agentleFS
synaptiaisynaptiai/agent-capability-standard/skills/attribute/SKILL.md

attribute

Skill6 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Establish cause-effect relationships between events or states. Use when analyzing root causes, mapping dependencies, tracing effects, or building causal models.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈12

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Document the observed effect precisely

    line 39
  2. Distinctive:

    Use provided candidates if available

    line 44
  3. Distinctive:

    Consider proximate and distal causes

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    Check temporal precedence (cause before effect)

    line 49
  5. Distinctive:

    Look for correlation evidence

    line 51
  6. Distinctive:

    Consider counterfactual (would effect occur without cause?)

    line 52
  7. Distinctive:

    Document the causal mechanism

    line 57
  8. Distinctive:

    Document why alternatives are less likely

    line 60
  9. Distinctive:

    Verification tools: Read, Grep (to verify evidence)

    line 237
  10. Distinctive:

    Consider multiple causes (multi-causality)

    line 248
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not assume causation without mechanism

    line 250
  12. Very specific:

    Never use attribute for prediction (use predict)

    line 265
  13. Distinctive:

    Avoid attribution without sufficient evidence

    line 266

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Intent

Establish causal relationships between observed effects and potential causes. This capability supports root cause analysis, dependency mapping, and causal reasoning for planning and debugging.

Success criteria:

  • Causes identified for observed effects
  • Causal strength estimated for each relationship
  • Causal mechanism explained
  • Alternative causes considered and ruled out

Compatible schemas:

  • schemas/output_schema.yaml

Inputs

ParameterRequiredTypeDescription
effectYesanyThe observed effect to attribute
candidatesNoarrayPotential causes to evaluate
contextNoobjectSituational context for attribution

Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).

Procedure

  1. Characterize the effect: Understand what needs to be explained
    • Document the observed effect precisely
    • Note timing and circumstances
    • Identify what changed
  2. Identify candidate causes: Generate list of potential causes
    • Use provided candidates if available
    • Generate additional candidates from context
    • Consider proximate and distal causes
  3. Evaluate causal strength: Assess each candidate
    • Check temporal precedence (cause before effect)
    • Verify mechanism plausibility
    • Look for correlation evidence
    • Consider counterfactual (would effect occur without cause?)
  4. Trace causal chain: Map the path from cause to effect
    • Identify intermediate steps
    • Note amplifying or dampening factors
    • Document the causal mechanism
  5. Rule out alternatives: Eliminate unlikely causes
    • Document why alternatives are less likely
    • Note any confounding factors
    • Flag when multiple causes may contribute
  6. Quantify confidence: Assess attribution certainty
    • Rate strength of causal evidence
    • Note missing evidence
    • Identify what would confirm/refute attribution

Output Contract

Return a structured object:

causes:
  - cause: string  # Identified cause
    strength: number  # 0.0-1.0 causal strength
    mechanism: string  # How cause produces effect
    evidence: array[string]  # Supporting evidence
    type: string  # direct, contributing, enabling
mechanism: string  # Overall causal mechanism: how the primary cause produces the effect
strengths:  # Comparative strengths
  cause_1: number
  cause_2: number
causal_chain:
  - step: string  # Intermediate step
    from: string  # Prior state/event
    to: string  # Resulting state/event
alternatives_ruled_out:
  - cause: string
    reason: string  # Why ruled out
confidence: 0..1
evidence_anchors: ["file:line", "log:entry"]
assumptions: []

Field Definitions

FieldTypeDescription
causesarrayIdentified causes with strength and mechanism
causes[].strengthnumberCausal strength (0-1)
causes[].mechanismstringExplanation of causal pathway
causes[].typestringDirect, contributing, or enabling cause
mechanismstringOverall causal mechanism linking the primary cause to the effect
causal_chainarraySteps from cause to effect
alternatives_ruled_outarrayRejected alternatives with reasons
strengthsobjectCausal strength per cause, for comparison
confidencenumber0.0-1.0 confidence in the attribution
evidence_anchorsarrayReferences to logs, code, or data supporting each cause
assumptionsarrayAssumptions the attribution depends on

Examples

Example 1: Attribute Performance Degradation

Input:

effect: "API response time increased from 200ms to 2000ms"
candidates:
  - "recent deployment"
  - "database load increase"
  - "memory leak"
context:
  timing: "started 2024-01-15 14:30"
  affected: "/api/users endpoint"

Output:

causes:
  - cause: "N+1 query introduced in recent deployment"
    strength: 0.85
    mechanism: "New eager loading removed; each user now triggers 3 additional queries"
    evidence:
      - "Deployment at 14:25, issue started 14:30"
      - "Query count per request increased from 2 to 50+"
      - "Database CPU correlates with API latency"
    type: "direct"
  - cause: "Database connection pool saturation"
    strength: 0.40
    mechanism: "Increased queries exhaust connection pool, causing wait times"
    evidence:
      - "Pool utilization at 95%"
      - "Connection wait time increased"
    type: "contributing"
mechanism: "The deployment removed eager loading, multiplying queries per request (2 to 50+); the database overloads and responses slow from 200ms to 2000ms"
strengths:
  n_plus_1_query: 0.85
  connection_pool: 0.40
  memory_leak: 0.05
causal_chain:
  - step: "Code deployed"
    from: "eager_load(:profile)"
    to: "no eager loading"
  - step: "Query multiplication"
    from: "2 queries/request"
    to: "50+ queries/request"
  - step: "Database overload"
    from: "normal CPU"
    to: "90% CPU"
  - step: "Response delay"
    from: "200ms"
    to: "2000ms"
alternatives_ruled_out:
  - cause: "memory leak"
    reason: "Memory usage stable, no growth pattern"
  - cause: "external service latency"
    reason: "No external calls in affected endpoint"
confidence: 0.85
evidence_anchors:
  - "git log --since='2024-01-15 14:00'"
  - "app/models/user.rb:45 (diff)"
  - "monitoring:query_count"
  - "monitoring:db_cpu"
assumptions:
  - "Monitoring data is accurate"
  - "No other deployments in window"

Example 2: Attribute Test Failure

Input:

effect: "UserService#create test failing with 'Email already taken'"
candidates:
  - "test data pollution"
  - "code change"
  - "database state"

Output:

causes:
  - cause: "Missing database cleanup between tests"
    strength: 0.90
    mechanism: "Test creates user, doesn't clean up, subsequent test finds duplicate"
    evidence:
      - "Test passes in isolation"
      - "Test fails when run after create_user_test"
      - "No database_cleaner configuration"
    type: "direct"
mechanism: "A user created by an earlier test is never cleaned up, so a later create of the same email fails the uniqueness validation"
strengths:
  test_pollution: 0.90
  code_change: 0.05
  fixture_issue: 0.05
causal_chain:
  - step: "First test runs"
    from: "empty database"
    to: "user 'test@example.com' exists"
  - step: "Second test attempts create"
    from: "user exists"
    to: "uniqueness validation fails"
alternatives_ruled_out:
  - cause: "code change"
    reason: "No recent changes to UserService"
  - cause: "fixture issue"
    reason: "Test doesn't use fixtures"
confidence: 0.90
evidence_anchors:
  - "spec/services/user_service_spec.rb:45"
  - "spec/rails_helper.rb (no database_cleaner)"
  - "command:rspec spec/services/user_service_spec.rb:45 --order defined"
assumptions:
  - "Test failure is deterministic with this order"
  - "No parallel test execution"

Verification

  • At least one cause identified with strength > 0.3
  • Mechanism explains how cause produces effect
  • Temporal precedence verified (cause before effect)
  • Alternative causes considered
  • Evidence supports attribution

Verification tools: Read, Grep (to verify evidence)

Safety Constraints

  • mutation: false
  • requires_checkpoint: false
  • requires_approval: false
  • risk: low

Capability-specific rules:

  • Distinguish correlation from causation
  • Consider multiple causes (multi-causality)
  • Note when attribution is uncertain
  • Do not assume causation without mechanism

Composition Patterns

Commonly follows:

  • detect - Detect anomalies then attribute causes
  • observe - Observations reveal effects to attribute
  • measure - Measurements quantify effects

Commonly precedes:

  • plan - Causal understanding informs remediation
  • explain - Attribution enables explanation
  • critique - Causal model enables critique

Anti-patterns:

  • Never use attribute for prediction (use predict)
  • Avoid attribution without sufficient evidence

Workflow references:

  • See reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#debug_code_change for attribution in debugging
  • See reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#world_model_build for causal modeling

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.