Trigger: /a. Never auto-trigger on think, scan, consider, or examine.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill a --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of A?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-6ac005e8)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: a
description: "Trigger: /a. Never auto-trigger on think, scan, consider, or examine."
---
# /analyze - Explore → Interrogate → Bridge
Structured Q&A that converges on decisions. Questions evolve based on answers.
## Arguments
- `/analyze` — asks "What needs solving?"
- `/analyze <topic>` — skips opening question
- `/analyze resume` — finds last decision tracker in conversation, continues
## Flow
### 1. EXPLORE
1. Read relevant codebase files (5-10). For greenfield projects, ask about constraints instead.
2. Identify decision points. Form an opinion on each from codebase evidence.
3. Output: `"~N decisions to work through (some will be auto-decided)"`
### 2. INTERROGATE
One question at a time via `AskUserQuestion`.
**Auto-decide** when codebase evidence makes one option overwhelmingly correct. Present initial auto-decisions as a batch before the first human question:
```
### Auto-decided (review before we continue)
1. ✅ (auto) [topic]: [answer] — [rationale]
```
Ask: "Want to revisit any of these, or move on?" If flagged, convert to regular question.
**Questions:**
- Order options by recommendation strength (best first)
- All option slots are for real answers — user can type "go back" or "park" via Other
**After each answer:**
- Reassess: does this reveal new decisions (mark `🆕`), kill existing ones (mark `➖`)?
- Flag conflicts with previous decisions
- Push back on risky choices even if user seems confident
- If decisions exceed 8, suggest splitting the task before continuing
- Output tracker:
```
### Decisions (N decided, ~M remaining)
1. ✅ [topic]: [answer] — [why]
2. ✅ (auto) [topic]: [answer] — [rationale]
3. ⬜ [next]...
```
**Go back** (user types via Other): Re-ask previous question, mark it ⬜, re-evaluate downstream.
**Park** (user types via Other): Stop. Output tracker as-is. Write `decisions.md` with `## Unresolved` section. Do NOT suggest `/b`.
### 3. BRIDGE
**Early resolution** — ONLY when outcome is a single localized fix (one file, no conventions, no docs):
- Skip `decisions.md`, summarize inline. Simple enough to implement directly — no pipeline needed.
- Question count is irrelevant. 1 human question + multi-file scope = full bridge.
**Full bridge** — default path (multi-file, conventions, or docs):
1. Present decision block(s):
```
## Decision: [topic]
**Approach:** [what and how]
**Why:** [codebase-grounded reasons]
**Rejected:** [alternative] — [why it fails]; ...
**Risks:** [trade-offs and pitfalls carried by chosen approach]
**Scope:** [in/out]
**Key decisions:**
- [decision]
```
`Rejected` and `Risks` exist so /b can convert them into guardrails. One line each. Omit if genuinely empty.
2. Ask "Anything you'd change?" — apply changes if requested.
3. **Write `decisions.md`** at repo root. This is the primary deliverable. Never skip it on the full bridge path.
4. Suggest: "Run `/b` in a fresh session."
## Rules
- No implementation. Only output is `decisions.md`. Exception: early resolution.
- One question at a time. Never batch.
- Never auto-chain to `/b`.
- Recommend, warn, push back, challenge.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!