answer-uncomfortable-question
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/answer-uncomfortable-questionAnswer strategic questions with evidence, reasoning, and downside analysis.
- Provides data-backed recommendations for high-impact growth decisions.
- Requires current inputs to validate answerability before proceeding.
- Uses evidence chains to infer conclusions and identify specific risks.
- Delivers concise 200-400 word responses with single-line final advice.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/answer-uncomfortable-questionView on GitHub ↗
---
name: answer-uncomfortable-question
description: Takes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
---
# Answer Uncomfortable Question
## Workflow
```
Per question:
- [ ] Step 1: Reject if not answerable with current inputs → "I'd like to ask X, but I don't have the data. Here's what to collect before next quarter."
- [ ] Step 2: Gather evidence: numbers, quotes, specific posts. Cite them.
- [ ] Step 3: Write reasoning as a chain: evidence A → inference B → inference C → recommendation
- [ ] Step 4: Write downside: what SPECIFICALLY goes wrong if the recommendation is wrong?
- [ ] Step 5: End with one-line recommendation: do X / don't do X / watch Y
- [ ] Step 6: 200-400 words per question
```
## Uncomfortable-question selection criteria
The Strategist chooses 3 per quarter. Scoring:
1. **Data-backed**: answerable from current inputs. Reject otherwise.
2. **Decision-relevant**: answering it changes what the writer does next quarter.
3. **Recency filter**: don't re-ask last quarter's unresolved question without significant new data.
4. **User-prompted override**: if writer invoked with specific question, force-include it.
5. **Portfolio coverage**: across quarters, hit growth / product / voice axes.
## Format per question
```markdown
### Q{N}: {phrased as a real question, not a topic}
**Evidence**: What the numbers / corpus / audience actually say. Cite Growth Analyst report or specific posts.
**Reasoning**: Why the evidence leads to {answer}. Chain: A → B → C.
**Downside**: What specifically breaks if this recommendation is wrong.
**Recommendation**: Do X / Don't do X / Watch Y before deciding.
```
## Guardrails
1. Evidence-reasoning-downside triad is mandatory. Missing any → suppress the question.
2. Never fabricate evidence. If the data doesn't exist, reject the question.
3. Downside must be specific. "We lose time" is not a downside; "we lock in a topic the audience has outgrown" is.
4. Recommendation is one line. Not a paragraph of hedging.
5. 200-400 words per question. The full review has 3 questions at ~300 words each.
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".
- audit-driftChecks every post currently assigned to a substacker section against that section's promise and flags posts that no longer fit. Distinguishes acceptable-stretch (minor) from borderline (surface for review) from genuine-drift (violates promise). Never reassigns automatically — only flags. Use on every Curator run where at least one section already exists. Trigger keywords: drift, drift audit, section fit, promise violation, post in wrong section.