Analyze

---

name: "Analyze" description: "Structured analysis for any input. Data, code, text, decisions, visuals. Prioritize, question, conclude."

---

Pattern

Purpose → Structure → Analyze → Prioritize → Conclude

Before 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.*