Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From structured-analysis
Applies 18 CIA/IC structured analytic techniques (ACH, Premortem, Devil's Advocacy, etc.) to produce evidence-based assessments with full citations for any problem.
npx claudepluginhub blevene/structured-analysis-skill --plugin structured-analysisHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/structured-analysis:structured-analysis [technique or flags, e.g. ach, --guided, --no-osint][technique or flags, e.g. ach, --guided, --no-osint]This skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Apply CIA/IC Structured Analytic Techniques to produce defensible, evidence-based analytical assessments. Every claim must be cited. Every judgment must trace to technique outputs.
protocols/evidence-collector.mdprotocols/iteration-handler.mdprotocols/orchestrator.mdprotocols/report-generator.mdprotocols/techniques/ach.mdprotocols/techniques/alternative-futures.mdprotocols/techniques/bowtie-analysis.mdprotocols/techniques/contrasting-narratives.mdprotocols/techniques/counterfactual-reasoning.mdprotocols/techniques/cross-impact-matrix.mdprotocols/techniques/customer-checklist.mdprotocols/techniques/deception-detection.mdprotocols/techniques/devils-advocacy.mdprotocols/techniques/inconsistencies-finder.mdprotocols/techniques/issue-redefinition.mdprotocols/techniques/key-assumptions-check.mdprotocols/techniques/opportunities-incubator.mdprotocols/techniques/premortem.mdprotocols/techniques/problem-restatement.mdprotocols/techniques/red-hat-analysis.mdPerforms Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to evaluate multiple hypotheses against evidence via disconfirmation-focused matrix, diagnosticity, sensitivity analysis, and falsification milestones.
Applies structured reasoning to complex coding problems using 19 analytical frameworks, 12 bias detectors, 10 decomposition methods, 10 mental models, Cynefin classification, ethical checks, and communication patterns.
Stress-tests ideas, plans, and decisions using structured critical reasoning across 5 modes (Socratic, dialectic, pre-mortem, red team, falsification).
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Apply CIA/IC Structured Analytic Techniques to produce defensible, evidence-based analytical assessments. Every claim must be cited. Every judgment must trace to technique outputs.
/analyze → Adaptive mode (auto-select techniques)
/analyze <technique> → Direct mode (run one technique)
/analyze --guided → Guided mode (walk through all phases)
/analyze --resume <analysis-id> → Resume or update existing analysis
/analyze --iterate <analysis-id> → Re-run full analysis with new evidence
/analyze --iterate <analysis-id> <technique> → Re-run specific technique(s)
/analyze --lean → Lean mode (abbreviated technique set)
/analyze --comprehensive → Comprehensive mode (full rubric, adversarial + deception checks)
/analyze --no-osint → Disable web research
Techniques: customer-checklist, issue-redefinition, restatement, brainstorm, kac, ach, inconsistencies, cross-impact, what-if, premortem, counterfactual, narratives, bowtie, opportunities, devils-advocacy, red-hat, alt-futures, deception
Flags combine: /analyze --guided --no-osint is valid.
You MUST read the orchestrator protocol before proceeding. It contains mode routing, technique selection logic, and the technique routing table.
Before parsing explicit arguments, scan the conversation history for implicit inputs. Users often invoke /analyze mid-conversation after discussing a problem, providing data, or sharing links.
Extract from conversation context:
--lean), don't want web research (→ --no-osint), or want to walk through everything (→ --guided)?analyses/ for the same topic? (→ suggest --resume or --iterate)If context inference produced any results, present them to the user for confirmation before proceeding:
Based on our conversation, here's what I'm picking up:
**Problem**: [inferred problem statement]
**Mode**: [inferred mode + rationale]
**Techniques**: [inferred techniques, if any]
**Flags**: [inferred flags, if any]
**Prior context**: [files, data, or evidence already in conversation]
Does this look right? Adjust anything before I proceed.
If the user provided explicit arguments, those always take precedence — but still surface any useful context (e.g., "You asked for ACH. I also noticed you shared [file] earlier — I'll include that as evidence.").
If no conversation context exists and no arguments were provided, proceed directly to Adaptive mode (the orchestrator will prompt for a problem statement).
protocols/orchestrator.md (relative to this skill's directory)analyses/<id>/working/protocols/evidence-collector.mdprotocols/report-generator.md Phase A/B architecture{{PLACEHOLDER}} tokens?/analyze --iterate commands. Only fires when actionable flags exist beyond what auto-remediation already addressed. All flags and their statuses are written to next-steps.md in the analysis root — a standalone ledger tracking OPEN, REMEDIATED, RESOLVED, and DEFERRED items across iterations. The --iterate handler reads this file as its primary input.Every claim in every artifact must be cited. No exceptions. Citation methods:
[Source](URL) — Retrieved: YYYY-MM-DD[filename:line_range][User-provided, session context][Derived via technique_name][PRIOR-v{N}: technique_name]OSINT is never presented as fact — always "according to [source]".
For deep background on any technique, read docs/library/00-prime.md and the specific library files referenced in each protocol. The library contains the full theoretical foundation, axioms, selection matrices, and empirical critiques underlying this skill.