Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
效率只读clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

root-cause-analysis根本原因分析

Agent Skill

root-cause-analysis 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

7,080

周安装

301

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

2,480
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:root-cause-analysis(根本原因分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/linuszz/root-cause-analysis
安装命令:
openclaw skills install root-cause-analysis
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install root-cause-analysis

简介

使用逻辑树方法来识别业务问题的根本原因。在诊断性能问题、流程故障或客户行为模式时使用。

SKILL.md

name
root-cause-analysis
description
Use logic tree approach to identify root causes of business problems. Use when diagnosing performance issues, process failures, or customer behavior patterns.

Root Cause Analysis

Metadata

  • Name: root-cause-analysis
  • Description: Logic tree approach to problem diagnosis
  • Triggers: root cause, problem solving, logic tree, issue tree, why analysis, fishbone

Instructions

You are a problem-solving analyst diagnosing the root cause of $ARGUMENTS.

Your task is to systematically break down the problem until you reach actionable root causes.

Framework

The Logic Tree Structure

                    ┌─────────────────────────────┐
                    │     THE PROBLEM             │
                    │  (What you're trying to     │
                    │      explain)               │
                    └──────────────┬──────────────┘
                                   │
            ┌──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┐
            │                      │                      │
    ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐
    │  Branch 1     │      │  Branch 2     │      │  Branch 3     │
    │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │
    └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘
            │                      │                      │
        ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐
        │       │              │       │              │       │
    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐
    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│
    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘

MECE Principles

Mutually Exclusive: Branches should not overlap Completely Exhaustive: Together, branches explain the whole problem

Common Branching Frameworks

FrameworkApplicationBranches
RevenueSales problemsPrice × Volume = Revenue
CostCost overrunsFixed + Variable
ProfitMargin issuesRevenue - Cost
ProcessOperational issuesPeople + Process + Technology
CustomerCustomer issuesAcquisition + Retention + Expansion
QualityQuality problemsIshikawa: 4M/6M (Man, Machine, Material, Method, Measurement, Environment)

The "5 Whys" Technique

Problem: Machine stopped
Why? → Fuse blew
Why? → Bearing overheated
Why? → Insufficient lubrication
Why? → Oil pump not working
Why? → Shaft worn from metal scrap
         ↑
    ROOT CAUSE (Actionable)

Output Process

  1. State the problem clearly - Quantified if possible
  2. Create initial hypothesis tree - 3-5 main branches
  3. Check for MECE - No gaps, no overlaps
  4. Add sub-branches - Go 4-6 levels deep
  5. Gather data - Validate or disprove each branch
  6. Quantify impact - Weight each branch by contribution
  7. Identify root causes - Bottom-level, actionable causes
  8. Prioritize - Focus on highest impact causes

Output Format

## Root Cause Analysis: [Problem Statement]

### Problem Statement

**What is the problem?**
[Clear, specific, quantified statement]

**How big is the problem?**
[Quantify the impact: revenue, cost, customers, etc.]

**When did it start?**
[Timeline of when the problem emerged]

---

### Logic Tree

[Problem: e.g., Customer Churn Increased 20%] │ ├── Branch 1: Product Issues (30%) │ ├── Feature gaps │ │ ├── Missing integration X (10%) │ │ └── Missing feature Y (8%) │ └── Quality problems │ ├── Bug rate increased (8%) │ └── Performance degraded (4%) │ ├── Branch 2: Service Issues (25%) │ ├── Response time slow (15%) │ └── Resolution rate low (10%) │ ├── Branch 3: Competitive Pressure (20%) │ ├── New entrant with lower price (12%) │ └── Competitor feature parity (8%) │ ├── Branch 4: Price Sensitivity (15%) │ ├── Annual price increase (10%) │ └── Economic downturn (5%) │ └── Branch 5: Other (10%) ├── Natural churn (7%) └── Unknown (3%)


---

### Root Causes Identified

| Root Cause | Impact | Confidence | Actionable? |
|------------|--------|------------|-------------|
| Missing integration X | 10% churn | High | ✅ Yes |
| Response time > 24h | 15% churn | High | ✅ Yes |
| Annual price increase | 10% churn | Medium | ✅ Yes |
| New entrant pricing | 12% churn | High | ⚠️ Partial |
| Bug rate increased | 8% churn | High | ✅ Yes |

---

### Prioritized Actions

**High Priority (Immediate)**
1. **Fix response time** - Add support staff, improve processes
   - Impact: -15% churn
   - Effort: Medium
   - Owner: [Name]

2. **Restore integration X** - Development sprint
   - Impact: -10% churn
   - Effort: Medium
   - Owner: [Name]

**Medium Priority (30 days)**
3. **Address bug backlog** - QA and fix priority bugs
   - Impact: -8% churn
   - Effort: Low
   - Owner: [Name]

4. **Reconsider pricing** - Offer retention discounts
   - Impact: -10% churn
   - Effort: Low
   - Owner: [Name]

**Monitor (Ongoing)**
5. **Competitive response** - Feature roadmap, positioning
   - Impact: -12% churn
   - Effort: High
   - Owner: [Name]

---

### Validation Plan

| Hypothesis | Data Needed | Source | Status |
|------------|-------------|--------|--------|
| Integration X missing | Exit survey | CRM | ✅ Validated |
| Response time issue | Support tickets | Help Desk | ✅ Validated |
| Price sensitivity | Win/loss analysis | Sales | 🔄 In progress |

Tips

  • Start with a hypothesis, then validate with data
  • Use percentages to weight branches - forces prioritization
  • Go deep enough to be actionable (4-6 levels typically)
  • A root cause is actionable - "market conditions" is not
  • Use interviews and data - don't just brainstorm
  • 80% of problems come from 20% of causes
  • The first explanation is often wrong - keep digging

References

  • Minto, Barbara. *The Pyramid Principle*. 1973.
  • Ishikawa, Kaoru. *Guide to Quality Control*. 1968. (Fishbone Diagram)
  • Ohno, Taiichi. *Toyota Production System*. 1988. (5 Whys)

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

95.43%
按下载量换算2,367

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills