cause-and-effect
Systematic Fishbone analysis exploring problem causes across six categories
50
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/kaizen/skills/cause-and-effect/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description identifies the specific methodology (Fishbone/Ishikawa) but is too terse and lacks explicit trigger guidance. It misses important synonym keywords like 'Ishikawa', 'root cause analysis', and 'cause and effect diagram' that users would naturally use, and provides no 'Use when...' clause to help Claude select it appropriately.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause such as 'Use when the user asks for root cause analysis, Ishikawa diagrams, cause-and-effect analysis, or systematic problem investigation.'
Include common synonyms and trigger terms like 'Ishikawa diagram', 'root cause analysis', 'RCA', 'cause and effect', and '6M analysis'.
List specific concrete actions such as 'Creates Fishbone diagrams, identifies root causes across six categories (Man, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Environment), and generates structured cause-effect breakdowns.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Fishbone analysis) and a general action (exploring problem causes across six categories), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'create diagrams', 'identify root causes', 'generate category breakdowns', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (Fishbone analysis exploring causes) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also weak, so this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'Fishbone analysis' and 'problem causes' which are relevant keywords, but misses common variations like 'Ishikawa diagram', 'cause and effect', 'root cause analysis', 'RCA', or '6M categories'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'Fishbone analysis' and 'six categories' provides some distinctiveness, but it could overlap with other root cause analysis or problem-solving skills without clearer trigger boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured analytical skill with excellent actionability through detailed, realistic examples that clearly demonstrate the expected output format. The main weakness is its length—three extensive examples inline make it verbose, and the content could benefit from progressive disclosure by moving examples to a separate file. The workflow is clear and appropriate for a non-destructive analytical task.
Suggestions
Move at least two of the three examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file, keeping one concise example inline for quick reference.
Remove the Description section as it largely repeats the header and first line; merge any unique info into the Steps section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is moderately verbose. The description section repeats information from the title/header. The three full examples are extensive and somewhat repetitive in structure—two would suffice. However, the examples do add value by showing different problem domains, and the notes section is reasonably tight. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance. The six categories are clearly defined with specific sub-items to explore, the step-by-step process is clear, and the three detailed examples show exactly what the output should look like including the fishbone tree structure, root cause identification, and prioritized solutions. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced from problem statement through brainstorming causes, digging deeper with 'why', distinguishing contributing vs. root causes, prioritizing, and proposing solutions. For an analytical/thinking skill (not a destructive operation), this is a well-structured process with clear progression and validation (step 4 distinguishes contributing vs. root causes). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is essentially monolithic—three large examples inline make the file quite long. The examples could be split into a separate EXAMPLES.md file with the main skill referencing them. The reference to '/why' command is a good cross-reference, but the overall file would benefit from better content splitting. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
- Commit
3711edf
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.