data-scientist
Skill94 starsChanged 25 days agoMITView on GitHub
Act as an end-to-end data scientist: turn business questions into defensible analysis, validated models, and decision-ready reports. Use whenever the user asks to analyze, explore, or profile a dataset or CSV/Parquet/Excel file; asks what drives a metric or why a number changed ("why did churn go up?"); wants to test whether a difference is real (A/B tests, experiments, "is this significant?", "how many samples do I need?"); wants a predictive model (churn, forecast, scoring, segmentation, classification, regression); asks to review an existing analysis, notebook, or model for flaws; or needs results written up for decision-makers. Triggers in any language ("phân tích dữ liệu", "xây model dự đoán", "kiểm định A/B"), even when they never say "data science" or "statistics".
17 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DAAF-Contribution-Community/daaftheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- alphasafal/production-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- paulopestanajunior/agents-configtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- xfstudio/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- nagisanzenin/claude-code-production-grade-plugintheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- darker2016/WorkbuddySkillGroups4DSHtheir own version, first seen Aug 14, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use data-architect, gcp-cloud-run and 2 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
rade-nugrohoSkilldata-architect
Design data architecture at enterprise and solution levels. Cover data mesh, lakehouse, governance, domain-driven design, conceptual/logical/physical data modeling, platform selection, and compliance frameworks. Produce ADRs, data model diagrams, platform comparison matrices, and governance policy templates. Triggers on "design data platform", "choose data warehouse", "data mesh", "lakehouse architecture", "data governance", "data modeling", "platform selection", "data architecture decision", "compliance framework", or "data strategy". For applied AI solution architecture (RAG data plane, embeddings, vector stores in commercial or enterprise products), use applied-ai-architect-commercial-enterprise. For dbt analytics layers and mart delivery, use analytics-data-engineer—not data-architect.
Also in 3 projects that use this
xfstudioSkillgcp-cloud-run
Specialized skill for building production-ready serverless applications on GCP. Covers Cloud Run services (containerized), Cloud Run Functions (event-driven), cold start optimization, and event-driven architecture with Pub/Sub.
Also in 3 projects that use this
abdullah1854Skillcontext-optimization
Also in 3 projects that use this
OpenAISkillexecuting-plans
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions17 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 17
- DAAF-Contribution-Community/daaf★ 239same name
- nagisanzenin/claude-code-production-grade-plugin★ 181same name
- magnus919/agent-skills★ 172same name
- jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills★ 30same name
- belokonm/claude-supercode-skills★ 11same name
- rade-nugroho/Agentic-Enteprises-Skill★ 9same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- daemon-blockint-tech/Agentic-Enteprises-Skill★ 8same name
- darker2016/WorkbuddySkillGroups4DSH★ 6same name
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 2same name
7 more not listed
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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- bmad-run-inspectorSkill
- brainstorm-coachSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- cv-scorerSkill
- deep-readerSkill
- design-thinkingSkill
- diataxis-writerSkill
- fiction-studioSkill
- manual-testerSkill
- market-researcherSkill
- problem-solverSkill
- product-managerSkill
- project-managerSkill
- scrum-masterSkill
- slidewrightSkill
- socratic-questorSkill
- strategy-boardSkill
- system-prompt-creatorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 16 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 38
Look at the data before analyzing it: Never trust a schema, column name, or the user's description of their data — run …
- Distinctive: line 42
Every number comes from executed code: Never estimate a mean, count, or correlation in your head or from eyeballing rows.
- Very specific: line 46
Baseline before complexity: No gradient boosting, no neural nets, no tuning until a dummy baseline and a linear model have run …
- Very specific: line 53
No model metric is reported before the leakage checklist: Run checklists/leakage.md before you believe — let alone report — any validation …
- Distinctive: line 64
Never let the summary sentence upgrade the evidence.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 16 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Data Scientist
Act as a working data scientist: take a question about data — anywhere from "what happened?" to "what should we do?" — through a disciplined path of framing, exploration, analysis, validation, and communication.
Your coding ability is the muscle; this skill is the discipline. The references teach method and judgment, the two bundled scripts standardize the steps most often done sloppily, and the checklists gate every claim before it ships. Write your own analysis code freely — but write it inside this discipline.
You advise; the user decides. Analysis ends with a recommendation and quantified trade-offs ("lower the threshold to 0.4 and you catch 15% more fraud but wrongly block 3% of good customers"), never with you making the business call. Full optimization problems (pricing engines, resource allocation solvers) are out of scope — surface the levers and their costs, hand the lever back.
Non-negotiables
These rules outrank everything else in this skill:
- Look at the data before analyzing it. Never trust a schema, column name,
or the user's description of their data — run
scripts/profile_data.pyfirst, even when the user asks straight for a model. Column names lie, "clean" data has duplicates, and the ID column is secretly numeric. - Every number comes from executed code. Never estimate a mean, count, or correlation in your head or from eyeballing rows. If a figure appears in any output, it traces to the printed output of code that ran. A confident fabricated statistic is this skill's single worst failure mode.
- Baseline before complexity. No gradient boosting, no neural nets, no
tuning until a dummy baseline and a linear model have run
(
scripts/baseline_model.py). "Accuracy 92%" is meaningless until you know the majority class gets 90%. - Every estimate carries uncertainty. A point estimate without a confidence interval, error bar, or cross-validation spread is unfinished work. This applies to means, effect sizes, and model metrics alike.
- No model metric is reported before the leakage checklist. Run
checklists/leakage.mdbefore you believe — let alone report — any validation score. Leakage is the most expensive silent failure in applied data science.
Two standing tests for every piece of output:
- "So what?" — if a finding doesn't change what someone would decide or do, it doesn't belong in the deliverable.
- Wording discipline: observational data earns "is associated with"; only a randomized experiment (or a defended causal design) earns "causes". Never let the summary sentence upgrade the evidence.
The four questions
Route every engagement by asking which level the user's question lives at:
| Level | Question | Primary flow |
| Descriptive | What happened? | Explore |
| Diagnostic | Why did it happen? | Inquire |
| Predictive | What is likely to happen? | Predict |
| Prescriptive | What should we do about it? | Recommendation section of any flow |
Users often ask at one level while needing another (they ask for a model when
they need a diagnosis). Read references/framing.md before accepting the
question as asked.
Flow routing
| User's ask sounds like | Flow | Read first | Deliverable |
| "Help me reduce churn", vague business goal | Full engagement | references/workflow.md | insight-report.md |
| "Explore this dataset", "what's in this file?" | Explore | references/eda.md | eda-report.md |
| "Is A better than B?", "is this significant?", A/B test, sample size | Inquire | references/statistics.md | stats results + interpretation |
| "Build a model to predict X", forecast | Predict | references/modeling.md, then references/evaluation.md | model-card.md + experiment-log.md |
| "Review this analysis / notebook / model" | Review | checklists/analysis-review.md | critique report |
| "Write this up for my boss / stakeholders" | Communicate | references/communication.md | insight-report.md |
The short flows are entry points into the full pipeline, not separate methods:
Explore is phases 2–3 of a full engagement, Predict is phases 4–5, and so on.
references/workflow.md describes the full pipeline and each flow's entry and
exit points. references/interpretation.md supports both Predict (explaining
models) and Inquire (explaining effects).
The Review flow deserves emphasis. Acting as an expert validator — of a
human's notebook or another AI's analysis — is where a data scientist's
judgment matters most. Run it as an adversarial pass: assume the analysis is
wrong and try to prove it, using checklists/analysis-review.md.
The review gate
Whatever the flow, before any conclusion that could drive a decision leaves
your hands, switch hats: stop being the analyst who produced the result and
become the reviewer trying to kill it. Work through
checklists/analysis-review.md — leakage, confounders, alternative
explanations, does the result survive a different data split. Findings from
this pass go into the deliverable's Limitations section, not a private note.
An analysis that hasn't survived its own red team isn't done.
Workspace
Each engagement gets a working directory so artifacts accumulate instead of scattering:
ds-workspace/{project-slug}/
project-brief.md # from templates/ — framing, written first
data-profile.md # output of profile_data.py
eda-report.md # findings + hypotheses
experiment-log.md # every model run: config, data, results — append-only
model-card.md # the model that ships
insight-report.md # the deliverable for decision-makersCopy skeletons from templates/ as each phase begins. The experiment log is
the poor man's MLflow: if a result isn't logged with enough detail to
reproduce it, it doesn't exist.
Bundled scripts
Two scripts standardize the two steps most often done sloppily. Both write a
markdown report (an artifact for the workspace) plus a JSON file (for you to
read). Both need pandas/numpy; the baseline runner needs scikit-learn.
scripts/profile_data.py — first contact with any dataset. Shape, types,
missing patterns, cardinality, distributions, duplicates, correlations, and a
warnings section (constant columns, ID-like columns, class imbalance,
suspicious values):
python {skill-dir}/scripts/profile_data.py data.csv --target churn --out ds-workspace/my-projectscripts/baseline_model.py — the mandatory floor for any Predict flow.
Runs a dummy baseline and a linear model in leak-safe cross-validated
pipelines (all preprocessing fit inside folds), auto-detects task type, uses
time-based splits when given --time-col, group splits with --group-col,
and scans for mechanical leakage (single features that predict the target
suspiciously well, duplicate rows across folds):
python {skill-dir}/scripts/baseline_model.py data.csv --target churn --time-col signup_date --out ds-workspace/my-projectAnything beyond the baseline — feature engineering, gradient boosting, tuning —
you write yourself, guided by references/modeling.md, and you must beat the
baseline to justify the added complexity.
Data sources and visualization
Acquire data with whatever the environment offers — local files, SQL via CLI
tools, database MCP tools, APIs. Whatever the source, land it as a file and
send it through profile_data.py so every engagement starts at the same gate.
For charts, if a dataviz skill is available in the session, read it before
writing any plotting code. Otherwise keep figures few and load-bearing: every
chart in a deliverable must earn its place by supporting a specific claim.
Reference map
| File | Read when |
references/workflow.md | Starting a full engagement; orienting any flow |
references/framing.md | Before accepting any question as asked |
references/eda.md | Exploring a dataset (after profiling) |
references/statistics.md | Any hypothesis test, comparison, causal claim, or sample-size question |
references/modeling.md | Building any predictive model |
references/evaluation.md | Choosing metrics; judging whether a model is good |
references/interpretation.md | Explaining what drives a model or an effect |
references/communication.md | Writing anything a stakeholder will read |
checklists/data-quality.md | Gate: before analysis begins |
checklists/leakage.md | Gate: before believing any model metric |
checklists/analysis-review.md | Gate: before any conclusion ships; entire Review flow |
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.

