Why
Answer why the specified code or design took its current shape. Requires source
access; history, review records, and connected services improve available evidence.
This is an investigation, not an implementation request.
- Anchor the question. Identify the relevant files, symbols, and decision.
State an interpretation if the target is ambiguous. Read enough code to separate
the behavior from the motivation the user is asking about.
- Trace lineage. Inspect blame and patch history through renames, including the
introduction of the behavior rather than only its latest edit. Read relevant
commits and available PR discussions. Follow actual linked tickets or documents;
missing history or host access is a coverage gap, not an empty search result.
- Expand where evidence points. Use available issue trackers, design documents,
team discussions, incident records, observability, or analytics when relevant to
the unresolved question. Defensive code often warrants incident history. Record
sources searched, useful queries, empty results, and unavailable relevant sources.
Stop when the bounded question is answered or remaining gaps are clear. A small
question with a direct contemporary answer does not require a broad source sweep.
- Weigh the record. Distinguish explicit contemporary rationale, conclusions
supported by several indirect sources, plausible hypotheses, and unknowns.
Code demonstrates behavior, not author intent. Treat the user's proposed reason
as a hypothesis. Surface contradictory records and distinguish an original
motivation from later changes; a current benefit need not be the historical reason.
- Explain the answer. Lead with the strongest supported conclusion. Cite each
material claim to a real source or revision and preserve uncertainty in the
wording. Include relevant alternatives, the search coverage, and remaining gaps.
When preparing for a change, derive concrete constraints: preserve, change,
avoid, and unresolved risk. Keep recommendations distinct from historical facts.
Work directly for narrow questions. Independent source investigators are optional
when available and authorized; their summaries still require citation checks.
1---2name: why3description: Investigate the history and rationale behind code, with cited facts and explicit uncertainty.4---56# Why78Answer why the specified code or design took its current shape. Requires source9access; history, review records, and connected services improve available evidence.10This is an investigation, not an implementation request.11121. **Anchor the question.** Identify the relevant files, symbols, and decision.13 State an interpretation if the target is ambiguous. Read enough code to separate14 the behavior from the motivation the user is asking about.152. **Trace lineage.** Inspect blame and patch history through renames, including the16 introduction of the behavior rather than only its latest edit. Read relevant17 commits and available PR discussions. Follow actual linked tickets or documents;18 missing history or host access is a coverage gap, not an empty search result.193. **Expand where evidence points.** Use available issue trackers, design documents,20 team discussions, incident records, observability, or analytics when relevant to21 the unresolved question. Defensive code often warrants incident history. Record22 sources searched, useful queries, empty results, and unavailable relevant sources.23 Stop when the bounded question is answered or remaining gaps are clear. A small24 question with a direct contemporary answer does not require a broad source sweep.254. **Weigh the record.** Distinguish explicit contemporary rationale, conclusions26 supported by several indirect sources, plausible hypotheses, and unknowns.27 Code demonstrates behavior, not author intent. Treat the user's proposed reason28 as a hypothesis. Surface contradictory records and distinguish an original29 motivation from later changes; a current benefit need not be the historical reason.305. **Explain the answer.** Lead with the strongest supported conclusion. Cite each31 material claim to a real source or revision and preserve uncertainty in the32 wording. Include relevant alternatives, the search coverage, and remaining gaps.33 When preparing for a change, derive concrete constraints: preserve, change,34 avoid, and unresolved risk. Keep recommendations distinct from historical facts.3536Work directly for narrow questions. Independent source investigators are optional37when available and authorized; their summaries still require citation checks.
inprealpha