diagnose

MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke {{command_prefix}}agent-workflow — it contains workflow principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no workflow context exists yet, you MUST run {{command_prefix}}teach-maestro first.

Perform a systematic diagnostic scan across 5 dimensions. For each dimension, score 1-5 and provide specific findings.

Dimension 1: Prompt Quality (1-5)

Evaluate:

Structure (4-zone pattern: role, context, instructions, output)
Output schema definition (explicit vs. implicit)
Instruction clarity (specific vs. vague)
Edge case handling (addressed vs. ignored)
Anti-patterns present (wall of text, contradictions, implicit format)

Dimension 2: Context Efficiency (1-5)

Evaluate:

Context budget allocation (planned vs. ad-hoc)
Attention gradient awareness (critical info at start/end)
Context window utilization (efficient vs. wasteful)
State management (explicit vs. implicit)
Memory strategy (appropriate for conversation length)

Dimension 3: Tool Health (1-5)

Evaluate:

Tool count (3-7 ideal, 13+ problematic)
Description quality (specific vs. vague)
Error handling (graceful vs. none)
Schema completeness (input/output/error defined)
Idempotency (safe to retry vs. side-effect prone)
Scope attribution: Distinguish between project-configured tools (e.g., custom scripts, project MCP servers) and agent-level tools (e.g., built-in IDE tools, global MCP servers). Only flag tool overhead for tools the project can actually control

Dimension 4: Architecture Fitness (1-5)

Evaluate:

Topology appropriateness (single vs. multi-agent justified)
Agent boundaries (clear vs. overlapping)
Handoff protocols (structured vs. ad-hoc)
Observability (decisions logged vs. black box)
Cost awareness (budgeted vs. unbounded)

Dimension 5: Safety & Reliability (1-5)

Evaluate:

Input validation (present vs. absent)
Output filtering (PII, content policy) — scope contextually: data flowing between a user's own frontend and backend (e.g., authenticated sessions, internal APIs) is lower risk than data exposed to external services or third-party APIs
Cost controls (ceilings set vs. unbounded)
Error recovery (fallbacks vs. crash)
Evaluation strategy (golden tests vs. "it seems to work")

Diagnostic Report Format

text

╔══════════════════════════════════════╗
║          MAESTRO DIAGNOSTIC         ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Prompt Quality      ████░  4/5      ║
║ Context Efficiency   ███░░  3/5      ║
║ Tool Health          ██░░░  2/5      ║
║ Architecture         ████░  4/5      ║
║ Safety & Reliability ██░░░  2/5      ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Overall Score:       15/25           ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════╝

CRITICAL FINDINGS:
1. [Most severe issue — immediate action needed]
2. [Second most severe]
3. [Third]

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Run /fortify to add error handling (addresses Tool Health + Safety)
2. Run /streamline to reduce tool count (addresses Tool Health)
3. Run /refine for prompt structure improvements (addresses Prompt Quality)

Maestro Command Mapping

Every recommended action MUST reference the specific Maestro command that addresses it. Use this mapping:

Dimension Gap	Maestro Command	When to Recommend
Prompt structure, clarity, output schema	`{{command_prefix}}refine`	Score ≤ 4 on Prompt Quality
Context budget, attention gradient, memory	`{{command_prefix}}streamline`	Score ≤ 3 on Context Efficiency
Tool errors, missing tools, redundant tools	`{{command_prefix}}fortify`	Score ≤ 3 on Tool Health
Tool count reduction, unused tools	`{{command_prefix}}streamline`	Tool count > 7 or unused tools found
Safety gaps, error recovery, validation	`{{command_prefix}}fortify`	Score ≤ 3 on Safety & Reliability
Test coverage, golden tests, evaluation	`{{command_prefix}}guard`	No automated tests or evaluation strategy
Architecture boundaries, observability	`{{command_prefix}}calibrate`	Score ≤ 3 on Architecture Fitness

Do NOT give generic manual actions (e.g., "Add Vitest", "Create a rollback script") without also specifying which Maestro command the user should run to implement it. The recommended action format is:

Run
{{command_prefix}}<command>
to [specific action] (addresses [Dimension] #[gap number])

Scoring Guide

Score	Meaning	Maestro Action
5	Production-excellent	No action needed
4	Good with minor gaps	`{{command_prefix}}refine` for polish
3	Functional but risky	`{{command_prefix}}fortify` or `{{command_prefix}}streamline` for targeted fix
2	Significant issues	`{{command_prefix}}fortify` + `{{command_prefix}}guard` — immediate attention
1	Broken or missing	`{{command_prefix}}onboard-agent` — rebuild required

Diagnostic Checklist

All 5 dimensions scored with specific evidence
Critical findings listed in priority order
Each finding includes specific file/component location
Recommended actions reference specific Maestro commands (see Command Mapping above)
Overall score calculated and report generated

Recommended Next Step

After diagnosis, run the command mapped to your lowest-scoring dimension. For a general improvement sequence:

{{command_prefix}}fortify

→

{{command_prefix}}streamline

→

{{command_prefix}}refine

NEVER:

Give all 5s unless the workflow is genuinely production-excellent
Skip dimensions — score all 5 even if some seem fine
Diagnose without reading the actual workflow code/config
Recommend changes without specific findings to support them
Give generic manual actions without mapping them to a Maestro command

diagnose

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

MANDATORY PREPARATION

Dimension 1: Prompt Quality (1-5)

Dimension 2: Context Efficiency (1-5)

Dimension 3: Tool Health (1-5)

Dimension 4: Architecture Fitness (1-5)

Dimension 5: Safety & Reliability (1-5)

Diagnostic Report Format

Maestro Command Mapping

Scoring Guide

Diagnostic Checklist

Recommended Next Step