agentleFS
adhyayanrathi01adhyayanrathi01/product-manager-os/skills/analytics/analyze-product-usage/SKILL.md

analyze-product-usage

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Analyze product behavior using whatever analytics, database, CLI, MCP, API, or file access is available. Use for funnels, cohorts, retention, activation, engagement, adoption, conversion, segmentation, and feature-usage investigations.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before calculating, verify executable source readiness, event semantics, identity mappings, exclusions, timezone, and outcome-window …

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    If definitions or access are incomplete, return a partial analysis plan and exact gaps.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Read test and internal-account definitions from context.md.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Run the smallest analysis that can answer the question.

    line 25
  5. Distinctive:

    If merge or split ambiguity is task-critical, stop numerical publication and return partial or blocked with the exact decision needed.

    line 27
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not claim causality from correlation alone.

    line 46
  7. Very specific:

    Every field above must appear as a labeled section in the produced output.

    line 50

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Analyze Product Usage

<!-- CORE:BEGIN -->

Contract

  • Require a decision or question, metric behavior, entity grain, segment, absolute period, comparison, and source scope.
  • Before calculating, verify executable source readiness, event semantics, identity mappings, exclusions, timezone, and outcome-window maturity. A user-reported smoke test without a currently addressable, agent-observed bounded read is not executable readiness.
  • For longitudinal account- or workspace-grain metrics, require a confirmed stable cohort identity, cohort-assignment time, and task-critical merge/split treatment.
  • If definitions or access are incomplete, return a partial analysis plan and exact gaps. Do not publish a numerical finding when its denominator, grain, join, or maturity rule is unresolved.
  • Save the reproducible method and emit skills/evidence/evidence-handoff.md for reusable findings.
<!-- CORE:END -->

Process

  1. Restate the product question and decision being supported.
  2. Confirm the metric definition, user segment, time range, comparison, and unit of analysis.
  3. Read test and internal-account definitions from context.md.
  4. Discover available data access and inspect event definitions or schemas before analysis.
  5. Exclude test, employee, bot, demo, duplicate, and known invalid activity when definitions exist. State any exclusion that cannot be applied.
  6. Run the smallest analysis that can answer the question. Expand only when the initial result reveals a useful follow-up.
  7. Validate denominators, identity behavior, event completeness, time zones, missing data, cohort maturity or right-censoring, sample size, and practical significance.
  8. If merge or split ambiguity is task-critical, stop numerical publication and return partial or blocked with the exact decision needed. If it is bounded and non-critical, exclude ambiguous entities, disclose the exclusion, and compare a sensitivity result where feasible.
  9. Separate measured behavior from causal interpretation.
  10. Save reproducible filters, queries, or steps in the project.
<!-- CORE:BEGIN -->

Output

Report:

  • Question and definitions
  • Source, date range, segment, and exclusions
  • For every cohort or retention result: absolute cohort-entry dates and timezone; outcome window; maturity cutoff or as-of rule; grain and identity-deduplication rule; and counts of applied, excluded by reason (including test/demo), and unmapped records
  • Findings with supporting values
  • Data-quality limitations
  • Plausible interpretations
  • Follow-up evidence needed
  • Implications and options for the PM
  • Evidence packet ID and reproducible artifact pointer

Do not claim causality from correlation alone.

Required fields: Question and definitions|Source and scope|Cohort accounting|Findings|Data-quality limitations|Interpretations|Follow-up evidence|Implications for the PM|Evidence packet ID

Every field above must appear as a labeled section in the produced output. Verify with evals/check-output.sh analyze-product-usage <artifact>.

<!-- CORE:END -->

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.