Input Analyst

Transform messy human input into precise, actionable prompts. Catch what the user meant, not just what they typed. [EXPLICIT]

When to Activate

This is a pre-processing layer. It runs BEFORE other skills activate. [EXPLICIT]

Input Quality	Passes to Run	Example
Clear + specific	Pass 4 only (intent verification)	"Create a Python function that sorts dicts by 'date' key"
Clear + vague scope	Passes 2, 4, 5	"Help me with my project"
Messy + clear intent	Passes 1, 5	"cn u fix teh bugg in login"
Messy + vague	All 5 passes	"i need somthing for the meeting tmrw about that thing"

Do NOT over-analyze simple, well-formed requests. [EXPLICIT]

The Five Passes

Raw Input → SURFACE → 5 WHYS → 7 SO WHATS → INTENT → REFORMULATE → Structured Prompt

Pass 1: Surface Analysis

Detect and catalog surface-level issues. [EXPLICIT]

What to catch:

• Typos and misspellings (including dyslexia patterns: letter reversals, phonetic substitutions, missing vowels)
• Punctuation errors or absence
• Run-on sentences and fragments
• Autocorrect artifacts ("ducking" and similar)
• Mixed languages within a message
• Ambiguous abbreviations

Output: Corrected text + list of corrections made.

Critical rule: Preserve intent when correcting. Fix surface errors only — never change meaning.

For pattern libraries and detection heuristics, read references/analysis-patterns.md. [EXPLICIT]

Pass 2: Five Whys Analysis

Dig beneath the surface request to find the root need. [EXPLICIT]

Protocol:

User says: "I need a presentation about Q4 results"
Why 1: Why a presentation? → Boss asked for a quarterly review
Why 2: Why a review? → Team missed targets, needs realignment
Why 3: Why realignment? → Strategy pivot mid-quarter
Why 4: Why does that matter now? → Budget planning depends on it
Why 5: Why is budget at risk? → Need to justify continued investment

Root need: A persuasive case for continued investment despite Q4 misses,
           formatted as a quarterly review. [EXPLICIT]

Rules:

• Stop before 5 if the root is clear. Do not force all 5.
• Each "why" must be answerable from context or reasonable inference.
• If a "why" requires unavailable information, note it as an open question — do not guess.

For the complete protocol with examples, read references/five-whys-guide.md. [EXPLICIT]

Pass 3: Seven So-Whats Analysis

Trace implications forward. If we solve this, what happens next?

Purpose: Calibrate response depth. A "presentation" that determines budget allocation deserves more investment than a casual summary.

Rules:

• Follow the most impactful chain, not every branch.
• Stop when implications become speculative.
• Use the result to set quality calibration for downstream skills.

For the complete protocol, read references/seven-so-whats-guide.md. [EXPLICIT]

Pass 4: Intent Analysis

Compare what was typed with what was meant. Identify the gap. [EXPLICIT]

Gap types:

Gap Type	Signal	Example
Vocabulary	Domain mismatch	"algorithm" meaning "workflow"
Scope	Understated need	"fix this" meaning "redesign the architecture"
Expertise	Wrong terminology	Uses incorrect term for the right concept
Emotional	Hedging, vagueness	"make it better" meaning "I'm frustrated with X"
Context	Missing references	Assumes shared knowledge not stated

Protocol:

1. List explicit statements (what they literally said). [EXPLICIT]
2. List implicit signals (tone, word choice, what they didn't say). [EXPLICIT]
3. Identify gaps between explicit and implicit. [EXPLICIT]
4. Formulate the "real ask" — what they would say with perfect clarity. [EXPLICIT]

For detailed heuristics, read references/intent-detection.md. [EXPLICIT]

Pass 5: Reformulation

Synthesize all passes into a high-quality prompt. [EXPLICIT]

Reformulation targets:

• Clear objective (action verb + measurable outcome)
• Specific constraints (include, exclude, format)
• Context provided (domain, audience, stakes)
• Output format defined (deliverable type, structure, length)

Output template:

[Reformulated prompt]

Context: [From 5 Whys + 7 So Whats]
Intent: [From Pass 4 gap analysis]
Constraints: [Explicit + inferred]
Expected output: [Deliverable format and scope]

Pipeline Integration

[input-analyst] → [task-engine] → [excellence-loop] → User

The reformulated prompt from Pass 5 becomes input for task-engine. Higher quality input raises baseline confidence, reducing iterations downstream. [EXPLICIT]

Assumptions & Limits

• This skill infers intent from textual signals. It cannot read minds. When inference confidence is low, flag the ambiguity rather than committing to a guess.
• Language detection is heuristic. Mixed-language inputs may lose nuance in reformulation.
• The 5 Whys analysis works best when there is enough context in the thread. On cold-start (first message, no history), root-cause depth is limited.
• Reformulation should never add requirements the user didn't express or imply. It clarifies, it does not invent.
• For very short inputs (< 5 words), skip passes 2-3 and focus on intent verification only.

Edge Cases

• Intentionally informal input: Some users write casually on purpose. Don't "fix" tone — correct only objective errors (typos, grammar) and preserve voice.
• Multiple questions in one message: Decompose into separate reformulated prompts, one per distinct question.
• User corrects themselves mid-message: Use the final version as the intent. Ignore crossed-out or contradicted earlier statements.
• Non-text input (images, files): Pass 1 (surface analysis) does not apply. Skip to passes 2-5 using the content's semantics.
• User says "just do X": This is a signal to skip deep analysis. Run Pass 4 (intent) only to confirm, then pass through with minimal reformulation.
• Sarcasm or irony: Flag as uncertain intent. Do not reformulate sarcastically — ask for clarification.

Antipatterns

Problem	Bad Pattern	Fix
Over-analysis	Running 5 Whys on "What time is it?"	Use the scaling table above
Projection	Assuming intent without textual evidence	Ground every inference in specific words/signals
Correction arrogance	Changing meaning while fixing typos	Preserve intent; correct surface only
Lost nuance	Reformulation drops emotional context	Include emotional signals in context section

Validation Gate

Before passing the reformulated prompt downstream, confirm:

• Surface corrections (if any) did not alter meaning
• Root-cause analysis is grounded in available context, not speculation
• The "real ask" differs from the literal ask only where evidence supports it
• Reformulated prompt has: objective, constraints, context, and expected output
• Ambiguities that could not be resolved are explicitly flagged
• Analysis depth matches input quality (no over-analysis on clear inputs)

Reference Files

• references/analysis-patterns.md — Dyslexia patterns, common typos, autocorrect artifacts, detection heuristics
• references/five-whys-guide.md — Complete 5 Whys protocol with cross-domain examples
• references/seven-so-whats-guide.md — Complete 7 So Whats protocol with value chain examples
• references/intent-detection.md — Gap analysis framework, signal detection, reformulation strategies

---

Author: Javier Montaño | Last updated: 2026-03-12