Deep Analysis

Architectural Analysis

Overview

Execute high-density analysis to transform vague ideas into a verified problem map: constraints, core modules, facts vs assumptions, relationship flows, causal chains, and failure modes. Focus on analysis artifacts that unlock the next workflow step, not a full design.

Style: Code-like, Concise, No "AI explaining itself". Pure signal.

Critical Rules

• NO FLUFF - Output must be dense, actionable, and structured
• VISUALIZE - Use terminal-friendly ASCII maps (->) for structural mappings
• ANALYZE, DON'T BUILD - Prefer maps, drivers, and failure modes over implementation plans unless explicitly requested
• RUTHLESSNESS - Challenge assumptions at every step. Never confirm user biases
• LATTICEWORK - Validate the map with 3-5 lenses; look for convergence/tension/blind spots/surprises

Output modes:

• Default: produce sections 0-5.
• Quick map (info-poor/time-boxed): produce 0/1/3/5 + top 3 unknowns that would change the map.

NEVER

• NEVER ship a solution-first plan; produce a map that enables the next step.
• NEVER mix facts and assumptions; label unknowns explicitly or the map lies.
• NEVER include non-CORE modules in the flow map; it hides the real bottleneck.
• NEVER output a 1D "A->B->C" only; the flow map must show branches/merges (2D).
• NEVER exceed terminal constraints (aim <= 80 cols, <= 20 lines) or it becomes unreadable.

The Process

PHASE 0: CALIBRATION (The Anchor)

• Bind constraints strictly.
• If constraints are missing: assume "MVP/Prototype Stage" (low cost, high iteration) and proceed.
• If the prompt starts with a solution: rewrite as "problem statement + constraints" before proceeding.
• Output: One-sentence problem statement + constraint list (incl. explicit unknowns).

PHASE 1: DECOMPOSITION (The Pareto Slice)

• Decompose into modules and interfaces (treat each module as a black box).
• Identify the Pareto CORE (top risk/weight); mark the rest as later.
• Output: CORE module list with 1-line rationale each.

PHASE 2: EXCAVATION (First Principles)

For CORE modules identified in Phase 1:

• Separate facts vs assumptions; name the irreducible constraints/invariants.
• Locate the dominant bottleneck (ask "why not 10x?" to expose limits).
• Output: Compact fact/assumption list per CORE module.

PHASE 3: RE-ARCHITECTING (Structural Evolution)

Reassemble components based on First Principles findings, NOT original assumptions:

• Pipeline: CORE modules -> boundary context -> internal critical path -> prune -> output flow map
• Prune redundant hops found in Phase 2 (keep it minimal, not exhaustive).
• Output: Terminal-friendly 2D flow map using -> (CORE only, 8-20 lines):
  • Boundary context (1-3 lines)
  • Internal critical path with branches/merges (2D; not just a single chain)

Flow map conventions (ASCII only):

• Use [NOUN_PHRASE] for nodes (modules, actors, systems)
• Use -> for directional flow (data, control, dependency)
• Use A <-> B only when truly bidirectional
• Add short edge labels sparingly: A ->(auth)-> B
• Use indentation and | / +- to show branches; use -+ to show merges

Templates:

• Boundary context: [User/Actor] -> [Entry Point] -> [System] -> [External Dependency]
• Internal (2D): [Input] -> [Core A] -> [State/DB] -> [Output] |-> [Core B] -> [Cache]

PHASE 4: OSCILLATION (Zoom In/Out)

• Pipeline: macro frame -> lattice sweep -> key drivers -> causal chains -> leverage points
• Rule: derive top-down hypotheses, validate bottom-up via key driver mechanics
• Macro frame: boundary + lifecycle + stakeholders + metrics + constraints
  • Lifecycle stage: prototype -> growth -> scale -> decline (pick one)
• Lattice sweep (3-5 lenses; generate dynamically):
  • Ask: who handles it daily? who pays the highest failure cost? who attacks it? who sees incentives/cost curves? who has a different worldview?
  • If unclear, default to: operator / risk / economist / adversary
  • For each lens, extract: missing constraints, likely failure modes, candidate key drivers
• Key drivers (1-3): mechanism + invariants + stress failures + cost model
• Output:
  • 2-4 causal chains: micro mechanism -> macro consequence (label: convergent/tension/blind spot/surprise)
  • Leverage points (micro changes that shift macro materially)

PHASE 5: INVERSION (The Pre-Mortem)

• Assume the proposed approach has FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY 6 months post-launch.
• Ask "How exactly did it break?" (race conditions, cost explosion, user rejection).
• Use Phase 0 constraints to sharpen the failure story.
• Output: "Kill Shots" (fatal flaws) + "Mitigation Hypotheses" (testable preventions).

Output Format

### 0.约束条件 (假设/给定)
问题: [one-sentence problem statement]
约束: [hard constraints]
未知: [unknowns that change the map]

### 1.核心模块 (帕累托Top 20%)
[模块名]: [一句话说明为何这是核心]
[模块名]: [一句话说明为何这是核心]

### 2.第一性原理真相
[模块A] [根本限制/真相]
[模块B] [根本限制/真相]

### 3.逻辑流程图
Flow map (ASCII 2D, `->`, <= 80 cols, 8-20 lines):
[Boundary]
[Actor] -> [Entry] -> [System] -> [External]

[Internal]
[Input] -> [Core A] -> [State/DB] -> [Output]
           |-> [Core B] -> [Cache]
           |-> [Queue] -> [Worker] -> [External]

### 4.对齐检查
宏观: [边界/环境/生命周期/指标/约束]
镜头: [lens] -> [insight]; [lens] -> [insight]; [lens] -> [insight]
关键驱动: [1-3 个主导机制]
微观: [关键驱动的机制/不变量/失败模式/成本模型]
链路: [micro -> macro 因果链(label: convergent/tension/blind spot/surprise) + 杠杆点]

### 5.事前验尸 (失败检查)
* 最薄弱环节: [具体组件]
* 失败模式: [如何崩溃] -> 缓解假设: [可验证的 mitigation hypothesis]

Key Principles

• Pareto Focus - Keep CORE only; park the rest
• Fact vs Assumption - Turn debates into checkable statements
• Latticework - Cross-check with 3-5 lenses; synthesize signals
• Causal Mapping - Express micro->macro via chains and leverage points
• Inversion Thinking - Assume failure first, then work backwards
• Terminal First - Use ASCII maps (->) only; no rich diagrams