root-cause-analysis
Systematic root cause analysis using 5 Whys, fishbone diagrams, and fault tree analysis. Use this skill when investigating why an incident happened, performing RCA, or writing postmortems. Activate when: root cause, why did this happen, 5 whys, incident analysis, postmortem investigation, how did this happen, what caused, failure analysis.
What this skill does
# Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
**Find the real cause, not just the symptoms, to prevent recurrence.**
## RCA Principles
1. **Look for systems failures**, not human errors
2. **Ask "why" until you find actionable causes**
3. **Multiple contributing factors** are common
4. **Prevention > blame**
## Method 1: 5 Whys
Keep asking "why" until you reach an actionable root cause.
### Example: API Outage
```
Problem: API returned 500 errors for 45 minutes
Why #1: Why did the API return 500 errors?
→ The database connection pool was exhausted
Why #2: Why was the connection pool exhausted?
→ Connections weren't being released after queries
Why #3: Why weren't connections being released?
→ A code change introduced a bug that skipped connection.close()
Why #4: Why wasn't this caught before production?
→ Our integration tests don't check for connection leaks
Why #5: Why don't integration tests check for connection leaks?
→ We haven't implemented connection pool monitoring in tests
ROOT CAUSE: Missing connection leak detection in test suite
ACTION: Add connection pool assertions to integration tests
```
### 5 Whys Guidelines
| Do | Don't |
|----|-------|
| Use data, not assumptions | Stop at "human error" |
| Consider multiple branches | Accept vague answers |
| Verify each "because" | Skip to conclusions |
| Look for systemic issues | Blame individuals |
## Method 2: Contributing Factors Analysis
Most incidents have multiple contributing factors.
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ INCIDENT: API OUTAGE │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Direct Cause: │
│ └─ Database connection pool exhaustion │
│ │
│ Contributing Factors: │
│ ├─ [Code] Connection leak bug in PR #1234 │
│ ├─ [Process] Code review didn't catch the bug │
│ ├─ [Testing] No connection leak tests │
│ ├─ [Monitoring] No alert for connection pool usage │
│ ├─ [Deploy] Deployed during high-traffic period │
│ └─ [Recovery] Runbook for this scenario was outdated │
│ │
│ Environmental Factors: │
│ ├─ Team was understaffed (vacation season) │
│ └─ Similar incident 6 months ago, action items incomplete │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
## Method 3: Fault Tree Analysis
Work backwards from failure to identify all paths.
```
[API Outage]
│
┌────────────┴────────────┐
│ │
[DB Connections [App Server
Exhausted] Crashed]
│ │
┌───────┴───────┐ │
│ │ │
[Connection [Too Many [OOM
Leak] Requests] Error]
│ │ │
│ ┌─────┴─────┐ │
│ │ │ │
[Bug in [Traffic [Missing [Memory
Code] Spike] Rate Leak]
│ Limit]
│
[Marketing
Campaign]
```
## Method 4: Timeline Reconstruction
Detailed timeline helps identify the chain of events.
```
Timeline: API Outage - 2026-01-15
Time (UTC) | Event | Source
------------|------------------------------|--------
09:00 | Deploy v2.3.4 started | GitHub
09:15 | Deploy completed | K8s
09:45 | Marketing email sent (50k) | Marketing
10:02 | Traffic spike begins | Datadog
10:15 | Connection pool at 80% | Metrics
10:23 | First 500 errors | Logs
10:25 | Alert fired | PagerDuty
10:27 | On-call acknowledged | PagerDuty
10:35 | Root cause identified | Slack
10:42 | Rollback initiated | K8s
10:48 | Service recovering | Datadog
11:00 | All clear declared | Slack
Key Finding: 38 minutes between deploy and issue detection
Deploy + traffic spike = perfect storm
```
## Common Root Cause Categories
### Technical
- Code bugs
- Configuration errors
- Infrastructure failures
- Dependency failures
- Capacity limits
### Process
- Inadequate testing
- Missed code review
- Incomplete runbooks
- Poor change management
- Insufficient monitoring
### Organizational
- Understaffing
- Knowledge silos
- Communication gaps
- Incomplete training
- Technical debt
## Action Item Quality
Good action items are **SMART**:
| Criteria | Bad Example | Good Example |
|----------|-------------|--------------|
| **S**pecific | "Improve testing" | "Add connection pool leak test to CI" |
| **M**easurable | "Monitor better" | "Alert when pool > 80% for 5 min" |
| **A**ssignable | "Team should fix" | "@jane owns implementation" |
| **R**ealistic | "Rewrite entire system" | "Add circuit breaker to DB calls" |
| **T**ime-bound | "Soon" | "Complete by 2026-02-01" |
## RCA Template
```markdown
## Root Cause Analysis
### Direct Cause
[What directly caused the incident]
### 5 Whys Analysis
1. Why? → [Answer]
2. Why? → [Answer]
3. Why? → [Answer]
4. Why? → [Answer]
5. Why? → [Root cause]
### Contributing Factors
- **Technical:** [List]
- **Process:** [List]
- **Organizational:** [List]
### Why Wasn't This Caught?
- In development: [Why]
- In code review: [Why]
- In testing: [Why]
- In staging: [Why]
- By monitoring: [Why]
### Action Items
| Priority | Action | Owner | Due | Prevents |
|----------|--------|-------|-----|----------|
| P0 | [Action] | @name | [Date] | Direct cause |
| P1 | [Action] | @name | [Date] | Detection |
| P2 | [Action] | @name | [Date] | Future risk |
```
## Anti-Patterns to Avoid
1. **"Human error"** - The human made an error, but the system allowed it
2. **"Lack of attention"** - Why did the system require such attention?
3. **"Should have known"** - How could they have known?
4. **"Didn't follow procedure"** - Why was the procedure not followed?
5. **Single root cause** - Usually there are multiple contributing factors
Related in Writing & Docs
jax-development
IncludedUse this skill when the user is writing, debugging, profiling, refactoring, reviewing, benchmarking, parallelising, exporting, or explaining JAX code, or when they mention JAX, jax.numpy, jit, grad, value_and_grad, vmap, scan, lax, random keys, pytrees, jax.Array, sharding, Mesh, PartitionSpec, NamedSharding, pmap, shard_map, Pallas, XLA, StableHLO, checkify, profiler, or the JAX repo. It helps turn NumPy or PyTorch-style code into pure functional JAX, fix tracer/control-flow/shape/PRNG bugs, remove recompiles and host-device syncs, choose transforms and sharding strategies, inspect jaxpr/lowering/IR, and benchmark compiled code correctly.
nature-article-writer
IncludedDrafts, rewrites, diagnostically critiques, and style-calibrates primary research manuscripts for Nature and Nature Portfolio journals. Use when the user wants a Nature-style title, summary paragraph or abstract, introduction, results, discussion, methods, figure legends, presubmission enquiry, cover letter, reviewer response, or when a scientific draft sounds generic, jargon-heavy, structurally weak, or AI-ish and needs precise, broad-reader-friendly prose without inventing data, analyses, or references. Best for primary research articles and letters rather than reviews or press releases unless explicitly adapting one.
deckrd
IncludedDocument-driven framework that derives requirements, specifications, implementation plans, and executable tasks from goals through structured AI dialogue. Use when user says "write requirements", "create spec", "plan implementation", "derive tasks", "structure this feature", "break down into tasks", or "document this module". Also use for reverse engineering existing code into docs (/deckrd rev). Do NOT use for direct code writing — use /deckrd-coder after tasks are generated. Do NOT use when the user only wants to run or fix existing code without planning.
clinical-decision-support
IncludedGenerate professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). Supports GRADE evidence grading, statistical analysis (hazard ratios, survival curves, waterfall plots), biomarker integration, and regulatory compliance. Outputs publication-ready LaTeX/PDF format optimized for drug development, clinical research, and evidence synthesis.
handling-sf-data
IncludedSalesforce data operations with 130-point scoring. Use this skill to create, update, delete, bulk import/export, generate test data, and clean up org records using sf CLI and anonymous Apex. TRIGGER when: user creates test data, performs bulk import/export, uses sf data CLI commands, needs data factory patterns for Apex tests, or needs to seed/clean records in a Salesforce org. DO NOT TRIGGER when: SOQL query writing only (use querying-soql), Apex test execution (use running-apex-tests), or metadata deployment (use deploying-metadata).
accelint-ac-to-playwright
IncludedConvert and validate acceptance criteria for Playwright test automation. Use when user asks to (1) review/evaluate/check if AC are ready for automation, (2) assess if AC can be converted as-is, (3) validate AC quality for Playwright, (4) turn AC into tests, (5) generate tests from acceptance criteria, (6) convert .md bullets or .feature Gherkin files to Playwright specs, (7) create test automation from requirements. Handles both bullet-style markdown and Gherkin syntax with JSON test plan generation and validation.