360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

analytical-thinking

面向分析型问题的思维框架:先界定可证伪的分析问题与口径,再分解驱动因素、列出可被否证的假设,逐条给出观察、支持力度与注意事项,最后综合出答案、关键不确定性和下一步需补充的数据。数据不足时改做思维实验,推测输入以区间标注并标为估算,同时提示避免以少量样本推断、忽略基准率或树分支重叠等误区。

ysskrishna
ysskrishna
热度 55.18
最近更新 2026-10-05 22:24:50
分类:数据依赖:纯提示词应用场景:研究 / 报告撰写

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add analytical-thinking
Metadata
name
analytical-thinking
description
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.
license
MIT
metadata
{"author":"ysskrishna","version":"2026.10.5"}

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

  1. State in one block: Analytical question (precise, ideally falsifiable) and Pass (Frame, Decompose, Hypotheses, Evidence, Synthesis).
  2. 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.
  3. Light path. Small ask: a 2-level tree, 2 hypotheses, one observation each, answer in 3 lines.
  4. 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 -, 0 or + 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

  1. Answer to the analytical question.
  2. Key uncertainty: the one unknown that swings the answer most.
  3. 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