diagnose

Original：🇺🇸 English
Translated

Use when the user wants to find problems, audit workflow quality, or get a comprehensive health check on their AI workflow.

9installs
Sourcesharpdeveye/maestro
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add sharpdeveye/maestro diagnose

Tags

Translated version includes tags in frontmatter
ai-workflowworkflow-auditai-diagnosticprompt-engineeringagent-architecture

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

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 GapMaestro CommandWhen 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

ScoreMeaningMaestro Action
5Production-excellentNo action needed
4Good with minor gaps
{{command_prefix}}refine
for polish
3Functional but risky
{{command_prefix}}fortify
or 
{{command_prefix}}streamline
for targeted fix
2Significant issues
{{command_prefix}}fortify
+ 
{{command_prefix}}guard
— immediate attention
1Broken 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