agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/mind-map-analysis/SKILL.md

mind-map-analysis

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when ideas, concerns, stakeholders, causes, or options are scattered and need a clear structure before deeper analysis. Use when applying the Mind Map Analysis consulting method and when a user asks for Mind Map Analysis, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Mind Map Analysis as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Use this for exploration before forcing a decision matrix or issue tree.

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, do not block automatically.

    line 25
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not use when the decision requires MECE structure, causal proof, or option scoring.

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 85

≈ “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

Mind Map Analysis

Use this skill to run Mind Map Analysis as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Use this for exploration before forcing a decision matrix or issue tree.
  • Cluster raw ideas into themes, then convert themes into next questions.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • topic
  • raw ideas or notes
  • constraints
  • desired output

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use when the decision requires MECE structure, causal proof, or option scoring. A mind map is for exploration and connection, not final prioritization.

Adjacent Methods

  • affinity-diagram: cluster raw qualitative notes into evidence-based themes.
  • issue-tree: turn an explored topic into a decision-oriented analysis structure.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Set centerTopic, decision, or messy input.Write the central idea as a short phrase or question.Mind-map center.
Cluster raw inputsNotes, concerns, ideas, stakeholders, facts.Group inputs into first-level branches.Theme branches.
Expand branchesTheme branches.Add causes, evidence, implications, options, owners, and open questions.Expanded mind map.
Clean structureExpanded map.Merge duplicates, split overloaded branches, and flag weak links.Usable map.
Choose next methodUsable map and decision need.Decide whether to move to issue tree, stakeholder map, risk matrix, or action plan.Next-analysis recommendation.

Output Template

### 1. Central Question
Topic:
Decision use:
Scope:
Source material:

### 2. Theme Map
| Branch | Sub-branch | Evidence / example | Open question |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 3. Connections And Gaps
| Connection / gap | Why it matters |
|---|---|
|  |  |

### 4. Next Analysis
Priority branch:
Needed evidence:
Appropriate next method, if any:

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Central Question, Theme Map, Connections And Gaps; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

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.