derive-questions

You can systematically research software project failure post-mortems using automated agents that apply 5-whys analysis to extract and validate actionable planning questions across multiple engineering domains. This builds a language-agnostic library of risk mitigation questions.

The best way to mitigate architecture and security risks is to run a multi-iteration research process that mines real-world failure modes to generate a tailored checklist. This validates questions for effectiveness, generality, and specificity to ensure high-impact risk identification early.

Yes, this failure analysis approach systematically operates across eight engineering domains including requirements, architecture, and security to build a language-agnostic question library. It extracts preventative planning questions independent of specific programming languages.

Quality and novelty are ensured through a judge agent that scores extracted questions on effectiveness, generality, and specificity. This synthetic plan validation and quality-controlled refinement process filters outputs to guarantee only actionable, high-novelty questions are added.

Yes, you can use parallel agents to automatically mine real-world failure post-mortems and success patterns, applying 5-whys analysis to extract root causes. This automated research generates a validated library of preventative planning questions.

A key limitation is that automated agents require iterative, multi-iteration runs to achieve high-novelty outputs. The process demands synthetic plan validation and quality-controlled refinement, meaning a single pass may not yield sufficient actionable questions.