date**: [Date]

## The Essence
[1-2 sentences: What this ACTUALLY is at its core, stripped of complexity]

## Verified Facts
- [Fact 1] — evidence: `path/file:line` or [source]
- [Fact 2] — evidence: ...
- [Fact 3] — evidence: ...

## Key Points (Top 5-10)
1. **[Most Important]**: [Explanation]
2. **[Second]**: [Explanation]
...

## Assumptions to Challenge

| Assumption | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Verdict |
|------------|-------------|------------------|---------|
| [Assumed thing] | [If any] | [If any] | Validate/Keep/Discard |

## What You Haven't Considered

1. **[Critical Item]**: [Why this matters, what to do about it]
2. **[Hidden Risk/Opportunity]**: [Explanation]
3. **[Simpler Alternative?]**: [If exists, describe it]

## The Real Question
[Reframe what the user should actually be asking about this]

## Quick Actions (Top 3-5)
- [ ] [Action 1] - [Why/Impact]
- [ ] [Action 2] - [Why/Impact]
- [ ] [Action 3] - [Why/Impact]

## Critical Risk to Watch
[The one thing that could derail this]
```

### Standard Mode

```markdown
# Analysis: [Target]

**Mode**: Standard | **Domain**: [Domain] | **Perspectives**: [Count]
**Date**: [Date] | **Hypotheses**: [Count] total

## The Essence
[1-2 sentences: What this ACTUALLY is at its core, stripped of complexity]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences capturing most critical findings]

## First-Principles Analysis

### Verified Facts
- [Fact 1] — evidence: `path/file:line` or [source] — confidence: High/Medium/Low
- [Fact 2] — evidence: ... — confidence: ...

### Assumptions to Challenge

| Assumption | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Verdict |
|------------|-------------|------------------|---------|
| [Assumed thing] | [If any] | [If any] | Validate/Keep/Discard |

### What You Haven't Considered

1. **[Critical Item]**: [Why this matters, what to do about it]
2. **[Hidden Risk/Opportunity]**: [Explanation]
3. **[Simpler Alternative?]**: [If exists, describe it]
4. **[Downstream Impact]**: [What this affects that wasn't mentioned]

### The Real Question
[Reframe what the user should actually be asking about this]

## Failure Hypotheses (Aggregated)

| ID | Type | IF (Trigger) | THEN (Failure) | BECAUSE | Sev | Mitigation |
|----|------|--------------|----------------|---------|-----|------------|
| S001 | Security | ... | ... | ... | Crit | ... |
| M001 | Misuse | ... | ... | ... | High | ... |

### Critical Mitigations Required
- [ ] {mitigation} ← Addresses: S001, M001

## Key Points (Ranked by Importance)

### Consensus Points (Flagged by 3+ perspectives)
1. **[Point]** - [Why important] (Flagged by: [Perspectives])

### Important Points
2. **[Point]** - [Explanation]

### Divergent Views
- **[Topic]**: [Perspective A] sees X, [Perspective B] sees Y
  - *Implication*: [What this tension means]

## Gap Analysis

### Critical Gaps (Action Required)
| Gap | Flagged By | Impact | Suggested Action |
|-----|------------|--------|------------------|
| ... | ... | High | ... |

### High Priority Gaps
[Grouped by theme]

## Improvement Opportunities

### Top 5 Improvements
1. **[Improvement]**: [Details] - Expected Impact: [High/Medium/Low]

## Action Plan & Roadmap

### Immediate Actions (This Week)
| Action | Owner | Dependencies | Success Criteria |
|--------|-------|--------------|------------------|
| ... | [TBD] | None | ... |

### Short-term (1-2 Weeks)
| Action | Dependencies | Resources Needed | Outcome |
|--------|--------------|------------------|---------|
| ... | Immediate #1 | ... | ... |

## Cross-cutting Concerns
[Issues flagged by 3+ perspectives]
```

### Deep Mode

Deep mode extends Standard format with:
- Additional 5 questions per agent (12 total)
- Medium-term (1 Month) and Long-term (3+ Months) roadmap sections
- Dependency map visualization
- Risk mitigation table
- More detailed failure hypotheses

---

## Perspectives Library

### Domain Detection

Analyze content/keywords to auto-detect domain:

| Domain | Trigger Keywords | Example Targets |
|--------|------------------|-----------------|
| **business** | startup, business, market, revenue | "coffee subscription", business-plan.md |
| **product** | product, feature, user, MVP | "habit tracking app", roadmap.md |
| **software** | API, code, function, class, tech | src/auth, package.json |
| **process** | workflow, process, SOP, operations | "hiring workflow", "incident response" |
| **document** | doc, article, proposal, report | "resume", proposal.docx |
| **research** | research, study, hypothesis, data | "hypothesis: remote work" |
| **creative** | design, art, brand, visual | "rebrand", logo-designs/ |
| **personal** | decision, "should I", career, life | "moving to Austin", "career change" |
| **legal** | contract, legal, policy, terms | "employment contract" |
| **financial** | budget, investment, cost, ROI | "Q4 budget", "pricing strategy" |
| **marketing** | campaign, marketing, sales, brand | "email campaign", "launch strategy" |
| **event** | event, conference, launch | "product launch", "conference plan" |
| **education** | course, curriculum, teaching | "bootcamp curriculum" |
| **general** | (fallback when no domain matches) | Any general topic |

### Perspective Roles by Domain

#### Business Domain
1. **Startup Founder** - Viability, growth, scalability
2. **Investor** - ROI, risk, market size
3. **CFO** - Unit economics, burn rate, margins
4. **Customer** - Value proposition, willingness to pay
5. **Competitor** - Differentiation, competitive moats
6. **Market Analyst** - TAM, trends, timing

#### Product Domain
1. **Product Manager** - User needs, roadmap, prioritization
2. **Designer (UX)** - Usability, user flows, accessibility
3. **Customer** - Actual use cases, pain points
4. **QA Engineer** - Edge cases, error states
5. **Data Analyst** - Metrics, success criteria
6. **Support Lead** - Maintenance burden, user confusion

#### Software Domain
1. **Security Engineer** - Vulnerabilities, attack vectors
2. **DevOps** - Deployment, monitoring, reliability
3. **Architect** - Design patterns, scalability, debt
4. **QA Engineer** - Test coverage, edge cases
5. **Performance Engineer** - Bottlenecks, resource usage
6. **Tech Lead** - Maintainability, team velocity

#### Process Domain
1. **Operator** - Daily execution, friction points
2. **Manager** - Efficiency, bottlenecks, metrics
3. **Employee** - Experience, clarity, pain points
4. **Auditor** - Compliance, documentation, risks
5. **Improvement Specialist** - Waste, optimization

#### Personal Domain
1. **Future You (1 year)** - Long-term impact
2. **Future You (5 years)** - Career trajectory
3. **Skeptic** - Risks, downsides, failure modes
4. **Supporter** - Strengths, opportunities
5. **Financial Advisor** - Money implications
6. **Life Coach** - Values alignment, fulfillment

#### General Domain (Fallback)
1. **Analyst** - Facts, data, patterns
2. **Critic** - Weaknesses, risks, gaps
3. **Advocate** - Strengths, opportunities
4. **Pragmatist** - Feasibility, resources, timeline
5. **Strategist** - Long-term implications, alternatives
6. **Devil's Advocate** - Unconsidered downsides

### Per-Agent Prompt Template

**Standard Mode (7 questions):**

```
You are a [Role]. Analyze:
TARGET: [content]

Answer these 7 questions:
1. KEY POINTS: 3-5 most important elements?
2. CORE INSIGHT: Single most critical thing?
3. GAPS: What's missing or incomplete?
4. RISKS: What could go wrong?
5. ASSUMPTIONS: What needs validation?
6. IMPROVEMENTS: Top 3 ways to improve?
7. BLIND SPOTS: What isn't being considered?

FAILURE HYPOTHESES: For each risk/gap:
| ID | IF (Trigger) | THEN (Failure) | BECAUSE | Severity | Mitigation |

Include MISUSE + ADVERSARIAL hypotheses.
Rate findings: Critical/High/Medium/Low
```

**Deep Mode (12 questions = 7 core + 5 additional):**

8. **DEPENDENCIES**: What does success depend on?
9. **ALTERNATIVES**: What other approaches should be considered?
10. **TIMELINE RISKS**: What could cause delays or failure?
11. **RESOURCE GAPS**: What's missing to execute well?
12. **SUCCESS METRICS**: How would you measure success?

---

## Thinking Framework

### The UltraThink Loop

```
THINK → CHECKLIST → PLAN → EXECUTE → VALIDATE → LEARN
```

#### Phase 0: THINK
**Select thinking model based on task type:**

| Model | When to Use | Pattern |
|-------|-------------|---------|
| **CoT** (Chain of Thought) | Linear, sequential tasks | Step-by-step reasoning |
| **ToT** (Tree of Thought) | Multiple valid paths, decisions | Evaluate branches, pick best |
| **Reflexion** | Learning from failure, retry logic | Analyze error → adjust → retry |
| **Decomposition** | Complex tasks, parallel work | Break into sub-problems |

**For Analysis:** Use **ToT** (multi-perspective evaluation) for Standard/Deep, **CoT** for Quick

#### Phase 1: CHECKLIST
- [ ] Mode detected (quick/standard/deep) [blocking]
- [ ] Domain identified [blocking]
- [ ] Target content accessible [blocking]
- [ ] Perspectives selected [blocking]
- [ ] Agents dispatched in parallel [blocking]
- [ ] All agents completed [blocking]
- [ ] Synthesis complete [advisory]

#### Phase 2: PLAN
**For Standard/Deep:**
```
1. Detect mode from keywords
2. Detect domain from content
3. Select N perspectives (4-6 for standard, 6-10 for deep)
4. Launch all agents in ONE message block
5. Wait for completion
6. Synthesize findings
7. Generate output
```

#### Phase 3: EXECUTE
Execute plan with progress tracking. On failure → trigger Reflexion (max 2 retries)

#### Phase 4: VALIDATE
- All agents returned findings? ✓
- Cross-cutting concerns identified? ✓
- Actionable roadmap generated? ✓

#### Phase 5: LEARN
Capture patterns for continuous improvement

### Self-Correction Guide

| Issue | Check | Fix | Escalate If |
|-------|-------|-----|-------------|
| Shallow analysis | Domain auto-detected? | Add specific perspectives | Still shallow after 2 retries |
| Mode mismatch | User keywords? | Ask for clarification | Agent count doesn't match |
| Weak synthesis | All agents complete? | Re-run failed agents | <3 perspectives useful |
| Wrong domain | Keywords ambiguous? | Ask user explicitly | Multiple domains equally valid |

**Max iterations**: 2 | **Escalation**: Ask user to specify domain/perspectives

---

## First-Principles Analysis

**Philosophy**: Don't just summarize—decompose to fundamentals, surface what's actually true vs assumed, and raise what the user hasn't considered. User must always get data to make their own decisions.

### A. Verified Facts (Separate from Assumptions)

- Only report what can be VERIFIED with evidence
- Include source: `path/file:line` or [URL]
- Mark confidence: High (verified) / Medium (inferred) / Low (stated but unverified)

### B. First-Principles Decomposition

Apply these questions to EVERYTHING found:

#### 1. Question Assumptions
- What's being assumed that hasn't been validated?
- Is this constraint real or inherited from old decisions?
- What would change if [assumption] were false?

#### 2. Decompose to Fundamentals
- What MUST be true for this to work?
- What are the actual dependencies (not just stated ones)?
- What's the irreducible core?

#### 3. Systems Thinking
- What else does this affect? (upstream/downstream)
- What's the blast radius if this fails?
- What's competing for the same resources?

#### 4. Root Cause vs Symptom
- Is the current state addressing root cause or masking symptoms?
- Why does this exist in its current form?
- What problem was this originally solving?

### C. Assumptions to Challenge (MANDATORY)

Every analysis MUST include this table:

| Assumption | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Verdict |
|------------|-------------|------------------|---------|
| [Assumed thing] | [If any] | [If any] | Validate/Keep/Discard |

### D. What You Haven't Considered (MANDATORY 2-4 items)

Surface items the user likely hasn't thought about:

| Category | What to Look For |
|----------|-----------------|
| **Unvalidated Assumptions** | Things treated as true without evidence |
| **Hidden Dependencies** | Non-obvious things this relies on |
| **Downstream Impacts** | What breaks if this changes |
| **Simpler Alternatives** | Is there a 10x simpler approach? |
| **Edge Cases** | What inputs/states break this? |
| **Technical Debt** | Shortcuts that will cost later |
| **Missing Pieces** | What's conspicuously absent? |

### E. The Real Question

Reframe what the user should actually be asking. Often the stated question isn't the right question.

---

## Examples

### Example 1: Quick Mode

```
Input: analyze quick "our pricing strategy"

Output:
# Quick Analysis: Pricing Strategy

**Mode**: Quick | **Domain**: Business | **Date**: 2026-01-28

## The Essence
A business decision about how to extract value from customers, constrained by market dynamics and competitive positioning.

## Verified Facts
- (Would include actual facts from provided content)

## Key Points
1. **Pricing = value capture, not cost recovery**: Price based on customer willingness to pay, not internal costs
2. **Anchor matters**: First price seen shapes all subsequent evaluations
...

## Assumptions to Challenge
| Assumption | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Verdict |
|------------|-------------|------------------|---------|
| "Customers will pay more if we add features" | Common belief | Often false - bloat reduces WTP | Validate with tests |

## What You Haven't Considered
1. **Price as a signal**: Low price may signal low quality, harming conversion
2. **Competitive response**: Price changes trigger competitor reactions
3. **Simplicity premium**: Simpler pricing often outperforms complex tiers

## The Real Question
Not "what price should we charge" but "what's the maximum value customers perceive, and how do we capture 30-50% of it?"

## Quick Actions
- [ ] Survey 20 target customers on WTP before changing price
- [ ] A/B test 2-3 price points on landing page
- [ ] Model competitor response scenarios

## Critical Risk to Watch
Pricing too low initially makes raising prices later extremely difficult (customer backlash + anchoring effect)
```

### Example 2: Standard Mode

```
Input: analyze "SaaS product for developers"

Flow:
1. Detect mode: standard (no quick/deep keywords)
2. Detect domain: product + software
3. Select 6 perspectives:
   - Product Manager
   - Developer (user persona)
   - Security Engineer
   - DevOps
   - Support Lead
   - Investor
4. Launch all 6 agents in parallel
5. Synthesize findings into standard format
6. Generate actionable roadmap

Output: [Standard format with all sections filled]
```

### Example 3: Deep Mode

```
Input: analyze deep "migration to microservices"

Flow:
1. Detect mode: deep
2. Detect domain: software
3. Select 10 perspectives:
   - Architect
   - DevOps
   - Security Engineer
   - Database Engineer
   - Frontend Developer
   - QA Engineer
   - Performance Engineer
   - SRE
   - Tech Lead
   - CTO
4. Launch all 10 agents in parallel
5. Each answers 12 questions (7 core + 5 deep)
6. Synthesize into deep format with dependency map
7. Generate comprehensive roadmap (immediate/short/medium/long)

Output: [Deep format with extended sections]
```

---

## Common Failure Patterns

| Failure | Root Cause | Reflexion Response |
|---------|------------|-------------------|
| Wrong domain detected | Ambiguous keywords | Ask user explicitly or use General domain |
| Too few perspectives | Quick mode used for complex topic | Escalate to Standard mode |
| Weak synthesis | Agent outputs inconsistent | Re-run with explicit constraints |
| Missing blind spots | Obvious perspectives chosen | Add Devil's Advocate perspective |
| Roadmap not actionable | Actions too vague | Break each action into atomic: owner, deadline, metric |
| Analysis takes >2min | Too many agents (Deep mode overkill) | Switch to Standard mode |

---

## Integration Notes

This skill is **standalone** and includes all necessary frameworks:
- UltraThink cognitive framework (embedded)
- First-principles analysis (embedded)
- Perspectives library (embedded)
- Output formats (embedded)

No external dependencies required.

**Optional enhancement:** For software domain analysis of TypeScript codebases, `codebase-intelligence` CLI (`npx codebase-intelligence --json`) provides structural data — hotspots, coupling, dead exports, module boundaries, blast radius. Detection: `tsconfig.json` must exist. For full CLI reference, fetch `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bntvllnt/codebase-intelligence/main/llms-full.txt`. The skill works identically without it — data is supplementary context for perspective agents.

---

## License

MIT License - Free to use, modify, and distribute.

---

## Version

**v1.0.0** - 2026-01-28 - Initial public release by bntvllnt