five-whys
Skill24 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub
Root cause analysis using the Five Whys technique. Use when a bug persists despite surface fixes, a failure recurs, or a process keeps breaking. Ensures the fix targets the root, not the symptom.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shawnclybor/clybor-claude-toolingtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- kitloomlk-stack/testing-debugging-kittheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- ysskrishna/ai-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- karozi/awesome-product-management-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 5, 2026
- tupe12334/instincttheir own version, first seen Aug 17, 2026
- flpbalada/fb-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 3, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use pre-mortem.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
Ingramradical235Skillpre-mortem
Pre-mortem analysis, scenario planning, future state narratives, and contingency frameworks. Use before finalizing any Strategy Kernel, when planning major initiatives, or when preparing Plan B triggers.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- ysskrishna/ai-agent-skills★ 20same name
- jackjin1997/ClawForge★ 12same name
- flpbalada/fb-skills★ 8same name
- ozten/skills★ 7same name
- shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling★ 6same name
- karozi/awesome-product-management-skills★ 2same name
- tupe12334/instinct★ 1same name
- kitloomlk-stack/testing-debugging-kit★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/rules/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- api-contract-firstSkill
- architecture-auditSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- data-migrationSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- performance-auditSkill
- skill-duplication-auditSkill
- smart-initSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- using-a-teamSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 31
Don't stop until you reach something you control — a decision, a process, a line of code, a missing configuration.
- Distinctive: line 45
Read the chain bottom-up: "No review checklist → cache key missing user_id → data leak." If the chain holds, the root cause is valid.
- Distinctive: line 57
If you can only fix an intermediate level, document the root cause as tracked technical debt with a concrete TODO.
- Distinctive: line 70
Test each branch independently.
- Distinctive: line 74
Stop before the 5th why if you reach a clear, actionable root cause.
- Very specific: line 90
Run this skill before launching the systematic-debugging agent — Five Whys defines the investigation scope
- Very specific: line 91
After finding the root cause, use the tdd-guide agent to write the test that would have caught it
- Very specific: line 92
If the root cause implies a process change, document the analysis in DAILY.md
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Five Whys — Root Cause Analysis
The Rule
DO NOT FIX THE SYMPTOM. FIND THE CAUSE.A fix that doesn't address the root cause is temporary. The cause returns.
Protocol
Step 1 — Define the problem precisely
One concrete sentence. Not vague.
| Wrong | Correct |
| "The system is slow" | "GET /orders exceeds 3s for 90% of requests in prod since Friday" |
| "Tests fail sometimes" | "test_payment_flow fails in CI roughly 1 in 20 runs with no clear error message" |
Step 2 — Five Whys cascade
For each answer, ask: "Why does that happen?"
Don't stop until you reach something you control — a decision, a process, a line of code, a missing configuration.
Problem: Users see another user's data
Why 1: Cache returns the wrong entry
Why 2: Cache key does not include user_id
Why 3: Developer assumed the endpoint was public
Why 4: No isolation test existed for this endpoint
Why 5: Code review had no data isolation checklist
→ Root cause: review process missing a security checklistStep 3 — Validate in reverse
Read the chain bottom-up: "No review checklist → cache key missing user_id → data leak." If the chain holds, the root cause is valid.
Step 4 — Fix at the root, not the symptom
Fix at the deepest level that is practical to change.
| Fix level | Example | Durability |
| Symptom | Manually flush cache | Hours |
| Proximate cause | Add user_id to cache key | Days |
| Root cause | Add isolation checklist to review | Permanent |
If you can only fix an intermediate level, document the root cause as tracked technical debt with a concrete TODO.
Branching
A root cause can have multiple branches — explore all before choosing where to fix.
Problem: Deploy fails in prod but not in staging
Branch A: different configuration (env vars, secrets)
Branch B: prod data has different volume or format
Branch C: network dependencies only reachable in prodTest each branch independently. Do not assume.
When to Stop
Stop before the 5th why if you reach a clear, actionable root cause. Stop after the 5th if the chain hasn't converged — there may be multiple independent root causes.
Output
Document the analysis:
**Problem:** [concrete one-liner]
**Root cause:** [deepest level found]
**Fix:** [concrete action with file/component]
**Temporary fix (if needed):** [what you apply now while the real fix is in progress]
**Technical debt:** [what remains unresolved and why]Integration with A Team
- Run this skill before launching the
systematic-debuggingagent — Five Whys defines the investigation scope - After finding the root cause, use the
tdd-guideagent to write the test that would have caught it - If the root cause implies a process change, document the analysis in
DAILY.md
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

