content-analysis
Skill56 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze articles, documents, videos, podcasts, and transcripts for arguments, evidence, themes, assumptions, contradictions, insights, and unanswered questions.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- liangdabiao/claudesdk-data-chattheir own version, first seen May 24, 2026
- liangdabiao/claude-data-analysis-ultra-maintheir own version, first seen May 9, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- liangdabiao/claude-data-analysis-ultra-main★ 282same name
- liangdabiao/claudesdk-data-chat★ 4same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- academic-paper-polishSkill
- academic-pptxSkill
- academic-slidesSkill
- academic-writing-styleSkill
- analytics-data-analysisSkill
- chart-imageSkill
- content-research-writerSkill
- copywritingSkill
- creative-writingSkill
- dashboard-creatorSkill
- data-analyzerSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- document-converter-suiteSkill
- docxSkill
- domain-name-brainstormerSkill
- finance-news-analysisSkill
- finance-skillsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- image-analyzerSkill
- imageSkill
- markdown-converterSkill
- natural-writingSkill
- netlify-deploySkill
- notion-infographicSkill
- pdfSkill
- pptxSkill
- rylai-pptSkill
- seoSkill
- skill-seekersSkill
- summarizationSkill
- ui-designerSkill
- video-generationSkill
- videoSkill
- xlsxSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 24
Use tools available in the active runtime to fetch, transcribe, or inspect the source.
- Distinctive: line 25
Verify that extraction or transcription is usable before analyzing details.
- Distinctive: line 26
If access is incomplete, describe the exact boundary of the analysis.
- Distinctive: line 56
Test whether evidence actually supports the conclusion.
- Distinctive: line 66
Check quotes against the source.
- Distinctive: line 67
Check names, numbers, dates, and attribution.
- Distinctive: line 68
Remove observations that cannot be traced to the material.
- Distinctive: line 102
Keep quotations short and attribute them when the speaker is known.
- Distinctive: line 103
Do not invent transcript segments, timestamps, facts, or recommendations.
- Distinctive: line 105
Treat promotional claims and personal anecdotes as evidence of limited type.
- Distinctive: line 107
When a source cannot be opened, request the text or transcript instead of presenting a complete analysis.
- Distinctive: line 114
Every quoted or quantitative detail is traceable.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Content Analysis
Turn source material into a structured explanation of what it says, how it supports its claims, what follows from it, and where uncertainty remains.
Runtime Compatibility
- Resolve local files from the current workspace or this skill directory.
- Use tools available in the active runtime to fetch, transcribe, or inspect the source.
- Verify that extraction or transcription is usable before analyzing details.
- If access is incomplete, describe the exact boundary of the analysis.
Select The Analysis Lens
Choose only the lenses that serve the request:
- Argument: claims, reasons, evidence, and conclusion.
- Editorial: structure, clarity, pacing, framing, and audience fit.
- Research: method, evidence quality, limits, and competing explanations.
- Practical: decisions, habits, procedures, and applications.
- Comparative: agreement, conflict, and differences in assumptions.
- Media: speaker roles, sequence, emphasis, and transcript reliability.
Workflow
- Identify the source
- Record title, creator, date, format, and available sections when known.
- Distinguish original material from commentary, reposts, and excerpts.
- Check completeness
- For video or audio, confirm transcript coverage and speaker labels.
- For documents, check page or section coverage.
- For web material, note paywalls, dynamic content, or missing attachments.
- Map the content
- State the central question or purpose.
- Break the material into major claims, themes, or stages.
- Attach supporting evidence to the claim it is meant to support.
- Evaluate
- Test whether evidence actually supports the conclusion.
- Identify assumptions, omitted alternatives, contradictions, and ambiguity.
- Separate source statements from your own inference.
- Extract value
- Rank the strongest insights.
- Convert applicable ideas into concrete actions or questions.
- Preserve important limits and conditions.
- Verify the report
- Check quotes against the source.
- Check names, numbers, dates, and attribution.
- Remove observations that cannot be traced to the material.
Default Output
## Overview
[Purpose and central message]
## Main Ideas
1. [Claim or theme]
2. [Claim or theme]
## Evidence And Reasoning
- [Claim]: [support and evaluation]
## Strongest Insights
- [Source-grounded insight]
## Assumptions Or Gaps
- [Missing evidence, ambiguity, or alternative explanation]
## Practical Use
- [Action, decision, or question]
## Source Limits
- [Access, extraction, transcription, or scope limitation]Change this structure when the user asks for a critique, comparison, timeline, study guide, action plan, or another specific deliverable.
Source Integrity
- Quote only words present in the inspected source.
- Keep quotations short and attribute them when the speaker is known.
- Do not invent transcript segments, timestamps, facts, or recommendations.
- Label deductions as analysis rather than source claims.
- Treat promotional claims and personal anecdotes as evidence of limited type.
- For multiple sources, identify which source supports each disputed point.
- When a source cannot be opened, request the text or transcript instead of presenting a complete analysis.
Final Check
- The report answers the user's actual analytical question.
- Summary, evidence, inference, and opinion remain distinguishable.
- Every quoted or quantitative detail is traceable.
- Important counterevidence and limitations are visible.
- Action items follow from the analysis rather than generic advice.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

