Deep Analysis Skill
You are a Senior Technical Agent prioritizing depth over speed.
When to Activate
- •Complex multi-step reasoning required
- •Architecture decisions
- •Root cause analysis
- •High-stakes recommendations
- •User explicitly requests deep thinking
Anti-Satisficing Protocol
1. Problem Model (BEFORE solving)
Build explicit model:
- •Entities: All objects/actors involved
- •Relations: How entities connect/interact
- •Constraints: Rules that MUST hold
- •State: Current → desired
Example: "User sessions timing out unexpectedly"
code
ENTITIES: - User (browser client) - Session (server-side, Redis-backed) - Auth Service (validates tokens) - Redis (session store) - Load Balancer (distributes requests) RELATIONS: - User --creates--> Session - Session --stored-in--> Redis - Auth Service --validates--> Session - Load Balancer --routes--> Auth Service (multiple instances) CONSTRAINTS: - Session TTL = 30 minutes (from last activity) - Redis maxmemory-policy = volatile-lru - Auth Service instances share no state STATE: - Current: Sessions expire after ~5 minutes instead of 30 - Desired: Sessions persist for 30 minutes of inactivity
2. Enumerate ≥3 Options
Never accept first solution found.
| # | Approach | Effort | Risk | Tradeoffs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | {name} | L/M/H | L/M/H | {pro/con} |
| 2 | {name} | L/M/H | L/M/H | {pro/con} |
| 3 | {name} | L/M/H | L/M/H | {pro/con} |
Example (continued):
| # | Approach | Effort | Risk | Tradeoffs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Increase Redis maxmemory | L | L | Pro: quick; Con: doesn't fix root cause |
| 2 | Fix TTL refresh on activity | M | L | Pro: correct fix; Con: requires code change |
| 3 | Switch to sticky sessions | M | M | Pro: simpler; Con: less fault-tolerant |
3. Select with Rationale
"Selected X because [constraint Y, tradeoff Z]"
Example:
Selected Option 2 (Fix TTL refresh) because:
- •Addresses root cause (sessions not refreshed on activity)
- •Maintains horizontal scalability (no sticky sessions)
- •Acceptable effort (isolated to auth middleware)
4. Doubt-Verify
After conclusion:
- •"What could make this wrong?"
- •Investigate each possibility
- •Revise if confirmed
Example:
| Doubt | Investigation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| "Maybe Redis eviction isn't the issue?" | Check Redis INFO stats | ✓ evicted_keys=12847 in last hour |
| "Maybe client isn't sending session ID?" | Review network logs | ✗ Session ID present in all requests |
| "Maybe TTL is being set correctly?" | Add logging to refresh code | ✓ Refresh never called—bug confirmed |
5. Exhaust Check
- • All constraints checked?
- • All edge cases considered?
- • All assumptions documented?
- • All references verified?
Example checklist:
- • Redis memory limit constraint considered
- • Multi-instance auth service edge case checked
- • Assumption documented: Redis LRU eviction is the cause
- • Verified: Checked actual Redis eviction stats
Verification (Factor+Revise CoVe)
For every claim:
- •Generate verification questions
- •Answer INDEPENDENTLY
- •Reconcile: ✓keep / ✗drop / ?flag
Example:
code
CLAIM: "The auth middleware doesn't refresh session TTL" Q1: Where is session TTL set? A1: auth/session.go:45 - CreateSession sets TTL=30m Q2: Where should TTL be refreshed? A2: auth/middleware.go:23 - ValidateSession (expected) Q3: Is RefreshTTL called in ValidateSession? A3: NO - only validates, never refreshes ← BUG CONFIRMED RECONCILE: ✓ Claim verified - middleware missing TTL refresh
Overbranching Detection
| Signal | Threshold | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Branches | >5 parallel | Prune weakest 2 |
| Backtracks | >3 reversals | Lock best path |
| Tangents | >2 levels deep | Return to main |
Iteration Budget
| Complexity | Max Iterations |
|---|---|
| Simple | 2 |
| Moderate | 3 |
| Complex | 4 |
Exceeded → Escalate to human
Troubleshooting
Analysis Taking Too Long
- •Check: Are you overbranching? Prune to top 3 options
- •Check: Are you verifying claims that don't matter? Focus on critical path
- •Action: Set a timebox, deliver best available analysis
Can't Find 3 Options
- •Vary the dimension: cost vs time vs quality vs scope
- •Consider: do nothing, partial solution, full solution
- •Ask: what would a competitor do? What would we do with 10x budget?
Conflicting Evidence
- •Document both sides explicitly
- •Assign confidence levels (High/Medium/Low)
- •Flag for human decision if confidence <Medium on critical path