analyze · diff
git:20260610.52b7df7 to git:20260702.c2cb515
32 added, 8 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: analyze
description: Risk analysis and approach selection before planning. Use when requirements are ambiguous, approaches vary, or work touches hub/bridge nodes. Skip for typo fixes.
mcp: code-review-graph
---
# /supergraph:analyze
Analyze first, implement never. No code until approach is approved.
Announce: "🔍 /supergraph:analyze — framing problem, checking graph risk..."
## When
- Ambiguous requirements
- Multiple valid approaches
- Task spans modules
- Graph shows high blast-risk (hub/bridge nodes)
- User says "how should I..." or "what's the best way..."
Skip for: typo fixes, config changes, clear mechanical edits.
## Workflow
**0. Read CONTEXT.md (if exists):**
```bash
cat CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null | head -60
```
Use existing domain vocabulary in all analysis — never invent new terms for concepts already named.
**1. Frame the problem:**
- Goal: [one sentence]
- Known constraints
- Open questions
- **1b. Grill the user (if requirements are ambiguous):**
- Ask ONE question at a time. After each answer, decide: enough info → continue, or another question needed.
+ **1b. Score ambiguity (before grilling):**
- For each question, offer a recommended answer:
- > "What's the priority here — consistency or performance? (Recommended: consistency — easier to optimize later)"
+ | Signal | +1 if... |
+ |---|---|
+ | Ambiguous scope | touches multiple modules without naming one |
+ | No explicit path | no file/package/feature named |
+ | Multiple intents | could be bug fix, feature, refactor, or question |
+ | First interaction | no established context this session |
- Stop grilling when: goal is unambiguous AND constraints are clear AND approach won't reverse on new info.
- Max 3 questions before proceeding with best available information.
+ | Score | Action |
+ |---|---|
+ | 0–1 | Skip grilling — proceed with best available info |
+ | 2 | Show 1-line routing summary, wait for confirm |
+ | 3–4 | Grill: ask focused questions with recommended options |
+ **Auto-skip grilling entirely if:** user said "go"/"just do it", trivial fix (<15 lines, 1 file), explicit mode command, or active plan already exists.
+
+ **Grilling rules:** ONE question at a time, offer recommended answer, max 3 questions. Stop when goal + constraints are clear enough that approach won't reverse on new info.
+
**2. Check graph risk:**
Reuse graph context from `/supergraph:scan`. Only call if targets are identified:
```
mcp__code-review-graph__get_impact_radius_tool(files=[likely_targets], depth=2)
```
If files involve hub/bridge nodes → flag risk.
**2b. Serena dependency check (optional):**
If `/supergraph:scan` was not run this session, call `mcp__serena__initial_instructions()` first.
For each likely target symbol:
```
mcp__serena__find_referencing_symbols(symbol=<likely_target>)
mcp__serena__find_implementations(symbol=<likely_target>)
```
`find_referencing_symbols` — all callers/usages. `find_implementations` — all concrete impls of interfaces/abstract classes. Results enrich approach comparison in step 3.
Skip gracefully if Serena unavailable — log "Serena unavailable, skipping dependency check".
- **3. Propose 2-3 approaches:**
- For each: pros, cons, risk level, effort. Prefer minimal viable.
+ **3. Propose 2-3 approaches + persona debate:**
+ For each approach: pros, cons, risk level, effort. Prefer minimal viable.
+
+ Then run 5 quick persona checks on the **recommended** approach:
+
+ | Persona | Question |
+ |---|---|
+ | Architect | Does this fit the architecture? New coupling? |
+ | Security | What can be abused? Auth/data boundaries respected? |
+ | Performance | Latency impact? N+1 queries? Memory leaks? |
+ | UX | Error states handled? Intuitive? |
+ | Devil's Advocate | Simpler alternative? Which assumption could be wrong? |
+
+ Emit verdict: **GO** (no blockers) / **CAUTION** (manageable risks, note mitigations) / **STOP** (critical issue — redesign needed before planning).
+
+ STOP triggers: auth bypass with no mitigation, fundamental design incompatibility, N+1 with no workaround, false core assumption.
**4. Ask focused questions (one at a time):**
Only if the answer changes direction.
**5. Recommend and hand off:**
Present recommendation. Once approved, summarize decisions into an analysis block in the plan file or prompt context:
```markdown
## Analysis Decisions
- Approach: [chosen] | Why: [reason]
- Alternatives considered: [list] | Risks: [list]
```
Update CONTEXT.md if analysis crystallized new domain terms:
```bash
printf '\n## <term>\n[definition]\n' >> CONTEXT.md
```
→ invoke `/supergraph:plan`
## Rules
- No implementation during analyze
- Don't over-analyze for hypothetical futures
- Ask ONE question at a time during grill — never dump multiple questions
- Always end with: "Shall I create the plan?" → invoke `/supergraph:plan`