analyze

<Use_When>

• User says "analyze", "investigate", "debug", "why does", or "what's causing"
• User needs to understand a system's architecture or behavior before making changes
• User wants root cause analysis of a bug or performance issue
• User needs dependency analysis or impact assessment for a proposed change
• A complex question requires reading multiple files and reasoning across them </Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

• User wants code changes made -- use executor agents or ralph instead
• User wants a full plan with acceptance criteria -- use plan skill instead
• User wants a quick file lookup or symbol search -- use explore agent instead
• User asks a simple factual question that can be answered from one file -- just read and answer directly </Do_Not_Use_When>

<Why_This_Exists> Deep investigation requires a different approach than quick lookups or code changes. Analysis tasks need broad context gathering, cross-file reasoning, and structured findings. Routing these to the architect agent or Codex ensures the right level of depth without the overhead of a full planning or execution workflow. </Why_This_Exists>

<Execution_Policy>

• Prefer Codex MCP for analysis when available (faster, lower cost)
• Fall back to architect agent when Codex is unavailable
• Always provide context files to the analysis tool for grounded reasoning
• Return structured findings, not just raw observations
• Default to concise, evidence-dense progress and completion reporting unless the user or risk level requires more detail
• Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints
• If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the analysis is grounded
• Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, or preference-dependent </Execution_Policy>

<Tool_Usage>

• Before first MCP tool use, call ToolSearch("mcp") to discover deferred MCP tools
• Use ask_codex with agent_role: "architect" as the preferred analysis route
• Pass context_files with all relevant source files for grounded analysis
• Use the architect role as fallback when ToolSearch finds no MCP tools or Codex is unavailable
• For broad analysis, use explore agent first to identify relevant files before routing to architect </Tool_Usage>

Scenario Examples

Good: The user says continue after the workflow already has a clear next step. Continue the current branch of work instead of restarting or re-asking the same question.

Good: The user changes only the output shape or downstream delivery step (for example make a PR). Preserve earlier non-conflicting workflow constraints and apply the update locally.

Bad: The user says continue, and the workflow restarts discovery or stops before the missing verification/evidence is gathered.

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

• If analysis reveals the issue requires code changes, report findings and recommend using ralph or executor for the fix
• If the analysis scope is too broad ("analyze everything"), ask the user to narrow the focus
• If Codex is unavailable and the architect agent also fails, report what context was gathered and suggest manual investigation paths </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

<Final_Checklist>

• Analysis addresses the specific question or investigation target
• Findings reference specific files and line numbers where applicable
• Root causes are identified (not just symptoms) for bug investigations
• Actionable recommendations are provided
• Analysis distinguishes between confirmed facts and hypotheses </Final_Checklist>

Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}