Menu
Use when designing the analysis framework for a discovery or data analysis project — defines story line, analysis dimensions, sufficiency criteria, and alternative explanations to check
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.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Use when designing the evaluation protocol for a method development project — locks primary metrics, datasets, seeds, statistical tests, and baseline list into an immutable contract
Use when G2 (plan freeze) and G3 (execution readiness) gates have passed — handles all implementation, baseline reproduction, experimentation, and iteration for both Type M and Type D projects; this is Phase 4
Use when research direction is validated (G1 passed) and the project needs method design, analysis framework, evaluation protocol, or story line — this is Phase 3 and must complete before any code or experiments
Reusable protocol for multi-agent discussions that iterate until convergence. Used by results-integration (Phase 5) and paper-writing (Phase 6) to ensure discussions actually resolve issues rather than just noting them.
Use when and ONLY when the user explicitly requests paper writing and G4 (write-ready) gate has passed — handles LaTeX structure, senior-level writing, reference verification, and iterative refinement
Use when Phase 1 (research-direction-exploration) is complete and G1 gate has passed — subjects the research problem to adversarial defense-style questioning, classifies project intent, re-evaluates venue target, and produces a final feasibility ruling before any method design begins
| name | analysis-storyboard-design |
| description | Use when designing the analysis framework for a discovery or data analysis project — defines story line, analysis dimensions, sufficiency criteria, and alternative explanations to check |
Applies to Type D and Type H projects. A discovery project without a storyboard produces scattered, shallow analyses that fail to tell a coherent scientific story. Design the narrative arc before running the first analysis.
Articulate the core narrative:
Write as a single paragraph: "We investigate [question]. We expect to find [prediction] because [reasoning]. This matters because [impact]."
Design 2–4 supporting story lines. Each must validate, extend, or contextualize the main line:
| Line | Purpose | Relationship to Main |
|---|---|---|
| Supporting Line 1 | (validates main finding from different angle) | Validation |
| Supporting Line 2 | (explores mechanism or cause) | Explanation |
| Supporting Line 3 | (tests boundary conditions) | Robustness |
| Supporting Line 4 | (reveals unexpected patterns) | Extension |
Minimum 2 supporting lines. Fewer produces an incomplete story.
For each story line (main + supporting), specify:
Present to user for confirmation.
IRON LAW: ANALYSIS MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE. NO SHORTCUTS.
Every box must be checked before the analysis plan is approved:
Any unchecked box → resolve before proceeding.
For each expected finding, list plausible alternative explanations that the analysis must rule out:
| Expected Finding | Alternative Explanation | How to Rule Out |
|---|---|---|
| (fill) | (fill) | (specific analysis, control, or test) |
Minimum 2 alternative explanations per major finding. Fewer suggests insufficient critical thinking.
State concrete completion criteria:
After user confirms ALL items:
docs/03_plan/analysis-storyboard.md| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The data will tell us the story" | Data tells many stories. Choose yours before looking, or you'll hallucinate patterns. |
| "Alternative explanations are premature" | If you can't think of alternatives now, you can't defend against reviewers later. |
| "4–6 content points is too many" | Shallow analysis is the #1 reason discovery papers get rejected. Depth wins. |
| "I'll add supporting lines as I go" | Ad-hoc additions lack coherence. Plan the structure, then fill it. |
| "Sufficiency criteria constrain creativity" | They prevent laziness. Creative insights still emerge within a structured framework. |