data-analysis-standard
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Works with
Agent Skills format with YAML frontmatter. Claude Code reads it as-is.
--- name: "data-analysis-standard" description: "Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action." license: "MIT" --- # Data Analysis Standard Skill Turn raw numbers into product decisions. Structure every analysis with a clear question, methodology, finding, and recommended action. ## Analysis Framework: The 4-Question Method Every analysis starts here: 1. **What changed?** (describe the metric and its movement) 2. **Why did it change?** (root cause — segment, funnel step, cohort, channel) 3. **So what?** (business or product impact) 4. **Now what?** (recommended action with confidence level) Never deliver data without answering all four. A chart with no narrative is not an analysis. --- ## Metric Triage Template Use when a metric has moved unexpectedly: ``` METRIC: [Name] MOVEMENT: [X% change over Y period] BASELINE: [What was normal] SEGMENTATION CHECK: - By platform (iOS / Android / Web)? - By user cohort (new / returning / power users)? - By acquisition channel? - By geography? - By plan/tier? ROOT CAUSE HYPOTHESIS: 1. [Most likely explanation] — Evidence: [data point] 2. [Alternative explanation] — Evidence: [data point] 3. [Ruling out] — Eliminated because: [reason] CONCLUSION: [Single sentence answer to "why did this change?"] CONFIDENCE: [High / Medium / Low] — based on [data available] ``` --- ## Funnel Analysis Structure | Stage | Metric | Current | Benchmark/Target | Drop-off % | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | [Top of funnel] | [Users] | [N] | [N] | — | | | [Step 2] | [Users] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | | | [Step 3] | [Users] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | | | [Conversion] | [Users] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | | **Biggest drop-off:** [Step X → Step Y] — Hypothesis: [reason] **Recommended investigation:** [specific query or test] --- ## Cohort Analysis Guidelines Always define: - **Cohort definition:** [What groups users — signup week, first action, plan type] - **Retention metric:** [What counts as retained — login, core action, revenue] - **Retention window:** [D1, D7, D30, W4, M3, etc.] Output a cohort retention table and annotate: - Baseline retention for each cohort - Cohorts that over/underperform and why (feature launch? campaign? seasonal?) - Trend direction across cohorts (improving / declining / stable) --- ## Stakeholder Analysis Output Format ### [Analysis Title] — [Date] **Question being answered:** [Specific question in plain English] **Time period:** [Date range] **Data source:** [Where data comes from] **Finding:** > [1–2 sentence plain-English summary of what the data shows] **Key chart / table:** [Include or describe] **Root cause:** [Best explanation with evidence] **Confidence level:** [High / Medium / Low] — [reason] **Recommended action:** 1. [Immediate action — owner, timeline] 2. [Investigation needed — what to check next] 3. [Monitoring — what metric to watch and at what cadence] **What this analysis does NOT tell us:** [Important caveat — what data is missing or what can't be concluded] --- ## Required Inputs Ask the user for these if not provided: - **Metric or question** being investigated - **Time period** (what changed, from when to when) - **Data available** (which segments, sources, or queries you have access to) - **Business context** (what decision this analysis informs) - **Audience** (who will read this — exec / team / data team) ## Deeper Materials This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available: - **`references/analysis-integrity.md`** — Analysis Integrity: the Checks Between Query and Conclusion. Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses. - **`templates/analysis-writeup.md`** — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated. ## Scoring Rubric (0–40) Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality. | Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 | |---|---|---|---| | Four-question completeness | Describes what changed and stops | Covers what/why but "so what / now what" are thin | All four answered with proportionate depth; the "now what" is decision-ready | | Evidence behind the root cause | Root cause asserted from intuition | One supporting data point, alternatives unexamined | Root cause tested against at least one rival explanation, with the discriminating evidence shown | | Uncertainty honesty | Reads as certain; no confidence statement | Confidence stated but not justified | Confidence level justified, and "what the data cannot tell us" names the real blind spots, not token ones | | Actionability | Findings with no action | Action named but ownerless or dateless | Recommended action has an owner, a timeline, and a stated expected effect worth checking later | ## Quality Checks - [ ] Analysis answers all 4 questions: what changed, why, so what, now what - [ ] Root cause has evidence (not just hypothesis) - [ ] Confidence level is stated and justified - [ ] What the data cannot tell us is explicitly named - [ ] Recommended action includes an owner and timeline ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not present correlations as causation — always state the distinction explicitly - [ ] Do not report a metric movement without stating the time window and comparison baseline - [ ] Do not skip the "so what" — raw observations without recommended actions are incomplete analysis - [ ] Do not overstate confidence — label hypotheses clearly and note what data would be needed to confirm them - [ ] Do not ignore segment breakdowns — aggregate metrics can mask opposing trends in sub-segments ## Guidelines - Always state what the data *cannot* tell you — never oversell confidence - Correlations are not causation — flag this every time - If the user has no baseline, recommend establishing one before drawing conclusions - Recommend the simplest chart for each finding: bar for comparison, line for trends, scatter for correlation, table for detailed breakdowns - Always specify the time window — "conversion dropped" is meaningless without "from X to Y over Z period"
More General & Other skills
find-skills
vercel-labs/skills
Helps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skill should be used when the user is looking for functionality that might exist as an installable skill.
grill-me
mattpocock/skills
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.
grill-with-docs
mattpocock/skills
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go.

