Now liveThe Skillselion MCP - thousands of ranked skills, loaded into your agent mid-task. No install.Get it →
bmad-code-org avatar

Bmad Os Root Cause Analysis

  • 1 installs
  • 8 repo stars
  • Updated June 28, 2026
  • bmad-code-org/bmad-utility-skills

bmad-os-root-cause-analysis is a skill that performs root cause analysis on a bug fix and produces a structured RCA report.

About

This skill performs root cause analysis on a bug fix and produces a structured RCA report. A developer runs it on a commit, PR, issue, or description of a fix to find what caused the defect, when it was introduced, and which guardrails failed. It reads the fix diff and discussion, uses git blame and 5 Whys, and writes a report with a detection-latency timeline and corrective actions.

  • Produces a structured RCA report from a commit, PR, issue, or description
  • Uses git blame and 5 Whys to identify who introduced the defect and when
  • Evaluates why each CI, linter, and test guardrail missed the bug

Bmad Os Root Cause Analysis by the numbers

  • 1 all-time installs (skills.sh)
  • Ranked #489 of 596 Debugging skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
  • Data as of Aug 1, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
At a glance

bmad-os-root-cause-analysis capabilities & compatibility

Capabilities
root cause analysis · bug analysis · postmortem
Works with
github
Use cases
debugging · code review
From the docs

What bmad-os-root-cause-analysis says it does

Analyze a bug-fix commit or PR and produce a structured Root Cause Analysis report.
SKILL.md
Apply 5 Whys. Classify the root cause. Identify contributing factors.
SKILL.md
npx skills add https://github.com/bmad-code-org/bmad-utility-skills --skill bmad-os-root-cause-analysis

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

Listed on Skillselion
Installs1
repo stars8
Last updatedJune 28, 2026
Repositorybmad-code-org/bmad-utility-skills

What it does

Perform root cause analysis on a bug fix and produce a structured RCA report with a 5 Whys analysis and failed-guardrail review.

Who is it for?

Teams that want a factual RCA report attributing a defect and reviewing why guardrails missed it.

Skip if: Blameless-postmortem cultures, since the skill deliberately names the individual who introduced the defect.

When should I use this skill?

A user says to run RCA on a commit or PR, requests root cause analysis, or asks what caused a bug.

What you get

A structured RCA report with root cause category, detection latency, and corrective and preventive actions.

  • structured RCA report

By the numbers

  • applies a 5 Whys analysis
  • writes reports to _bmad-output/rca-reports/

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

Bug-Fix Root Cause Analysis

Analyze a bug-fix commit or PR and produce a structured Root Cause Analysis report.

Principles

  • Direct attribution. This report names the individual who introduced the defect. Industry convention advocates blameless postmortems. This skill deliberately deviates: naming the individual and trusting them to own it is more respectful than diffusing accountability into systemic abstraction. Direct, factual, not accusatory. If authorship can't be determined confidently, say so.
  • Pyramid communication. The executive summary must convey the full picture. A reader who stops after the first paragraph gets the gist. Everything else is supporting evidence.

Preflight

Verify gh auth status and that you're in a git repository. Stop with a clear message if either fails.

Execution

1. Identify the fix. Accept whatever the user provides — commit SHA, PR, issue, description. Resolve to the specific fix commit/PR using gh and git. If ambiguous, ask. Confirm the change is actually a bug fix before proceeding. 2. Gather evidence. Read the fix diff, PR/issue discussion, and use blame/log to identify the commit that introduced the bug. Collect timeline data. 3. Analyze. Apply 5 Whys. Classify the root cause. Identify contributing factors. 4. Evaluate guardrails. Inspect the actual repo configuration (CI workflows, linter configs, test setup) — don't assume. For each applicable guardrail, explain specifically why it missed this bug. 5. Write the report to _bmad-output/rca-reports/rca-{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}.md. Present the executive summary in chat.

Report Structure

# Root Cause Analysis: {Bug Title}

**Date:** {today}
**Fix:** {PR link or commit SHA}
**Severity:** {Critical | High | Medium | Low}
**Root Cause Category:** {Requirements | Design | Code Logic | Test Gap | Process | Environment/Config}

## Executive Summary

{One paragraph. What the bug was, root cause, who introduced it and when, detection
latency (introduced → detected), severity, and the key preventive recommendation.}

## What Was the Problem?

## When Did It Happen?

| Event | Date | Reference |
|-------|------|-----------|
| Introduced | | |
| Detected | | |
| Fixed | | |
| **Detection Latency** | **{introduced → detected}** | |

## Who Caused It?

{Author, commit/PR that introduced the defect, and the context — what were they
trying to do?}

## How Did It Happen?

## Why Did It Happen?

{5 Whys analysis. Root cause category. Contributing factors.}

## Failed Guardrails Analysis

| Guardrail | In Place? | Why It Failed |
|-----------|-----------|---------------|
| | | |

**Most Critical Failure:** {Which one mattered most and why.}

## Resolution

## Corrective & Preventive Actions

| # | Action | Type | Priority |
|---|--------|------|----------|
| | | {Prevent/Detect/Mitigate} | |

Related skills

FAQ

What inputs does it accept?

A commit SHA, PR number, issue, or a description of the fix.

Is it blameless?

No. It deliberately names the individual who introduced the defect, factually and not accusatory.

Debugginggittesting

This week in AI coding

Five minutes, every Monday - the tools, releases and tactics for developers.

unsubscribe anytime.