analytical-thinking · diff
v2026.5.17 to v2026.5.17
7 added, 5 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: analytical-thinking
description: >
- Decompose problems, define metrics and hypotheses, structure evidence, and
- synthesize findings with explicit uncertainty. Use when the user asks for
- analytical thinking, structured breakdowns, quant reasoning framing,
- root-cause trees, or decision tables — not pure brainstorming or ethics-first
- deliberation alone.
+ Use this skill when the user asks for analytical thinking 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.
---
## When to Use
Use for problems that benefit from decomposition: metrics, prioritization, debugging complex situations, business case structure, research planning. Skip when the user only wants empathy or creative divergence without measurement framing.
---
## 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)
Up to 3 questions on data availability and definitions; otherwise tag `[ASSUMED]` for baselines.
If the user is **choosing among concrete alternatives**, after **Evidence** insert **Options matrix**: rows = options, columns = criteria (state weights if any), qualitative scores (− / 0 / + or 1–5) 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:** Strong / Moderate / Weak — **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