mcpField
W
why

why

github.com/yeachan-heoその他40.7k7 回インストール今日更新
リポジトリ

why について

人による判断の原文、git の履歴調査、関連 issue、インシデント記録などの証拠から、コードが現在の形になった理由を調べます。すべての主張に「証拠」「推論」「推測」のラベルを付けます。「なぜこのように作られたのか」を調べる場合に使用します。

インストール

コマンドをコピーしてターミナルで実行します。

$npx skills add https://github.com/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill why

インストール後、Claude Code で/whyを入力して読み込まれたか確認します。

同梱ファイル

SKILL.md と一緒にインストールされる参考資料やスクリプト。

references/
epistemics.md
investigator-prompt.md
source-playbooks.md
synthesizer-prompt.md

README（原文）English

プロジェクトの README より

この README の日本語訳はまだありません。以下は英語の原文です。日本語の紹介はページ上部をご覧ください。

Why

Answer "why is it like this?" from evidence, not vibes. The deliverable is a cited answer, not a fix; a fix that falls out of the answer goes through its own lane.

When to use

  • "why was this built this way", "why does this exist"
  • "are we sure about Z" before betting work on Z
  • "should we do X or Y" where the answer lives in history, not preference

Sources, in order of authority

  1. Human rulings. A decision a person made is quoted verbatim with attribution (commit message, issue comment, PR review, chat log). Never paraphrase a ruling into your own words; label agent interpretations as interpretations, and missing originals as missing. A copy of a ruling is not a new decision.
  2. Code archaeology. git log --follow, git log -S, blame on the deciding lines, and the diff that introduced them. Name the commit and what problem its message claims to solve.
  3. Linked records. Issues and PRs reachable from the code (references in commit messages, gh issue list --state all --search, PR review threads) — acceptance criteria and rejected alternatives live here.
  4. Incident and observability sources. When configured, query them through their own tools (Sentry, Datadog, Databricks, dashboards, incident postmortems) or MCP servers (Slack, Linear, Notion). Cite the alert, thread, ticket, or postmortem. If a source needs credentials you do not have, say so and move on.

Method

  1. State the question and what would count as an answer.
  2. Fan out source gathering to a read-only subagent when the history is long (oh-my-claudecode:explore); keep synthesis in the lead.
  3. Reconcile: where sources conflict, the more authoritative source wins, and the conflict itself is reported.
  4. Write the answer with three labeled tiers — evidence (cited), inference (your reasoning from evidence, marked), guess (marked). End with the one action the answer most supports, or "no action".

Rules

  • Every claim about a past decision names its source in the same sentence.
  • Absence of evidence is reported as "no record found", never as "no reason".
  • The answer never edits code. If the user asks to act on it, hand off to execute or debug.

コメント

Markdown 対応