Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 效率

root-cause-analysis(根本原因分析)

root-cause-analysis 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

root-cause-analysis 是效率类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在效率类的 21,003 个 Skill 里排第 8,432。

总安装 7,080周安装 301GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 2,480核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:root-cause-analysis(根本原因分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/linuszz/root-cause-analysis
安装命令:
openclaw skills install root-cause-analysis
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install root-cause-analysis

这个 Skill 是做什么的

效率类 Skill 把重复的整理、汇总、转换工作交给助手完成,减少手工复制粘贴。

使用逻辑树方法来识别业务问题的根本原因。在诊断性能问题、流程故障或客户行为模式时使用。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install root-cause-analysis;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

root-cause-analysis 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install root-cause-analysis。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

root-cause-analysis 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

root-cause-analysis 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

root-cause-analysis 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

root-cause-analysis 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 7,080 次,近一周安装 301 次,下载 2,480 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

root-cause-analysis 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理效率类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

效率类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
github

GitHub 代码协作 · OpenClaw

7,632,918545需要联网MIT-0通过
nano-pdf

Nano PDF 文档 · OpenClaw

4,249,476231需要联网MIT-0通过
auto-updater

自动更新程序 · OpenClaw

2,964,063386操作浏览器MIT-0通过
video-frames

视频帧 · OpenClaw

2,621,304112需要联网MIT-0通过
gemini

Gemini 助手 · OpenClaw

2,547,39648需要联网MIT-0有提醒
root-cause-analysis

根本原因分析 · 本页

7,080—只读MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
root-cause-analysis
description
Use logic tree approach to identify root causes of business problems. Use when diagnosing performance issues, process failures, or customer behavior patterns.

Root Cause Analysis

Metadata

  • Name: root-cause-analysis
  • Description: Logic tree approach to problem diagnosis
  • Triggers: root cause, problem solving, logic tree, issue tree, why analysis, fishbone

Instructions

You are a problem-solving analyst diagnosing the root cause of $ARGUMENTS.

Your task is to systematically break down the problem until you reach actionable root causes.

Framework

The Logic Tree Structure

                    ┌─────────────────────────────┐
                    │     THE PROBLEM             │
                    │  (What you're trying to     │
                    │      explain)               │
                    └──────────────┬──────────────┘
                                   │
            ┌──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┐
            │                      │                      │
    ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐      ┌───────┴───────┐
    │  Branch 1     │      │  Branch 2     │      │  Branch 3     │
    │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │      │  (Category)   │
    └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘      └───────┬───────┘
            │                      │                      │
        ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐              ┌───┴───┐
        │       │              │       │              │       │
    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐    ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴───┐
    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│    │Level 3│ │Level 3│
    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘    └───────┘ └───────┘

MECE Principles

Mutually Exclusive: Branches should not overlap Completely Exhaustive: Together, branches explain the whole problem

Common Branching Frameworks

FrameworkApplicationBranches
RevenueSales problemsPrice × Volume = Revenue
CostCost overrunsFixed + Variable
ProfitMargin issuesRevenue - Cost
ProcessOperational issuesPeople + Process + Technology
CustomerCustomer issuesAcquisition + Retention + Expansion
QualityQuality problemsIshikawa: 4M/6M (Man, Machine, Material, Method, Measurement, Environment)

The "5 Whys" Technique

Problem: Machine stopped
Why? → Fuse blew
Why? → Bearing overheated
Why? → Insufficient lubrication
Why? → Oil pump not working
Why? → Shaft worn from metal scrap
         ↑
    ROOT CAUSE (Actionable)

Output Process

  1. State the problem clearly - Quantified if possible
  2. Create initial hypothesis tree - 3-5 main branches
  3. Check for MECE - No gaps, no overlaps
  4. Add sub-branches - Go 4-6 levels deep
  5. Gather data - Validate or disprove each branch
  6. Quantify impact - Weight each branch by contribution
  7. Identify root causes - Bottom-level, actionable causes
  8. Prioritize - Focus on highest impact causes

Output Format

## Root Cause Analysis: [Problem Statement]

### Problem Statement

**What is the problem?**
[Clear, specific, quantified statement]

**How big is the problem?**
[Quantify the impact: revenue, cost, customers, etc.]

**When did it start?**
[Timeline of when the problem emerged]

---

### Logic Tree

[Problem: e.g., Customer Churn Increased 20%] │ ├── Branch 1: Product Issues (30%) │ ├── Feature gaps │ │ ├── Missing integration X (10%) │ │ └── Missing feature Y (8%) │ └── Quality problems │ ├── Bug rate increased (8%) │ └── Performance degraded (4%) │ ├── Branch 2: Service Issues (25%) │ ├── Response time slow (15%) │ └── Resolution rate low (10%) │ ├── Branch 3: Competitive Pressure (20%) │ ├── New entrant with lower price (12%) │ └── Competitor feature parity (8%) │ ├── Branch 4: Price Sensitivity (15%) │ ├── Annual price increase (10%) │ └── Economic downturn (5%) │ └── Branch 5: Other (10%) ├── Natural churn (7%) └── Unknown (3%)


---

### Root Causes Identified

| Root Cause | Impact | Confidence | Actionable? |
|------------|--------|------------|-------------|
| Missing integration X | 10% churn | High | ✅ Yes |
| Response time > 24h | 15% churn | High | ✅ Yes |
| Annual price increase | 10% churn | Medium | ✅ Yes |
| New entrant pricing | 12% churn | High | ⚠️ Partial |
| Bug rate increased | 8% churn | High | ✅ Yes |

---

### Prioritized Actions

**High Priority (Immediate)**
1. **Fix response time** - Add support staff, improve processes
   - Impact: -15% churn
   - Effort: Medium
   - Owner: [Name]

2. **Restore integration X** - Development sprint
   - Impact: -10% churn
   - Effort: Medium
   - Owner: [Name]

**Medium Priority (30 days)**
3. **Address bug backlog** - QA and fix priority bugs
   - Impact: -8% churn
   - Effort: Low
   - Owner: [Name]

4. **Reconsider pricing** - Offer retention discounts
   - Impact: -10% churn
   - Effort: Low
   - Owner: [Name]

**Monitor (Ongoing)**
5. **Competitive response** - Feature roadmap, positioning
   - Impact: -12% churn
   - Effort: High
   - Owner: [Name]

---

### Validation Plan

| Hypothesis | Data Needed | Source | Status |
|------------|-------------|--------|--------|
| Integration X missing | Exit survey | CRM | ✅ Validated |
| Response time issue | Support tickets | Help Desk | ✅ Validated |
| Price sensitivity | Win/loss analysis | Sales | 🔄 In progress |

Tips

  • Start with a hypothesis, then validate with data
  • Use percentages to weight branches - forces prioritization
  • Go deep enough to be actionable (4-6 levels typically)
  • A root cause is actionable - "market conditions" is not
  • Use interviews and data - don't just brainstorm
  • 80% of problems come from 20% of causes
  • The first explanation is often wrong - keep digging

References

  • Minto, Barbara. *The Pyramid Principle*. 1973.
  • Ishikawa, Kaoru. *Guide to Quality Control*. 1968. (Fishbone Diagram)
  • Ohno, Taiichi. *Toyota Production System*. 1988. (5 Whys)

平台分布

OpenClaw

95.43%
按下载量换算2,367

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills