Analyze

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

# 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 → project structure snapshot
• npx codebase-intelligence modules --json → module boundaries and cross-deps
• npx codebase-intelligence groups --json → 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

# 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

# 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):

1. DEPENDENCIES: What does success depend on?
2. ALTERNATIVES: What other approaches should be considered?
3. TIMELINE RISKS: What could cause delays or failure?
4. RESOURCE GAPS: What's missing to execute well?
5. 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 | 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

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: bntvllnt
• Source: bntvllnt/agent-skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://skills.sh/bntvllnt/agent-skills

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.