Statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, A/B testing, cohort analysis, segmentation, trend detection, business metrics, pre-delivery validation, and data visualization. Use when the user asks to "analyze this data", "run a statistical test", "compare groups", "find trends", "do A/B test analysis", "segment customers", "calculate KPIs", "validate this analysis", "check my work", "sanity check", "review my numbers", "make a chart", "create a dashboard", "plot the data", "visualize results", or mentions hypothesis testing, cohort analysis, business analytics, data validation, bar charts, line charts, heatmaps, scatter plots, or data storytelling.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
File Explorer
14 files
Showing SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
analyze
description
Statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, A/B testing, cohort analysis, segmentation, trend detection, business metrics, pre-delivery validation, and data visualization. Use when the user asks to "analyze this data", "run a statistical test", "compare groups", "find trends", "do A/B test analysis", "segment customers", "calculate KPIs", "validate this analysis", "check my work", "sanity check", "review my numbers", "make a chart", "create a dashboard", "plot the data", "visualize results", or mentions hypothesis testing, cohort analysis, business analytics, data validation, bar charts, line charts, heatmaps, scatter plots, or data storytelling.
allowed-tools
Bash(uv run * scripts/descriptive_stats.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/hypothesis_test.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/ab_test.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/cohort_analysis.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/rfm_segmentation.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/trend_analysis.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/validate.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/chart_templates.py *) Bash(uv run * scripts/format_number.py *) Read Write Glob Grep
argument-hint
path to dataset or description of analysis/chart (e.g. "data/sales.csv" or "bar chart of revenue by quarter")
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type bar --x category --y value -o chart.png
Analysis type selection
Question
Analysis type
Script
What happened?
Descriptive statistics, aggregations
descriptive_stats.py
Why did it happen?
Diagnostic analysis, drill-downs, segmentation
rfm_segmentation.py
Is this difference real?
Hypothesis testing (t-test, chi-square)
hypothesis_test.py
Did the change work?
A/B test analysis
ab_test.py
How do groups behave over time?
Cohort analysis
cohort_analysis.py
What are the natural groupings?
Segmentation / clustering
rfm_segmentation.py
What are the trends?
Time series decomposition, rolling averages
trend_analysis.py
What should we track?
KPI definition and dashboarding
descriptive_stats.py
Is this ready to share?
Pre-delivery QA, sanity checking
validate.py
Choosing the right measure of center
Situation
Use
Why
Symmetric distribution, no outliers
Mean
Most efficient estimator
Skewed distribution (revenue, duration)
Median
Robust to outliers
Categorical or ordinal data
Mode
Only option for non-numeric
Highly skewed with outliers
Median + mean
The gap shows skew
Always report mean and median together for business metrics. If they diverge significantly, the data is skewed and the mean alone is misleading.
Choosing the right test
Scenario
Test
Compare 2 group means (normal)
Independent t-test
Compare 2 group means (non-normal)
Mann-Whitney U
Compare 2 paired measurements
Paired t-test
Compare 3+ group means
One-way ANOVA
Compare proportions
Chi-square test
Test correlation
Pearson / Spearman
Test normality
Shapiro-Wilk
The hypothesis_test.py script auto-selects the right test based on normality checks and reports p-value, effect size (Cohen's d), and confidence interval.
Effect size interpretation
Cohen's d
Interpretation
< 0.2
Negligible
0.2 - 0.5
Small
0.5 - 0.8
Medium
> 0.8
Large
KPI framework
Category
KPI
Formula
Revenue
MRR
Sum of monthly recurring revenue
Revenue
ARPU
Total revenue / active users
Growth
MoM Growth
(this_month - last_month) / last_month
Retention
Churn Rate
Lost customers / start customers
Retention
Retention Rate
1 - churn rate
Engagement
DAU/MAU
Daily active / monthly active
Efficiency
CAC
Marketing spend / new customers
Efficiency
LTV
ARPU * avg lifetime months
Efficiency
LTV:CAC
LTV / CAC (target: > 3:1)
Conversion
Conversion Rate
Conversions / visitors
Conversion
Funnel Drop-off
Lost at each stage / entered stage
Analysis report format
=== Analysis Report ===
Question: [What business question are we answering?]
Data: [Dataset, date range, filters applied]
Method: [Statistical test / analysis type used]
Key Findings:
1. [Most important finding with numbers]
2. [Second finding]
3. [Third finding]
Statistical Evidence:
- Test: [name], p-value: [value], effect size: [value]
- Confidence interval: [range]
Caveats:
- [Sample size limitations]
- [Selection bias concerns]
- [Missing data impact]
Recommendation:
[Actionable next step based on findings]
Simple forecasting (for analysts, not data scientists)
Method
How
When
Naive
Tomorrow = today
Baseline
Seasonal naive
Tomorrow = same day last week/year
Seasonal data
Linear trend
Fit a line to historical data
Clearly linear trends
Moving average
Trailing average as forecast
Noisy data
Always communicate uncertainty — provide a range, not a point estimate:
"We expect 10K-12K signups next month based on the 3-month trend"
NOT "We will get exactly 11,234 signups next month"
When to escalate to a data scientist: Non-linear trends, multiple seasonalities, external factors, or when forecast accuracy matters for resource allocation.
Statistical pitfalls to watch for
Simpson's Paradox
A trend in aggregated data can reverse when segmented. Always check whether conclusions hold across key segments.
Multiple Comparisons Problem
Testing 20 metrics at p=0.05 means ~1 will be falsely significant. Apply Bonferroni correction (alpha / number of tests) or report how many tests were run.
Ecological Fallacy
Aggregate trends may not apply to individuals. "Countries with higher X have higher Y" does NOT mean individuals with higher X have higher Y.
Anchoring on False Precision
"Churn will be 4.73% next quarter" implies more certainty than warranted
Prefer ranges: "We expect churn between 4-6%"
Correlation vs Causation
When you find a correlation, consider:
Reverse causation: Maybe B causes A, not A causes B
Confounding: Maybe C causes both A and B
Coincidence: With enough variables, spurious correlations are inevitable
What you can say: "Users who use feature X have 30% higher retention"
What you cannot say: "Feature X causes 30% higher retention"
Visualization
Quick chart generation
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type bar --x category --y value -o chart.png
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type line --x date --y value --hue segment -o trend.png
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type hist --x value -o dist.png
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type heatmap -o correlations.png
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type scatter --x feature_a --y target -o scatter.png
uv run ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/chart_templates.py data.csv --type box --x group --y value -o box.png
Chart accuracy: Bar charts start at zero. Axes labeled. Scales consistent across panels.
Number formatting: Appropriate precision. Consistent formatting. Thousands separators.
Title clarity: Titles state the insight, not just the metric. Date ranges specified.
Caveat transparency: Known limitations and assumptions stated explicitly.
Reproducibility: Someone else could recreate this analysis from the documentation.
Common Data Analysis Pitfalls
Join Explosion
A many-to-many join silently multiplies rows, inflating counts and sums. Always check row counts after joins. Use COUNT(DISTINCT id) instead of COUNT(*) when counting entities through joins.
Survivorship Bias
Analyzing only entities that exist today, ignoring those that churned, failed, or were deleted. Ask "who is NOT in this dataset?" before drawing conclusions.
Incomplete Period Comparison
Comparing a partial period to a full period. "January revenue is $500K vs December's $800K" — but January isn't over yet. Filter to complete periods, or compare same-number-of-days.
Denominator Shifting
The denominator changes between periods, making rates incomparable. Use consistent definitions across all compared periods. Document any changes.
Average of Averages
Averaging pre-computed averages gives wrong results when group sizes differ. Always aggregate from raw data. Never average pre-aggregated averages.
Timezone Mismatches
Different data sources use different timezones, causing misalignment. Standardize all timestamps to a single timezone (UTC recommended) before analysis.
Selection Bias in Segmentation
Segments defined by the outcome you're measuring, creating circular logic. Define segments based on pre-treatment characteristics, not outcomes.
Result Sanity Checking
Magnitude Checks
Metric Type
Sanity Check
User counts
Match known MAU/DAU figures?
Revenue
Right order of magnitude vs known totals?
Rates
Between 0% and 100%? Match dashboard?
Growth rates
Is 50%+ MoM realistic or a data issue?
Averages
Reasonable given the distribution?
Percentages
Segment percentages sum to ~100%?
Cross-Validation Techniques
Calculate the same metric two different ways and verify they match
Spot-check individual records — pick specific entities and trace manually
Compare to known benchmarks — match against dashboards, prior reports
Reverse engineer — if total revenue is X, does per-user revenue times user count equal X?
Boundary checks — filter to a single day/user/category. Are micro-results sensible?
Red Flags That Warrant Investigation
Any metric changed >50% period-over-period without obvious cause
Counts or sums that are exact round numbers (filter or default value issue)
Rates exactly at 0% or 100% (incomplete data)
Results that perfectly confirm the hypothesis (reality is messier)
Identical values across time periods or segments (query ignoring a dimension)
Documentation Template
Every non-trivial analysis should include:
## Analysis: [Title]
### Question
[The specific question being answered]
### Data Sources
- Table/file: [name] (as of [date])
### Definitions
- [Metric A]: [How it's calculated]
- [Segment X]: [How membership is determined]
- [Time period]: [Start] to [end], [timezone]
### Methodology
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
### Assumptions and Limitations
- [Assumption and why it's reasonable]
- [Limitation and its impact on conclusions]
### Key Findings
1. [Finding with evidence]
### Caveats
- [Things the reader should know before acting on this]
Validation Rules
Run the full checklist before sharing — skipping steps is how errors ship
Check row counts before and after every join
Never average pre-aggregated averages — go back to raw data
Always ask "who is missing from this dataset?"
Cross-reference key numbers against at least one other source
State assumptions explicitly — unstated assumptions become invisible errors
