analytical-thinking
Skill20 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use for analytical thinking, or when a question needs breaking down and evidence: "why did metric X drop?", "what drives this?", "break this down", "what data do we need?". Builds a tree, hypotheses and evidence, ends with an answer and key uncertainty. Skip for quick verdicts.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- creative-thinkingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- design-thinkingSkill
- ethical-thinkingSkill
- fermi-estimationSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- five-whysSkill
- lateral-thinkingSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- prioritizationSkill
- six-thinking-hatsSkill
- strategic-thinkingSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- thinking-method-selectorSkill
- tradeoff-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Distinctive: line 26
Gather first: If you can query data, read dashboards, logs or code, do that before listing Evidence.
- Very specific: line 28
If the user is choosing among concrete options, insert an Options matrix after Evidence: rows are options, columns are criteria (state any …
- Very specific: line 44
No real data? Replace this step with a section titled Thought experiment (no data).
≈ “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
Analytical Thinking
Clarity beats cleverness. End with an answer tied to structure and a stated confidence.
When to use
- Explaining or predicting a number: a metric moved, a cost is high, a funnel leaks.
- A messy question that needs a driver tree, hypotheses and a plan for what data to collect.
- Comparing concrete alternatives against criteria when the user wants the reasoning laid out.
Skip: open-ended idea generation with nothing to measure, or a short verdict with no decomposition asked for.
Before you start
- State in one block: Analytical question (precise, ideally falsifiable) and Pass (Frame, Decompose, Hypotheses, Evidence, Synthesis).
- Gather first. If you can query data, read dashboards, logs or code, do that before listing Evidence. Ask up to 3 questions only for definitions or data that tools cannot supply.
- Light path. Small ask: a 2-level tree, 2 hypotheses, one observation each, answer in 3 lines.
- If the user is choosing among concrete options, insert an Options matrix after Evidence: rows are options, columns are criteria (state any weights), cells are
-,0or+with a one-line reason. Then Synthesis.
Steps
1. Frame
Question type (estimate, compare, explain, predict, optimize), unit of analysis, and baseline (even a hypothetical one).
2. Decompose
A tree or table of drivers or workstreams. Aim for branches that do not overlap and together cover the question well enough for the decision.
3. Hypotheses
Ranked H1, H2, H3. For each: what would we see if it were true, and what would falsify it?
4. Evidence
For each hypothesis: Observation: ... - Strength: one sentence on how much it supports or undermines the hypothesis and its main limit. Caveat: ...
No real data? Replace this step with a section titled Thought experiment (no data). Inputs you guess are shown as ranges and marked [ESTIMATED].
5. Synthesis
- Answer to the analytical question.
- Key uncertainty: the one unknown that swings the answer most.
- Next data or step: what to collect or run next.
Pitfalls
- Mixing Hypotheses and Evidence in one list. Keep them separate.
- Reading a pattern from a few data points. State sample size or window.
- Ignoring base rates (how often this happens anyway) and confounders (what else changed).
- A single point estimate from guessed inputs. Use ranges and show which input moves the result most.
- A tree whose branches overlap, so the same cause is counted twice.
Worked example: references/example.md.
Checklist
- Question and Pass stated (Options matrix noted if used)
- Frame gives question type and baseline
- Decompose is scannable
- Hypotheses have falsifiers
- Evidence (or Thought experiment) maps to hypotheses; guesses marked
[ESTIMATED] - Synthesis: answer, key uncertainty, next step
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.

