Analysis History

Inspect prior analysis history for: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

• Implementation status: workflow-only
• Current backing path: inspect session history, run manifests, and persisted artifacts under the runtime tree
• Primary purpose: retrieve and compare existing saved results with rigorous provenance instead of re-running analysis blindly
• Research layer: historical chronology and comparison, not fresh analysis

Use When

• The user wants to revisit prior analysis results for the same symbol.
• The user wants to compare historical runs, actions, or conclusions over time.
• The caller needs to locate old state.json, report.md, or metadata.json artifacts and summarize how they differ.
• The user asks "how has the view changed" or "what did we think last time."

Do Not Use When

• The user wants one exact stored file rather than a historical view. Use reports.
• The user wants fresh analysis on current data. Use an analysis-facing skill instead.
• The user wants only runtime locations and recent command context. Use session-status.

Inputs

• One symbol, a run path, or an implied recent run.
• Optional date or time filtering handled by the host framework if available.
• Optional comparison target such as another run, date, or command.

Execution

Step 1: Build the candidate artifact set with provenance

Use session-status, manifests, and the dated runtime runs/ tree to identify matching saved runs.

Provenance requirements for each candidate:

• Artifact path (run directory)
• Generation timestamp
• Generating command
• Symbol and key parameters
• Available artifact files (state.json, report.md, metadata.json)

Step 2: Establish chronology and provenance

For each run, capture the command, generation time, run directory, and available artifacts before making any comparison claim.

Mandatory chronology disclosure: When presenting historical results, state:

• How many matching runs were found
• The time range covered
• Which runs are being compared (if comparison is requested)
• What fields are available for comparison across runs

Step 3: Return a saved-history view with comparison discipline

Return the requested historical content, timeline, or comparison summary grounded in saved artifacts.

Comparison discipline rules:

• Name both artifacts explicitly: when comparing runs, state both run directories, generation times, and commands
• Identify field changes: state which fields changed, which were stable, and which were unavailable in one or both runs
• Avoid hindsight bias: describe what was saved at the time, not what now seems obvious in hindsight
• Acknowledge thin comparison base: if only one artifact exists, state that explicitly rather than inventing a trend
• Separate observation from interpretation: distinguish "field X changed from Y to Z" (observation) from "the view strengthened" (interpretation)

Step 4: Guard against artifact confusion and hindsight bias

Artifact confusion prevention:

• If multiple runs exist for the same symbol, list them chronologically with generation times
• If the user's request is ambiguous, ask for clarification rather than guessing which runs to compare
• If runs used different parameters (e.g., different holding periods), state that explicitly

Hindsight bias prevention:

• Do not reinterpret old artifacts using current knowledge
• Do not judge old decisions based on outcomes that were not knowable at the time
• If comparing a decision to its outcome, recommend using backtest-evaluator for proper retrospective evaluation with realism limits

Output Contract

• Output should reference concrete stored artifacts and their timestamps.
• Caller-facing delivery standard:
  • Mandatory provenance for each run: state artifact path, generation time, and command
  • Explicit comparison boundaries: when comparing runs, name both artifacts and state which fields are being compared
  • Field-level change tracking: identify which fields changed, which were stable, and which were unavailable
  • Chronological clarity: present runs in time order with clear timestamps
  • Hindsight bias guard: describe what was saved at the time, not what seems obvious now
  • Thin-base acknowledgment: if comparison base is thin (only 1-2 runs), state that explicitly
  • Grounded in artifacts: keep the narrative grounded in saved artifacts rather than reconstructed conversational memory
• Local limitation: the skill cannot recover history that was never persisted.

Failure Handling

• If no matching artifact is found, return a clear not-found explanation with the search criteria used.
• If a file exists but cannot be parsed, report that explicitly instead of hiding the failure.
• If the requested comparison depends on missing runs, state the gap instead of smoothing over it.
• If provenance metadata is incomplete for some runs, state what is missing.

Key Rules

• Prefer persisted history over regeneration unless the user explicitly wants a rerun.
• Provenance is mandatory for every run referenced. State path, time, and command.
• Comparison discipline is required. Name both artifacts, identify field changes, avoid hindsight bias.
• Avoid hindsight bias by describing what was saved at the time, not what now seems obvious in hindsight.
• If only one artifact exists, say that explicitly rather than inventing a trend.
• Separate observation from interpretation when describing how views changed over time.
• For outcome-based evaluation, route to backtest-evaluator for proper retrospective evaluation with realism limits.

Composition

• Commonly paired with reports, backtest-evaluator, and session-status.
• Often serves as the historical control surface before running retrospective evaluation.
• Should feed into process improvement discussions about how research quality has evolved.