Agent skill

Question Framing

by ai-analyst-lab in ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

Structure analytical questions with the Question Ladder (Goal, Decision, Metric, Hypothesis), then fill the 7-field Analysis Design Spec, before touching data.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Question Framing

skills CLI
$ npx skills add ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst --skill question-framing -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst question-framing --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/question-framing .claude/skills/question-framing && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
question-framing
GitHub stars
304
Token cost
~3k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,319 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
43
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Structure analytical questions with the Question Ladder (Goal, Decision, Metric, Hypothesis), then fill the 7-field Analysis Design Spec, before touching data.

  • Works in 6 steps: Never start analyzing before framing —… → Never accept "just curious" as the… → Never frame questions with implied… → …
  • Whats happening with
  • SKILL.md covers Purpose, When to Use, Instructions and Examples, plus 1 more section
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Question Framing is an agent skill from ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst. Structure analytical questions with the Question Ladder (Goal, Decision, Metric, Hypothesis), then fill the 7-field Analysis Design Spec, before touching data. Trigger on "analyze", "investigate", "look into", "why did", "what's happening with", "what happened with", "figure out", "explore", "deep dive", "what caused", "compare", "breakdown", "root cause", "show me", "pull", "calculate". Framing first, analysis second.

Its SKILL.md is about 3k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Development, covering Root cause analysis. The repository describes itself as: AI Product Analyst — Claude Code-powered data analysis toolkit. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Whats happening with
  • What happened with

Example prompts

  • “analyze”
  • “investigate”
  • “look into”
  • “/question-framing”

Workflow steps

6 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Never start analyzing before framing — "just pulling some numbers" without a question leads to interesting-but-useless findings. Produce…
  2. Never accept "just curious" as the decision — Push for "what would you do differently?" If the answer is truly nothing, offer Path A…
  3. Never frame questions with implied answers — "Can you prove that Feature X works?" is not a question, it's confirmation bias. Reframe as…
  4. Never frame questions too broadly — "How are we doing?" needs scoping. What metric? What time range? Compared to what?
  5. Never skip the hypothesis — Hypotheses prevent fishing expeditions and give you something specific to test.
  6. Never proceed without clarifying vague requests — If you don't understand the decision context, ask clarifying questions iteratively until…

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 52c0744. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are markdown).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Question Framing loads about 3k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 110 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,319 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~110
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst at commit 52c0744, republished under its MIT licence (© ai-analyst-lab). 1,319 words, ~3,022 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/question-framing/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
question-framing
description
Structure analytical questions with the Question Ladder (Goal, Decision, Metric, Hypothesis), then fill the 7-field Analysis Design Spec, before touching data. Trigger on "analyze", "investigate", "look into", "why did", "what's happening with", "what happened with", "figure out", "explore", "deep dive", "what caused", "compare", "breakdown", "root cause", "show me", "pull", "calculate". Framing first, analysis second.

Skill: Question Framing

Purpose

Structure analytical questions using the Question Ladder framework so every analysis starts with a clear decision context, measurable success criteria, and testable hypotheses.

When to Use

Apply this skill when starting any new analysis, when a user asks a vague question ("How are we doing?"), or when an analysis request lacks decision context. Always frame before analyzing.

Instructions

Pre-flight: Load Learnings

Before executing, check .knowledge/learnings/index.md for relevant entries:

  • Read the file. If it doesn't exist or is empty, skip silently.
  • Scan for entries under "Question Framing" and "General" headings (or related categories like "Business Context", "Methodology Notes").
  • If entries exist, incorporate them as constraints or context for this execution.
  • Never block execution if learnings are unavailable.
The Question Ladder

Every analytical question climbs four rungs:

GOAL        → What business outcome are we trying to achieve?
DECISION    → What specific decision will this analysis inform?
METRIC      → What will we measure to inform that decision?
HYPOTHESIS  → What do we expect to find, and why?

The rule: Never start analyzing data until you can state all four rungs. If the requester only gives you a goal ("improve retention"), your first job is to climb the ladder before touching data.

Framing Process

Step 1: Extract the decision Ask: "What will you DO differently based on the answer?"

  • If the answer is "nothing" or "I'm just curious" → this is reporting, not analysis. Offer two paths:
    • Path A: Quick stat/dashboard (if truly no decision)
    • Path B: Clarify decision context first, then frame properly
  • If the answer is a specific action → you have a decision. Proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Define success criteria Ask: "How will you know the analysis answered your question?"

  • The answer should be specific: "If conversion rate dropped >10% in segment X, we'll prioritize a fix"
  • Not vague: "We'll understand our users better"
  • Success criteria should include specific thresholds, conditions, or decision rules

Step 3: Form testable hypotheses Ask: "What do you think is happening, and why?"

  • Good: "I think mobile conversion dropped because the checkout redesign broke on small screens"
  • Bad: "I think things are bad"
  • Extract hypotheses from vague statements - e.g., "cart abandonment is high" → "abandonment >20% due to checkout friction at payment stage"

Step 4: Identify data requirements Ask: "What data do we need, and do we have it?"

  • Map each hypothesis to specific metrics, segments, and time ranges
  • Check if the data exists by reviewing schema documentation (don't query the database - just check availability)
  • Flag gaps early: "We need funnel step events, but only have order status"
  • Document what CAN and CANNOT be answered with available data

Step 5: Produce the Question Brief Write the brief using the template below. Save it to question_brief.md in the working folder, or present it inline.

  • DO NOT proceed to analysis after writing the brief
  • DO NOT run SQL queries or call analysis agents
  • Hand off to the next phase (exploration/analysis) after the brief is approved
Good vs. Bad Questions
Bad QuestionProblemGood Question
"How are our users doing?"No decision context, unmeasurable"Did the onboarding redesign improve Day-7 retention for new users?"
"Analyze our funnel"No hypothesis, no scope"Where in the signup-to-purchase funnel are we losing the most users, and does it differ by acquisition channel?"
"What's our conversion rate?"Reporting, not analysis"Why did conversion rate drop 15% in March, and is it affecting all segments equally?"
"Tell me about churn"Too broad, no decision"Which user segments have the highest 90-day churn rate, and what behaviors predict churn in the first 30 days?"
"Is our product doing well?"Unmeasurable, no comparison"How does our monthly active user growth compare to Q3, and which features are driving engagement?"
Impact × Feasibility Prioritization

When multiple questions emerge, prioritize:

                    HIGH IMPACT
                        │
          ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
          │   DO FIRST   │   PLAN FOR  │
          │  (Quick win)  │  (Strategic) │
HIGH      │               │              │
FEASIBILITY ──────────────┼──────────────── LOW
          │               │              │ FEASIBILITY
          │   DO IF TIME  │    SKIP     │
          │  (Nice to have)│  (Not worth) │
          └─────────────┼─────────────┘
                        │
                    LOW IMPACT

Impact criteria:

  • Revenue/cost implication >$100K → High
  • Affects >10% of users → High
  • Informs a decision being made this quarter → High
  • Curiosity-driven, no pending decision → Low

Feasibility criteria:

  • Data exists and is clean → High
  • Can be answered in <4 hours → High
  • Requires new instrumentation → Low
  • Requires data from another team → Low
Output Format: Question Brief (Ladder + Analysis Design Spec)

The Question Brief is the concrete artifact the Ladder produces. Climb the Ladder first, then fill the seven spec fields. Every field is required; if you cannot fill one, ask the user. Save it to question_brief.md in the working folder (or present it inline for quick asks).

markdown
# Question Brief: [Title]
## Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Business Context
[2-3 sentences: what's happening, why this matters now]

### The Question Ladder
| Rung | Statement |
|------|-----------|
| **Goal** | [Business outcome] |
| **Decision** | [Specific action this informs] |
| **Metric** | [What we'll measure] |
| **Hypothesis** | [What we expect to find and why] |

### 1. Question
What are we trying to answer?
[A specific, testable question, sharpened from the Ladder]

### 2. Decision
What will this analysis inform?
[A concrete action the team will take based on the answer]
[If the answer is "nothing specific", this may be reporting, not analysis. Confirm with the user.]

### 3. Data Needed
| Data | Source | Available? | Notes |
|------|--------|-----------|-------|
| [metric/field] | [table/system] | Yes/No/Partial | [gaps, quality concerns] |

### 4. Dimensions
What should we segment or decompose by?
- [Dimension 1]: [why: what would different values tell us?]
- [Dimension 2]: [why]
- [Dimension 3]: [why]

### 5. Time Range & Granularity
- **Period:** [start date to end date]
- **Granularity:** [daily / weekly / monthly]
- **Comparison:** [vs. prior period / vs. same period last year / vs. benchmark]

### 6. Output Format
What deliverable does the user need?
- [ ] Quick answer (1-2 sentences + supporting number)
- [ ] Analysis report (structured findings with charts)
- [ ] Presentation deck (slides for stakeholders)
- [ ] Data table (for further analysis by the user)

### 7. Success Criteria
How will we know the analysis answered the question?
[Specific, falsifiable conditions, e.g. "Identify which segment drove >50% of the decline"]

### Priority
- **Impact:** [High/Medium/Low, with justification]
- **Feasibility:** [High/Medium/Low, with justification]
- **Recommendation:** [Do First / Plan For / Do If Time / Skip]
Show full SKILL.md (630 more words)Show less
Using the Spec

Scope calibration. Match spec depth to the request. A number pull gets 1-2 sentences per field and fits on one screen; a monitoring ask gets a medium spec; an exploration or deep dive gets full sections with sub-bullets. Never let the spec become a blocker for quick pulls.

Before analysis: present the brief. If the decision was unstated or the spec exposed a gap, stop and confirm before running queries; if the request arrived clearly framed, confirm the framing in a sentence and proceed. The spec often reveals data gaps, scope mismatches, or missing context; catching them upfront saves hours of rework.

During analysis: check the spec before each major step: are you still answering the stated question? If something more interesting appears, note it as a follow-up but finish the original question first.

After analysis: verify the deliverable matches field 6 and the success criteria in field 7 are met; if not, note what is missing and why.

Writing rules for the spec fields:

  • Dimensions must be justified; do not segment by everything. Each dimension needs a reason ("different devices have different UX, so conversion may differ").
  • Success criteria must be falsifiable. "Good analysis" is not a criterion; "identify the segment responsible for >50% of the change" is.
  • Output format must match the audience: an executive gets a deck, a data scientist gets a table, a PM gets an analysis report.

Examples

Example 1: Vague → Well-framed

Incoming request: "Can you look at our signup numbers?"

Reframed:

RungStatement
GoalIncrease new user signups by 20% in Q1
DecisionShould we invest in fixing the mobile signup flow or increasing top-of-funnel traffic?
MetricSignup completion rate by device type + traffic source conversion rate
HypothesisMobile signup completion rate is <50% of desktop because the form doesn't render properly on small screens. Fixing mobile is higher ROI than more traffic.
Example 2: Curiosity → Decision-driven

Incoming request: "I'm curious about our power users"

Reframed:

RungStatement
GoalIncrease the percentage of users who become power users (>10 sessions/month)
DecisionWhich onboarding interventions should we prioritize to convert casual → power users?
MetricBehaviors in first 7 days that predict power user status at Day 30
HypothesisUsers who complete the tutorial AND create a project in their first session are 3x more likely to become power users. The tutorial completion rate is only 23%.
Example 3: Broad → Scoped

Incoming request: "Analyze our churn"

Reframed:

RungStatement
GoalReduce 90-day churn from 35% to 25%
DecisionWhich segment's churn should we tackle first — low-engagement users or users who hit a specific friction point?
Metric90-day churn rate by: (a) engagement tier in first 30 days, (b) last feature used before churning
HypothesisUsers who never use Feature X churn at 2x the rate of users who do. Feature X has a discoverability problem, not a value problem.

Anti-Patterns

  1. Never start analyzing before framing — "just pulling some numbers" without a question leads to interesting-but-useless findings. Produce the Question Brief FIRST, then hand off to analysis.
  2. Never accept "just curious" as the decision — Push for "what would you do differently?" If the answer is truly nothing, offer Path A (quick stat) or Path B (clarify decision context first).
  3. Never frame questions with implied answers — "Can you prove that Feature X works?" is not a question, it's confirmation bias. Reframe as "What is the impact of Feature X on [metric]?"
  4. Never frame questions too broadly — "How are we doing?" needs scoping. What metric? What time range? Compared to what?
  5. Never skip the hypothesis — Hypotheses prevent fishing expeditions and give you something specific to test.
  6. Never proceed without clarifying vague requests — If you don't understand the decision context, ask clarifying questions iteratively until you do. Don't guess or assume.

© ai-analyst-lab, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in .claude/skills/question-framing of ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 52c0744

Compare with similar skills

Question Framing next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Question Framing compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Question Framing this skillai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst304—~3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Code Design Rationale Investigatorcursor/plugins10k9 repos~2.6kAutomated safety check: PassNone
OpenLogi macOS Permissions TriageAprilNEA/OpenLogi23k—~2.5kAutomated safety check: NotesApache-2.0
Bug Finder for daisyUIsaadeghi/daisyui43k—~2.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Root Cause Debugginggarrytan/gstack136k—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Review PRapache/shardingsphere21k—~6.4kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Official

    Digs into why code is shaped the way it is by checking git history, pull requests and connected tools in parallel, then reporting a cited read on the tradeoffs.

    10k GitHub starsUsed in 9 repos~2.6k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Decides whether an OpenLogi device problem on macOS is a privacy-permission (TCC) problem, using agent log lines, and says which identity needs which grant.

    23k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check: notes
  • Bug Finder for daisyUI

    saadeghi/daisyui

    Investigates suspected bugs in the daisyUI monorepo through read-only analysis, then writes a decision-ready fix plan in tmp/bugs without changing any product code.

    43k GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated yesterday
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Root Cause Debugging

    garrytan/gstack

    Investigates bugs, errors and stack traces in phases and requires a root-cause hypothesis to be confirmed before any fix is written.

    136k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Review PR

    apache/shardingsphere

    Review Apache ShardingSphere or user-authorized downstream pull requests and PR discussions from public or authorized repository evidence.

    21k GitHub stars~6.4k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Graph-Based Bug Tracing

    tirth8205/code-review-graph

    Traces a bug through a code knowledge graph, following callers, callees and execution flow before opening source files, within a small token budget.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~287 tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

All 43 skills in this repo
  • Always Compare

    ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

    Never present a metric or number in isolation; anchor every number to a comparison (prior period, benchmark, or another segment) or state that none is available.

    304 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Archaeology

    ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

    Retrieve proven SQL patterns, table cheatsheets, and join patterns from .knowledge/query-archaeology/ so past work gets reused.

    304 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Archive Analysis

    ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

    Save completed analyses to the knowledge system's analysis archive for future reference.

    304 GitHub stars~2.7k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Auth Preflight

    ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

    Verify Google Workspace MCP authentication at the start of any session that needs Google APIs (Docs, Slides, Drive).

    304 GitHub stars~3.1k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Causal

    ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

    Causal inference toolkit for when experiments are not possible: estimate treatment effects from observational data with assumption checks and mandatory caveats.

    304 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Chart To Drive

    ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst

    Standardized workflow for uploading local chart PNGs to Google Drive and making them available for insertion into Google Docs and Slides.

    304 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Question Framing

What does Question Framing do?

Structure analytical questions with the Question Ladder (Goal, Decision, Metric, Hypothesis), then fill the 7-field Analysis Design Spec, before touching data. Question Framing is an agent skill from ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst. Structure analytical questions with the Question Ladder (Goal, Decision, Metric, Hypothesis), then fill the 7-field Analysis Design Spec, before touching data.

When should I use Question Framing?

Question Framing fits situations like: whats happening with; what happened with.

How do I install Question Framing in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst --skill question-framing -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/question-framing in ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst) into .claude/skills/question-framing in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Question Framing in Codex?

Run `npx skills add ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst --skill question-framing -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/question-framing in ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst) into .agents/skills/question-framing in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Question Framing in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst --skill question-framing -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/question-framing, .gemini/skills/question-framing, .github/skills/question-framing and .opencode/skills/question-framing in your project.

What does Question Framing need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Question Framing is instructions for the agent only.

Does Question Framing access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Question Framing safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Question Framing use?

Question Framing is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Question Framing use?

About 3k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 12k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Question Framing?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Question Framing: Code Design Rationale Investigator (cursor/plugins, 10k stars), OpenLogi macOS Permissions Triage (AprilNEA/OpenLogi, 23k stars), Bug Finder for daisyUI (saadeghi/daisyui, 43k stars) and Root Cause Debugging (garrytan/gstack, 136k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Question Framing?

ai-analyst-lab (a GitHub organization) maintains it in ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst, which has 304 GitHub stars. The repository holds 43 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 30, 2026.

Source: ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.