Always analysing deeds: sati and samadhi In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong. So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop.
But,
I recently realize that I'm living in a different world. I am far away from the real world. I was trying to improve samadhi but it weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind. Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple.
So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But this prevent having sati.
Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day.
Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?
It seems like you have developed a method of suppression which is favoured in the Theravada tradition - under certain circumstances. This isn't bad if done correctly, but you may find that whatever is suppressed must then find the next path of least resistance, usually through our emotions which, in turn, shapes our behaviour. This might be why you feel your sati has been weakened. These instances require emotional and mental discernment. They must be understood or known and that understanding or knowing must come from an observation that is not informed by our regular mental and emotional conditioning. This is sati. This is correct attention. Sati and Samadhi are very different, but they often  acquaint each other as part of the Nobel Eightfold Path.
Developing healthy emotional intelligence is key because the way in which we respond to emotional upheaval determines the quality of our dhamma path. Virtue and morality (sila) practice is considered a critical and fundamental prelude that serves to strengthen and lubricate the dhamma path in ways that will permanently and radically change the mind, behaviour and feelings. Having healthy emotional intelligence at the outset is similar to servicing your car prior to a long journey - and even along the journey, we stop off and continue to service the car. In the same way, we give correct attention to our emotional and mental state as often as is needed so that we are able to see how our behaviour is influenced by our thoughts and our environment. So, this kind of virtuous pursuit is aided by being open and receptive rather than being trained onto one modality: the single good thought. I'm not saying your method is wrong, just that different situations call upon different forms of sati or a different kind of attention.
In some instances, I have found it helpful to let whatever occurs occur. This often means letting go of dhamma concepts and throwing caution to the wind. I make mistakes and I give my apologies, but I learn valuable lessons about myself, people and the complexity of social dynamics. I think this kind of raw human intimacy cannot be given the substitute we call dhamma, but I think it helps to have a reasonable ability to manage your own emotions.
We all have our different skill sets in dhamma, and you may not have found what's most useful to you at this moment or perhaps something needs tweaking a little. There's a lot to be said for trial and error. Largely, I'm an observer; I watch, study and examine my own behaviour and others' behaviour through the magnifying glass of dhamma. Sometimes I throw myself in there, sometimes I don't. It's nice to have the choice.

Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have
a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have
sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did
during the day.

The general idea of good and bad comes from preconceived notions, man-made conceptions that only produce stress. For example, good and bad define each other and the void in the middle is called stress. In Buddhist thought, we can see this as attraction and aversion leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain and suffering. Having said that, I think it can be helpful to generalize good and bad for the sake of orientation. But, ultimately, whatever knows morality knows it from a place beyond conceptions. Keeping to the basic precepts is enough for most people. I would't discount the single thought practice; it just may not be practical all of the time.
Adjunct to this, some Theravadins have hundreds of ridiculous rule sets that constrict the practitioner such that they lose their autonomy to systematic regimes. Now, sometimes I dwell in arcane regions of the cosmos to try and understand humans from a new perspective, but this I could never understand.

So How am I improve the situation?

Studying the Noble Eightfold Path.