rca — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited rca (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
To guide a rigorous, forensically-grounded root cause analysis for any workflow quality issue. All conclusions must be backed by measured evidence — not qualitative observation. Every plausible alternative hypothesis must be explicitly tested and rejected before naming a primary root cause.
Invoke when:
⚠️ No questions during analysis: Run Steps 1–4 autonomously without asking the user anything. Use available tools (scripts, grep, file reads) to gather all evidence. Only stop to interact with the user at Step 5 (approval gate) and Step 6 (fix confirmation).
Before writing any prose, run a measurement script to quantify the problem:
# Measure per-entry quality metrics from the output file
# e.g. section presence, line counts, bullet counts, batch positionPaste the raw output. This becomes the evidence base for all hypotheses.
From the measurements, identify:
Test in this order. Only move to the next if the current is rejected.
Add domain-specific hypotheses after ruling out A, B, C.
Save to docs/rca/<workflow_name>_rca_<YYYY-MM-DD>_V<version>.md with these required sections:
# RCA: <Title>
- **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **Report Affected**: `path/to/report`
- **Workflow Version**: vX.Y.Z
- **Previous RCA**: (link if applicable)
## Observed Problem
(Hard data table from Step 1)
## Hypothesis Testing
### Hypothesis A: ...
### Hypothesis B: ...
### Hypothesis C: ...
## Root Cause Analysis
### 🔴 Primary: ...
### 🟡 Contributing: ...
### ❌ Ruled Out: ...
## Proposed Fix
### Option A / B / C
## Recommendation
## Status
- [ ] Root cause identified
- [ ] Fix appliedAfter completing the RCA document, stop and present the findings to the user:
Do not apply any fix until the user says yes.
Once the user approves:
docs/workflow/<name>.md changelog with the new version[x]| Claim Type | Required Evidence |
|---|---|
| Token exhaustion | Monotonicity test result (pass/fail) + within-batch line counts |
| Context pressure | Cross-batch trend data + within-batch gradient + contamination check |
| Source content | Side-by-side depth comparison (full vs degraded entries) |
| Primary root cause | All alternatives explicitly rejected with data |
| Contributing factor | Cross-batch correlation data + documented re-evaluation trigger |
docs/rca/<workflow>_rca_<YYYY-MM-DD>_V<version>.md.agents/workflows/<workflow>.mddocs/workflow/<workflow>.mdlearnings/lessons.md (if new pattern discovered)~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.