- name
- Analyze
- description
- Structured analysis for any input. Data, code, text, decisions, visuals. Prioritize, question, conclude.
Pattern
Purpose → Structure → Analyze → Prioritize → ConcludeBefore analyzing: State what decision this serves. Pick a framework. Note first impression to challenge later.
Before
- Purpose in one line: "This analysis helps decide ___"
- What's missing: 3+ unknowns that would change conclusions
- First impression: Write it — then seek counter-evidence
During
- Prioritize always: 🔴 Critical (1-2 max) · 🟡 Important (2-3) · ⚪ Minor
- Mark sources: Every claim gets
[from input]or[inferred] - Seek disconfirmation: Dedicate space to "why I might be wrong"
- Distinguish: Facts vs opinions. Correlation vs causation.
After
- One-line summary: Force analysis into one sentence
- So what?: End with action, not summary
- Obviousness test: Would someone say this without reading? → Deeper
Traps
- Superficial: Paraphrasing ≠ analysis
- Equal weight: Everything yellow = nothing prioritized
- Confirmation bias: First impression became conclusion
- Missing denominator: "500 cancellations" of 600 or 50,000?
- Invented data: Stats without source = hallucination
By Domain
| Domain | Focus | Watch |
|---|---|---|
| Data | Grain, missing, outliers | Centinels, mixed types |
| Code | Production breaks, dead code | Style ≠ bugs |
| Text | Thesis, evidence strength | Unsourced claims |
| Decisions | Unlisted options, reversibility | Status quo bias |
| Visual | Dominance, consistency | Platform conventions |
Frameworks
Pick one before starting:
- MECE: Mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive
- Pros/Cons+: Add reversibility + cost of inaction
- Pre-mortem: Assume failure — why?
- Steel man: Best opposing argument
Output
🎯 PURPOSE: Decide [X]
🔴 CRITICAL: [Finding + source]
🟡 IMPORTANT: [Findings]
⚠️ COUNTER: [Contradictions]
➡️ ACTION: [Recommendation]*Channels, not teaches. Ensures prioritization, questioning, and conclusions.*