Explicit User Instruction: The user explicitly instructs and authorizes every subagent call named in this recipe. Execute each applicable call when its prerequisites are met.

Execute Skill: llm-friendly-context before writing Agent prompts, handoffs, or generated artifacts. Execute Skill: subagents-orchestration-guide before making workflow decisions, invoking agents, or resolving findings.

Context: Diagnosis flow to identify root cause and present solutions

Target problem: $ARGUMENTS

Orchestrator Definition

Core Identity: "I am an orchestrator."

Local authority gate: Make this recipe's workflow decisions and validate each returned result directly; delegate semantic deliverable production to the named specialist.

Execution Method:

• Investigation → performed by investigator
• Verification → performed by verifier
• Solution derivation → performed by solver

Orchestrator invokes sub-agents and passes structured JSON between them.

At each Agent invocation below, build the prompt as a mechanical extraction: copy the named source values into the exact fields, apply only the declared serialization, then invoke immediately.

Execution Gate: Each step below establishes evidence required by the next decision. Complete Steps 0-7 in order, including every required investigation and verification retry. Advance only through the current step's stated quality or coverage condition; invoke solver only after coverage is closed.

Step 0: Problem Structuring (Before investigator invocation)

0.1 Problem Type Determination

If uncertain, ask the user whether any changes were made right before the problem occurred.

0.2 Information Supplementation for Change Failures

If the following are unclear, ask with AskUserQuestion before proceeding:

• What was changed (cause change)
• What broke (affected area)
• Relationship between both (shared components, etc.)

0.3 Problem Essence Understanding

Invoke rule-advisor via Agent tool:

subagent_type: rule-advisor
description: "Problem essence analysis"
prompt: Identify the essence and required rules for this problem: [user-reported problem verbatim]

Confirm from rule-advisor output:

• taskAnalysis.essence: Primary purpose of the diagnosis
• metaCognitiveGuidance.taskEssence: Root problem beyond surface symptoms
• selectedRules: Applicable skill and section names
• warningPatterns: Patterns to avoid

Execute each selected skill by its skill name and apply the named sections in the context of the complete skill before constructing the investigator prompt.

0.4 Diagnosis Scope Envelope

Before investigation, define a semantic scope envelope from the confirmed problem and repository evidence by recording:

• phenomenon and occurrence conditions to explain
• symptom-reachable execution paths and adjacent cases that share the same path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary
• applicable evidence axes: code, history, dependencies, configuration, governing documents, and external specifications
• explicit exclusions from the user or governing artifacts
• newly discovered areas are inside the envelope only when they have one of the relationships above and evidence shows they can change the supported cause set, coverage judgment, or counter-evidence

The envelope bounds relevance. Keep every relationship above active throughout investigation, including after a plausible cause appears.

Diagnosis Flow Overview

Problem → scope envelope → investigator → verifier
                         ↑                 │
                         └── named gaps ───┘

coverage closed → design decision gate when applicable → solver → Report
material evidence unavailable → limitation/block report

Context Separation: Pass only structured JSON output to each step. Each step starts fresh with the JSON data only.

Execution Steps

Step 1: Investigation (investigator)

Agent tool invocation:

subagent_type: investigator
description: "Investigate problem"
prompt: |
  Comprehensively collect information related to the following phenomenon.

  Phenomenon: [Problem reported by user verbatim]
  Problem essence: [exact `metaCognitiveGuidance.taskEssence` from Step 0.3]
  diagnosisScopeEnvelope: [Step 0.4 semantic scope envelope]
  Selected rules: [complete `selectedRules` from Step 0.3]
  Warning patterns: [complete `warningPatterns` from Step 0.3]

  [For change failures, additionally include:]
  Change details: [user-confirmed change-details statement verbatim]
  Affected area: [user-confirmed affected-area statement verbatim]
  Stated relationship: [user-confirmed relationship statement verbatim]

Expected output: scopeAccounting, pathMap (execution paths per symptom), failurePoints (faults found at each node), impactAnalysis per failure point, unexplored areas, investigation limitations

Step 2: Investigation Quality Check

Review investigation output:

Quality Check (verify JSON output contains the following):

• pathMap exists with at least one symptom, and each symptom has at least one path with nodes listed
• Each failure point has: location, upstreamDependency, symptomExplained, causalChain (reaching a stop condition), checkStatus, evidence with a source citing a specific file or location
• Each failure point has comparisonAnalysis (normalImplementation found or explicitly null)
• causeCategory for each failure point is one of: typo / logic_error / missing_constraint / design_gap / external_factor
• investigationSources covers at least 3 distinct source types (code, history, dependency, config, document, external)
• Investigation accounts for each supplied warningPatterns item
• All nodes on mapped paths have been checked (no path was abandoned after finding the first fault)
• scopeAccounting accounts for every scope-envelope item as investigated, excluded with governing evidence, or unavailable with its potential effect

If quality insufficient: Re-run investigator specifying missing items explicitly:

prompt: |
  Re-investigate with focus on the following gaps:
  - Missing: [unsatisfied Step 2 Quality Check items, copied as written]

  Use these previous investigation results as context and investigate only the gaps listed above. Return one updated complete investigation JSON, retaining prior evidence that remains valid:
  [Previous investigation JSON]

Proceed to verifier once quality is satisfied.

Step 3: Verification (verifier)

Agent tool invocation:

subagent_type: verifier
description: "Verify investigation results"
prompt: Verify the following investigation results against the semantic diagnosis scope envelope.

diagnosisScopeEnvelope: [Step 0.4 semantic scope envelope]
Investigation results: [Investigation JSON output]

Expected output: Scope-envelope coverage, coverage check (missing paths, unchecked nodes), Devil's Advocate evaluation per failure point, failure point evaluation with checkStatus, coverage assessment and disposition

Coverage Criteria:

• sufficient / closed: Every relevant scope-envelope item and symptom-reachable critical node is accounted for; each failure point is independently evaluated; remaining limitations cannot materially change the supported cause set
• partial / gaps_remaining: Named accessible gaps could materially change the supported cause set
• insufficient / gaps_remaining: Significant relevant paths or critical nodes remain uninvestigated
• partial or insufficient / evidence_unavailable: Unavailable material evidence could change the supported cause set and no available action can close that gap

Step 4: Coverage Convergence

Branch on verifier output before invoking solver:

• coverageDisposition: closed: freeze the complete verified cause set and continue to the applicable design decision gate.
• coverageDisposition: gaps_remaining: return to Step 1 with only verifier's named gaps, their relevance to the cause set, and the prior investigation JSON. Keep scopeAccounting monotonic by preserving every accounted item. Add a gap only when new evidence identifies a distinct previously unaccounted gap within the semantic scope envelope that can materially change the supported cause set. Closing a gap or establishing that its evidence is unavailable advances convergence; renaming, splitting, or further describing the same gap preserves its existing state. When no available action can produce one of those state changes, return the attempted recovery to verifier for evidence_unavailable. Repeat verification after the investigation result passes Step 2.
• coverageDisposition: evidence_unavailable: finish with the unavailable-evidence report, including the evidence, attempted recovery, and why it can change the cause set.

Continue investigation while an available action can advance a material gap. Completion is determined by verifier-established semantic closure or by confirmation that no available action can advance the gap.

Step 5: Design Decision Gate

After coverage is closed, inspect the verified cause set. When resolving a confirmed failure point requires reconsidering ownership, a contract, or an approved design decision, including causeCategory: design_gap, use AskUserQuestion: "A verified design-level issue was detected. How should we proceed?"

• A: Attempt fix within current design
• B: Include design reconsideration

Pass includeRedesign: true to solver only when the user selects B. This gate remains before solution selection; investigation and verification proceed independently of the choice.

Step 6: Solution Derivation (solver)

Agent tool invocation:

subagent_type: solver
description: "Derive solutions"
prompt: Derive solutions based on the following verified failure points.

Confirmed failure points: [verifier's conclusion.confirmedFailurePoints]
Refuted failure points: [verifier's conclusion.refutedFailurePoints]
Failure point relationships: [verifier's conclusion.failurePointRelationships]
Impact analysis: [investigator's impactAnalysis]
Coverage disposition: closed
[When set by Step 5] Include redesign: true

Expected output: Materially distinct feasible solutions derived from the complete verified cause set, tradeoff analysis, recommendation and implementation steps, residual risks

Prerequisite: coverageDisposition: closed

Step 7: Final Report Creation

For coverageDisposition: closed, require coverageAssessment: sufficient and use the verified-solution report below.

## Diagnosis Result Summary

### Identified Failure Points
[Confirmed failure points from verification results]
- Per failure point: location, symptom explained, finalStatus

### Verification Process
- Path coverage: [Paths traced and nodes checked]
- Additional investigation iterations: [count and named gaps closed]
- Coverage assessment: sufficient
- Coverage disposition: closed

### Recommended Solution
[Solution derivation recommendation]

Rationale: [Selection rationale]

### Implementation Steps
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
...

### Alternatives
[Alternative description]

### Residual Risks
[solver's residualRisks]

### Post-Resolution Verification Items
- [Verification item 1]
- [Verification item 2]

For coverageDisposition: evidence_unavailable, return this limitation-only form:

## Diagnosis Limited by Unavailable Evidence

### Verified Findings
[Failure points and counter-evidence verified without the missing evidence]

### Material Evidence Gap
- Missing evidence: [exact evidence]
- Recovery attempted: [actions and results]
- Why unavailable: [reason]
- Possible effect on cause set: [what could be confirmed, weakened, added, or refuted]

### Coverage
- Coverage assessment: [partial/insufficient]
- Coverage disposition: evidence_unavailable

Completion Criteria

• Executed investigator and obtained pathMap, failurePoints, and impactAnalysis
• Performed investigation quality check and re-ran if insufficient
• Executed verifier and obtained coverage assessment
• Closed every material scope-envelope gap or reported material evidence as unavailable
• Executed solver exactly for coverageDisposition: closed; completed the unavailable-evidence report for coverageDisposition: evidence_unavailable
• Presented final report to user