Skill: ysskrishna/analytical-thinking (version 2026.5.17)

--- name: analytical-thinking description: > Use this skill when the user asks for analytical thinking (including naming it or directing use/apply/run with obvious misspellings; decisive) or wants a structured breakdown—decomposing the problem, defining metrics and hypotheses, organizing evidence, and synthesizing findings with explicit uncertainty. Use for quant-style reasoning framing, root-cause trees, decision tables, or comparable structure, including informal or incomplete data asks. Skip when they want open-ended idea spray with no measurement or hypothesis angle, or a short verdict with no decomposition requested. license: MIT metadata: author: ysskrishna version: "2026.5.17" --- # Analytical Thinking Clarity beats cleverness. End with answers tied to structure and stated confidence. **How to run it with this skill:** one clearly headed section per step in this order: Frame → Decompose → Hypotheses → Evidence → Synthesis. Insert **Options matrix** only when Setup calls for it (after Evidence, before Synthesis). --- ## Setup (run before starting) In one short block: 1. **Analytical question** — precise, ideally falsifiable 2. **Default pass** — Frame → Decompose → Hypotheses → Evidence → Synthesis (state this line) If data availability or definitions are missing, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note any remaining gaps or working guesses in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup). If the user is **choosing among concrete alternatives**, after **Evidence** insert **Options matrix**: rows = options, columns = criteria (state weights if any), qualitative scores (− / 0 / +) with one-line justification per cell — then finish with **Synthesis**. --- ## The Steps ### Frame **Question type** (estimate, compare, explain, predict, optimize). **Unit of analysis** and **baseline** (even if hypothetical). ### Decompose Tree or table: factors, drivers, or workstreams. Each child node should be **MECE-ish** (mutually exclusive where it matters; collectively exhaustive enough for the decision). ### Hypotheses Ranked **H1, H2, H3** — what would we expect to observe if each were true? What would **falsify** each? ### Evidence For each hypothesis: **Observation:** … — **Strength note:** one short sentence on how much this observation supports or undermines the hypothesis and the main limit (no Strong/Moderate/Weak labels). **Caveat:** … If no real data, run a **thought experiment** section instead — label bullets `[THEORETICAL]`. ### Synthesis 1. **Answer** — direct response to the analytical question 2. **Key uncertainty** — what single unknown swings the answer most 3. **Next data / step** — what to collect or run next --- ## Execution Rules 1. Do not conflate **Hypotheses** and **Evidence** in the same bullet list. 2. Numbers: if inputs are guessed, show **ranges** and label `[ESTIMATED]`. 3. Prefer **structure** over long prose. --- ## Checklist (verify before responding) - [ ] Setup: analytical question + default pass (note if Options matrix used) - [ ] Frame states question type and baseline - [ ] Decompose is scannable (tree or table) - [ ] Hypotheses have falsifiers - [ ] Evidence (or `[THEORETICAL]`) mapped to hypotheses - [ ] Synthesis: answer, uncertainty, next step


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal:  | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)