agentleFS
memi-designmemi-design/design-skills/skills/data-synthesis/SKILL.md

data-synthesis

Skill7 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Qualitative and quantitative data synthesis — affinity mapping, thematic analysis, statistical frameworks, insight triangulation, and research-to-spec pipelines

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Every synthesis pass must produce actionable insights, not summaries.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    If a cluster has more than 15 items, split it

    line 39
  3. Distinctive:

    If a cluster has fewer than 3 items, consider merging or flagging as an outlier

    line 40
  4. Distinctive:

    Read through all data and assign descriptive codes to each meaningful segment.

    line 57
  5. Distinctive:

    Use gerunds or descriptive phrases (not single words)

    line 67
  6. Distinctive:

    Threshold: Only insights scoring 12+ (out of 20) go into the final report.

    line 188
  7. Distinctive:

    When generating component or page specs, reference insight IDs:

    line 273

≈ “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

Data Synthesis -- Research Intelligence

Skill pack for transforming raw research data into structured insights. Covers affinity mapping, thematic analysis, quantitative aggregation, triangulation, insight scoring, gap analysis, and integration with the Memoire research pipeline.

Core Loop

COLLECT RAW DATA --> ORGANIZE --> CODE --> THEME --> TRIANGULATE --> SCORE --> OUTPUT INSIGHTS

Every synthesis pass must produce actionable insights, not summaries. An insight is a non-obvious finding that changes a design decision.

Affinity Mapping Methodology

What It Is

A bottom-up clustering technique. Individual observations (sticky notes, quotes, data points) are grouped by natural similarity until themes emerge.

Process

StepActionOutput
1. HarvestExtract individual observations from raw data. One fact per unit.50-300 discrete data points
2. SpreadLay all data points out without grouping. Randomize order.Ungrouped pool
3. ClusterSilently group related points. Move items that feel similar together.8-20 raw clusters
4. LabelName each cluster with a descriptive header that captures the shared meaning.Named clusters
5. SupergroupGroup clusters into 3-6 high-level themes.Theme hierarchy
6. PrioritizeRank themes by frequency, severity, and opportunity.Prioritized theme map

Rules

  • One observation per data point -- never combine two findings into one note
  • Group by meaning, not by source (do not cluster "all interview 3 data" together)
  • If a cluster has more than 15 items, split it
  • If a cluster has fewer than 3 items, consider merging or flagging as an outlier
  • Relabel clusters after regrouping -- initial labels often drift from final content

In Memoire

memi research from-stickies       # Pull sticky notes from Figma canvas
memi research synthesize           # Run affinity mapping + thematic analysis
memi research report               # Generate structured insight report

Thematic Analysis

Three Coding Phases

Phase 1: Open Coding

Read through all data and assign descriptive codes to each meaningful segment.

Raw DataOpen Code
"I always forget where I saved the file"file-location-confusion
"The search never finds what I need"search-ineffective
"I end up asking a colleague where things are"workaround-social

Rules:

  • Code everything relevant, skip nothing on first pass
  • Use gerunds or descriptive phrases (not single words)
  • One segment can have multiple codes
  • Target 30-80 unique codes from a typical study

Phase 2: Axial Coding

Group open codes into categories. Identify relationships between categories.

CategoryOpen Codes
Navigation Failurefile-location-confusion, search-ineffective, breadcrumb-ignored
Social Workaroundsworkaround-social, slack-channel-for-files, ask-manager
Mental Model Mismatchexpected-folder-structure, alphabetical-assumption, recency-bias

Relationships to identify:

  • Causal: A leads to B ("navigation failure causes social workarounds")
  • Contextual: A happens during B ("mental model mismatch occurs during onboarding")
  • Strategic: A is a response to B ("social workarounds compensate for navigation failure")

Phase 3: Selective Coding

Identify the core theme that connects all categories. This becomes the central narrative.

Core Theme: "Users build parallel information architectures through social channels
             because the system's structure does not match their mental models."

Code Quality Checklist

  • Every data segment is coded (no orphan data)
  • Codes are applied consistently across all sources
  • Categories have clear boundaries (no code belongs to 3+ categories)
  • Core theme is supported by data from multiple participants/sources

Quantitative Aggregation

Standard Metrics

MetricFormulaUse Case
MeanSum / CountAverage satisfaction, task time
MedianMiddle value (sorted)Task time (resistant to outliers)
ModeMost frequent valuePreferred option selection
Std Devsqrt(variance)Spread of responses
NPS%Promoters - %DetractorsOverall loyalty/satisfaction
SUS Score((Sum of odd - 5) + (25 - Sum of even)) * 2.5System usability
Task Success RateSuccesses / Total Attempts * 100Effectiveness
Time on TaskMedian completion timeEfficiency
Error RateErrors / Opportunities * 100Error-proneness

NPS Calculation

Responses on 0-10 scale:
  Detractors: 0-6
  Passives:   7-8
  Promoters:  9-10

NPS = (Promoter Count / Total) * 100 - (Detractor Count / Total) * 100
Range: -100 to +100
NPS RangeInterpretation
-100 to 0Critical -- systemic issues
0 to 30Below average -- improvement needed
30 to 50Good -- competitive
50 to 70Excellent -- strong loyalty
70 to 100World-class

SUS Score Interpretation

SUS ScoreGradePercentile
< 51FBottom 15%
51-68D15-50%
68-74C50-70%
74-80B70-85%
80-90A85-97%
> 90A+Top 3%

Statistical Significance

  • For A/B comparisons: use chi-squared test (categorical) or t-test (continuous)
  • Minimum sample size for usability: 5 per segment (qualitative), 30+ per variant (quantitative)
  • Report confidence intervals, not just point estimates
  • Flag any metric based on fewer than 5 data points as unreliable

Triangulation Across Sources

Triangulation Matrix

Cross-reference findings across at least 3 data sources to validate strength.

FindingInterviewsSurveysAnalyticsUsability TestsStrength
Users abandon search after 2 attemptsMentioned by 4/662% agreeAvg 1.8 queries before exit3/5 gave upSTRONG
Mobile nav is confusing2/6 mentioned28% agreeMobile bounce 2x desktopNot testedMODERATE
Dark mode is desired1/6 mentioned71% want itN/AN/AWEAK (conflicting)

Strength Classification

LevelCriteria
STRONGConfirmed by 3+ independent sources with consistent direction
MODERATEConfirmed by 2 sources, or 3 sources with some inconsistency
WEAKSingle source, or multiple sources with conflicting signals
CONTRADICTEDSources actively disagree -- requires deeper investigation

Insight Quality Scoring

Rate every insight on four dimensions before including it in a deliverable.

DimensionScore 1Score 3Score 5
EvidenceSingle anecdoteMultiple data points, one sourceMultiple data points, multiple sources
ActionabilityVague observationSuggests a directionPoints to a specific design change
NoveltyAlready known by teamPartially knownGenuinely new understanding
ImpactAffects edge casesAffects a segmentAffects most users

Threshold: Only insights scoring 12+ (out of 20) go into the final report. Insights scoring 8-11 go into an appendix. Below 8, discard or flag for follow-up research.

Insight Statement Format

[WHO] experiences [WHAT PROBLEM/BEHAVIOR]
because [WHY/ROOT CAUSE],
which means [IMPLICATION FOR DESIGN].

Example:

New users abandon the onboarding wizard at step 3
because the required fields feel invasive for a first interaction,
which means we should defer profile completion to post-activation.

Gap Analysis Frameworks

Coverage Gap Matrix

Map research questions against data sources to identify blind spots.

Research QuestionSource ASource BSource CGap?
Why do users churn at day 7?PartialNo dataPartialYES
What drives upgrade decisions?FullFullPartialNo
How do teams collaborate?No dataNo dataFullYES

Types of Gaps

Gap TypeDescriptionResolution
Data gapNo data collected on this questionPlan follow-up study
Segment gapData exists but not for a key user segmentRecruit missing segment
Depth gapQuantitative data but no qualitative understandingConduct interviews
Recency gapData is older than 6 monthsRefresh study
Context gapLab data but no field observationRun diary study or contextual inquiry

Integration with Memoire Research Pipeline

Pipeline Stages

RAW DATA (Excel, CSV, stickies)
  |
  v
memi research from-file <path>          # Ingest raw data
  |
  v
memi research from-stickies             # Pull Figma sticky notes
  |
  v
memi research synthesize                # Affinity map + thematic analysis
  |                                      # Outputs coded themes + scored insights
  v
memi research report                    # Structured insight report
  |                                      # Markdown + Figma sticky output
  v
memi spec component <name>              # Insights feed component specs
memi spec page <name>                   # Insights feed page specs
memi compose "dashboard from research"  # Agent builds dashboard from insights

Data Formats

Input FormatCommandNotes
Excel (.xlsx)from-fileOne sheet per study; row 1 = headers
CSV (.csv)from-fileUTF-8 encoding required
Figma stickiesfrom-stickiesOne observation per sticky
JSONfrom-fileArray of { text, source, participant?, timestamp? }

Output Artifacts

ArtifactFormatDestination
Coded themesJSON.memoire/research/themes.json
Insight cardsJSON + Markdown.memoire/research/insights/
Affinity mapFigma stickiesCanvas (grouped by theme)
Quantitative summaryJSON.memoire/research/metrics.json
Final reportMarkdown.memoire/research/report.md

Connecting Insights to Specs

When generating component or page specs, reference insight IDs:

{
  "name": "OnboardingWizard",
  "level": "organism",
  "researchInsights": ["INS-007", "INS-012"],
  "designRationale": "Deferred profile completion based on day-1 drop-off finding (INS-007)"
}

This creates traceability from research through spec to generated code.

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.