analyze

• PERSONA: Read sage/core/agents/analyst.persona.md for your mindset.

Analyze Workflow

Evaluate what exists. Audit, measure, score, find gaps.

Auto-Pickup

Scan .sage/docs/ for existing evaluation artifacts (ux-audit-, ux-evaluate-, analysis-*). If prior analysis exists, build on it.

Read .sage/decisions.md for context.

Step 1: Scope the Analysis (Zone 1)

Sage → analyze workflow. What are you evaluating?

[1] UX quality — UX audit → usability evaluation (2 steps) [2] User needs — JTBD analysis on existing product (1 step) [3] Content quality — content evaluation (1 step) [4] Custom — describe what you want to evaluate

Pick 1-4, type / for commands, or describe what you need.

Step 2: Execute Skill Chain

Based on scope, load and execute skills in sequence:

Scope	Skill Chain
UX quality	ux-audit → ux-evaluate
User needs	jtbd (applied to existing product)
Content	ux-writing (evaluation mode)
Custom	select best-matching skill from installed skills

For each skill in the chain:

1. Announce: "Sage: Starting [skill name]."
2. Load sage/skills/[skill]/SKILL.md and follow its process
3. Save output to .sage/docs/[skill-prefix]-[topic].md
4. Present per-skill findings (Zone 2):

Sage: [Skill] findings for [topic]:

• [Finding with severity]
• [Finding with severity]

[A] Approve — continue to next step [R] Revise

Pick A/R, or tell me what to change.

5. On approval, proceed to next skill in chain

Step 3: Synthesize and Score

After all skills complete:

• Aggregate findings by severity (Critical / Major / Minor)
• Identify patterns across findings
• Prioritize: what to fix first based on impact

🔒 FINDINGS CHECKPOINT (Zone 2):

Sage: Analysis complete.

Critical: [N findings — brief summary] Major: [N findings — brief summary] Minor: [N findings]

Top priority: [most impactful finding with rationale]

Artifacts: .sage/docs/[skill-prefix]-[topic].md

Decision: [analysis conclusions]. (appended to decisions.md)

[A] Approve findings [R] Revise [N] New session → /design to continue

Pick A/R/N, or tell me what to change.

Findings quality check (before presenting):

• Severity assigned to each finding (Critical/Major/Minor)?
• Evidence cited (not just opinions)?
• Actionable recommendations included?

Step 4: Next Step (Zone 3)

Next steps: /design — brief → spec → copy (address the issues found) /fix — diagnose → scope → fix → verify (fix specific issues) /reflect — review evaluation quality, extract patterns /research — deeper understanding of why issues exist

Type a command, or describe what you want to do next.

Quality Criteria

Good analysis output:

• Every finding has severity classification
• Evidence supports each finding (not just "this seems wrong")
• Findings are specific (names screens, components, flows)
• Recommendations are actionable (not "improve the UX")
• Priorities are justified by impact, not listing order

Rules

• Severity classification is mandatory for all findings
• Save all findings to .sage/docs/ with skill-prefix naming
• Present findings BEFORE storing in memory
• Critical findings should surface first in the synthesis
• If the analysis reveals systemic issues, suggest /architect