Root cause frameworks

Skill event4u-app/agent-config/src/skills/root-cause-frameworks

Universal AI Agent OS — audited skills, governance rules, replayable state. One contract, every host agent.

Install

npx -y skills add event4u-app/agent-config --skill root-cause-frameworks

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

7 stars7 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when tracing the root cause of a resolved incident or recurring bug — 5-whys chain, fishbone categorisation, contributing-factors split — even if the user says 'why does this keep breaking?'.

SKILL.md

5.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

root-cause-frameworks

Structured root-cause analysis for resolved incidents and recurring bugs. Sibling of systematic-debugging (live reproduction loop) and bug-analyzer (static call-site analysis) — this skill takes the post-resolution "why did this happen and how do we stop it recurring?" view.

When to use

A resolved incident needs a structured cause investigation before writing the post-mortem.
A bug recurs and the team needs to understand the underlying system condition, not just the symptom.
Invoked directly or by blameless-post-mortem to populate the cause section.

Do NOT use when:

Actively debugging a failing test or unresolved crash — use systematic-debugging instead.
The goal is to enumerate call-site impact of a change — use blast-radius-analyzer instead.

Procedure

Work through the three methods in order; return the best-supported result.

1. 5-Whys chain

Ask "Why did X happen?" iteratively, attaching evidence to each link. Continue until the link is unfalsifiable, evidence runs out, or you reach a systemic condition outside the team's control.

Rules:

Each link must cite at least one piece of evidence (log line, metric, test failure, code path, human observation). Label unverified links explicitly as [speculative].
If a link branches into two independent causes, follow both — a branching chain is common and valid.
Stop a branch when: (a) the next Why has no available evidence, or (b) the answer is outside the system boundary (e.g. "the cloud provider had an outage").

2. Fishbone / Ishikawa (if chain stalls or branches widely)

When the 5-whys chain stalls before reaching a systemic cause, or branches into more than three independent paths, map contributing factors across six categories:

Category	Sample questions
People	Knowledge gap, on-call fatigue, ambiguous ownership?
Process	Missing review step, deploy gate skipped, alert threshold wrong?
Technology	Library version, configuration drift, race condition, hardware limit?
Data	Unexpected input shape, stale cache, missing validation, schema mismatch?
Environment	Infra difference between environments, dependency version skew?
Communication	Unclear spec, siloed knowledge, delayed escalation?

List each identified factor as a bullet under its category. A factor may appear in more than one category — that is evidence of a systemic coupling worth naming.

3. Contributing-factors split

Classify every cause surfaced in steps 1–2 into exactly one bucket:

Bucket	Definition
`root`	The condition that, if absent, the incident would not have occurred.
`contributing`	A condition that increased likelihood or severity, but not sufficient alone.
`amplifying`	A condition that made recovery slower or harder once the incident started.
`coincidence`	Present at the time but causally unrelated.

A well-formed analysis typically has one root cause and two to four contributing causes. Multiple root entries indicate the chain has not been traced far enough, or that the incident was a genuine compound failure — label it explicitly.

Output

The output has three ordered sections:

Why-chain — numbered chain, each link with evidence (or [speculative] flag) and any branch markers.
Cause taxonomy — each identified cause labelled root / contributing / amplifying / coincidence, with a one-sentence justification.
Evidence gaps — explicit list of claims that could not be verified and what evidence would resolve them. An empty list is fine; omitting the section is not.

May invoke systematic-debugging or bug-analyzer mid-procedure to gather evidence for a specific hypothesis, then continue the analysis.

Do NOT

Do NOT present a [speculative] link as confirmed cause.
Do NOT collapse multiple contributing factors into a single root cause to produce a cleaner narrative.
Do NOT invent evidence — if a log line is needed but unavailable, name the gap.
Do NOT reproduce the systematic-debugging reproduce → isolate → fix loop; this skill assumes the bug is already understood or resolved.

Gotchas

Single "root cause" is often an oversimplification — a compound failure with one root and several contributing causes is the norm, not an edge case.
An unfalsifiable why-link (e.g. "we don't know") is a stop signal for that branch; do not guess past it.
Correlation ≠ causation — require a causal mechanism for every link, not just temporal proximity.