five-whys-root-cause
Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when a problem keeps recurring, the first explanation is too shallow, or the action plan risks treating symptoms. Use when applying the Five Whys Root Cause consulting method and when a user asks for Five Whys Root Cause, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- aliihafezii/five-whystheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- designedbythanh/ai-skills-library-product-designtheir own version, first seen Oct 1, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- designedbythanh/ai-skills-library-product-design★ 2same name
- aliihafezii/five-whys★ 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 repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- 5w1h-analysisSkill
- abductive-reasoningSkill
- account-planSkill
- affinity-diagramSkill
- assumption-inventorySkill
- balanced-scorecardSkill
- break-even-analysisSkill
- business-model-canvasSkill
- change-event-timelineSkill
- change-impact-analysisSkill
- communications-planSkill
- competitive-positioningSkill
- constraint-analysisSkill
- cost-benefit-analysisSkill
- critical-uncertaintiesSkill
- customer-segmentationSkill
- customer-success-health-scoreSkill
- deal-strategy-mapSkill
- decision-matrixSkill
- deductive-reasoningSkill
- effort-impact-matrixSkill
- empathy-mapSkill
- evidence-mapSkill
- fifteen-percent-solutionsSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- fishbone-diagramSkill
- force-field-analysisSkill
- go-to-market-diagnosisSkill
- hypothesis-treeSkill
- inductive-reasoningSkill
- issue-treeSkill
- jobs-to-be-doneSkill
- kano-modelSkill
- mece-frameworkSkill
- metrics-treeSkill
- mind-map-analysisSkill
- min-specsSkill
- north-star-metricSkill
- pestel-analysisSkill
- porter-five-forcesSkill
- power-interest-gridSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- pricing-strategy-checkSkill
- raci-matrixSkill
- rice-scoringSkill
- risk-matrixSkill
- scenario-planningSkill
- service-blueprintSkill
- signal-vs-noise-filterSkill
- stakeholder-power-mapSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- user-journey-mappingSkill
- validation-planSkill
- weighted-scorecardSkill
- win-loss-reviewSkill
- wsjf-prioritizationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 9
Use this skill to run Five Whys Root Cause as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
- Distinctive: line 13
Ask why until reaching a controllable cause, not a person to blame.
- Very specific: line 25
If an input is missing, do not block automatically.
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not use when the problem has several interacting causal paths, feedback loops, or insufficient event evidence.
- Distinctive: line 87
Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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
Use this skill to run Five Whys Root Cause as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
Method Notes
- Ask why until reaching a controllable cause, not a person to blame.
- Branch when the answer has multiple causes.
Required Inputs
Collect or infer these inputs before execution:
- problem statement
- evidence
- timeline
- constraints and failed fixes
If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.
When Not To Use
Do not use when the problem has several interacting causal paths, feedback loops, or insufficient event evidence. A single Why chain can oversimplify a multi-causal system.
Adjacent Methods
fishbone-diagram: use when several cause branches must be compared.systems-thinking: use when feedback, delay, or incentives keep recreating the issue.constraint-analysis: use when one limiting factor is already visible.
Step-by-Step Execution
| Step | Required input | How to execute | Output |
| State problem | Observed issue, impact, scope, time. | Write one clear problem without blame. | Problem statement. |
| Ask first why | Problem and immediate evidence. | Explain the direct cause with evidence. | Cause 1. |
| Continue why chain | Previous cause and evidence. | Ask why again until reaching a controllable system/process cause. | Cause chain. |
| Branch if needed | Cause chain with multiple plausible causes. | Split into parallel why chains when one answer hides multiple causes. | Cause branches. |
| Convert to prevention | Root cause and constraints. | Define corrective action, owner, deadline, and recurrence check. | Root-cause action plan. |
Output Template
### 1. Problem Statement
Observed problem:
Expected state:
Evidence:
Boundary:
### 2. Why Chain
| Level | Why did this occur? | Evidence | Assumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### 3. Root Cause Judgment
Candidate root cause:
Mechanism:
Inside control:
Alternative branch:
### 4. Corrective And Preventive Action
| Action | Owner | Timing | Recurrence signal | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:Quality Gate
- Produce the method-specific outputs for Problem Statement, Why Chain, Root Cause Judgment; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
- Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
- Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
- Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
- State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
- Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
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.

