cause-and-effect
Systematic Fishbone analysis exploring problem causes across six categories
63
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 a specific analytical framework (Fishbone/Ishikawa) but is too terse and lacks critical elements. It omits a 'Use when...' clause entirely, misses common synonym trigger terms like 'Ishikawa' and 'root cause analysis', and doesn't enumerate the concrete actions the skill performs beyond vague 'exploring.'
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for root cause analysis, cause-and-effect diagrams, or wants to systematically investigate why a problem occurred.'
Include common synonym trigger terms such as 'Ishikawa diagram', 'root cause analysis', 'RCA', 'cause and effect diagram', and '6M analysis'.
List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Creates Fishbone/Ishikawa diagrams, categorizes potential causes across six categories (Man, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Environment), and identifies root causes.'
| 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 across six categories) 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 only partially described, warranting 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' that users might naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Fishbone analysis' and 'six categories' provide some distinctiveness from generic problem-solving skills, but without explicit triggers it could overlap with other root cause analysis or problem-solving skills. | 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 three detailed, realistic examples that clearly demonstrate the expected output format. The main weakness is verbosity—three full examples inline makes the file quite long, and some content (like explaining what fishbone diagrams are) is unnecessary for Claude. The workflow is clear and well-sequenced for an analytical task.
Suggestions
Move 2 of the 3 examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file, keeping only one inline for quick reference
Trim the Description section—Claude knows what fishbone/Ishikawa diagrams are; focus only on the specific categories and format you want used
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The three detailed examples are thorough but quite verbose, totaling well over 100 lines of example output. The notes section and category descriptions add useful but somewhat redundant context. Claude already understands fishbone diagrams conceptually, so some of the description could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides extremely concrete, copy-paste-ready output formats with three fully worked examples showing exact structure, root cause identification, and prioritized solutions. The step-by-step process is clear and the ASCII tree format is immediately reproducible. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are clearly sequenced from problem statement through brainstorming, deepening with 'why', distinguishing contributing vs. root causes, prioritizing, and proposing solutions. For an analytical/thinking skill (not destructive operations), this workflow is well-structured with clear progression and the examples reinforce each step. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is monolithic with three large examples inline that could be split into a separate EXAMPLES.md. The reference to '/why' command suggests related content exists but isn't linked. For a skill of this length (~150+ lines), better separation of the overview from detailed examples would improve organization. | 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
dedca19
- 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.