code-data-analysis-scaffolds
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/code-data-analysis-scaffoldsGenerate structured plans for technical work before execution.
- Helps users plan test suites, data exploration, and statistical designs.
- Depends on user intent keywords like analyze, model, or validate.
- Recommends scaffold types based on the specific technical task.
- Delivers ready-to-use frameworks, checklists, and templates.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/code-data-analysis-scaffoldsView on GitHub ↗
---
name: code-data-analysis-scaffolds
description: Generates structured scaffolds (frameworks, checklists, templates) for technical work — TDD test suites, exploratory data analysis plans, statistical analysis designs, causal vs predictive modeling objectives, and validation checklists. Use when starting technical work that needs systematic planning before execution. Invoke when user mentions "write tests for", "explore this dataset", "analyze", "model", "validate", "design an A/B test", or when technical work needs scaffolding before execution.
---
# Code Data Analysis Scaffolds
## Table of Contents
- [Overview](#overview)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Scaffold Types](#scaffold-types)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
## Overview
This skill provides structured scaffolds for common technical patterns:
1. **TDD Scaffold**: Given requirements, generate test structure before implementing code
2. **EDA Scaffold**: Given dataset, create systematic exploration plan
3. **Statistical Analysis Scaffold**: Given question, design appropriate statistical test/model
4. **Validation Scaffold**: Given code/model/data, create comprehensive validation checklist
**Skip this skill** when the user wants immediate execution without scaffolding, already has a clear plan, or the task is trivial.
**Quick example:**
> **Task**: "Write authentication function"
>
> **TDD Scaffold**:
> ```python
> # Test structure (write these FIRST)
> def test_valid_credentials():
> assert authenticate("user@example.com", "correct_pass") == True
>
> def test_invalid_password():
> assert authenticate("user@example.com", "wrong_pass") == False
>
> def test_nonexistent_user():
> assert authenticate("nobody@example.com", "any_pass") == False
>
> def test_empty_credentials():
> with pytest.raises(ValueError):
> authenticate("", "")
>
> # Now implement authenticate() to make tests pass
> ```
## Workflow
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
```
Code Data Analysis Scaffolds Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Clarify task and objectives
- [ ] Step 2: Choose appropriate scaffold type
- [ ] Step 3: Generate scaffold structure
- [ ] Step 4: Validate scaffold completeness
- [ ] Step 5: Deliver scaffold and guide execution
```
**Step 1: Clarify task and objectives**
Ask user for the task, dataset/codebase context, constraints, and expected outcome. Determine if this is TDD (write tests first), EDA (explore data), statistical analysis (test hypothesis), or validation (check quality). See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for context questions.
**Step 2: Choose appropriate scaffold type**
Based on task, select scaffold: TDD (testing code), EDA (exploring data), Statistical Analysis (hypothesis testing, A/B tests), Causal Inference (estimating treatment effects), Predictive Modeling (building ML models), or Validation (checking quality). See [Scaffold Types](#scaffold-types) for guidance on choosing.
**Step 3: Generate scaffold structure**
Create systematic framework with clear steps, validation checkpoints, and expected outputs at each stage. For standard cases use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md); for advanced techniques see [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md).
**Step 4: Validate scaffold completeness**
Check scaffold covers all requirements, includes validation steps, makes assumptions explicit, and provides clear success criteria. Self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_code_data_analysis_scaffolds.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_code_data_analysis_scaffolds.json) - minimum score ≥3.5.
**Step 5: Deliver scaffold and guide execution**
Present scaffold with clear next steps. If user wants execution help, follow the scaffold systematically. If scaffold reveals gaps (missing data, unclear requirements), surface these before proceeding.
## Scaffold Types
### TDD (Test-Driven Development)
**When**: Writing new code, refactoring existing code, fixing bugs
**Output**: Test structure (test cases → implementation → refactor)
**Key Elements**: Test cases covering happy path, edge cases, error conditions, test data setup
### EDA (Exploratory Data Analysis)
**When**: New dataset, data quality questions, feature engineering
**Output**: Exploration plan (data overview → quality checks → univariate → bivariate → insights)
**Key Elements**: Data shape/types, missing values, distributions, outliers, correlations
### Statistical Analysis
**When**: Hypothesis testing, A/B testing, comparing groups
**Output**: Analysis design (question → hypothesis → test selection → assumptions → interpretation)
**Key Elements**: Null/alternative hypotheses, significance level, power analysis, assumption checks
### Causal Inference
**When**: Estimating treatment effects, understanding causation not just correlation
**Output**: Causal design (DAG → identification strategy → estimation → sensitivity analysis)
**Key Elements**: Confounders, treatment/control groups, identification assumptions, effect estimation
### Predictive Modeling
**When**: Building ML models, forecasting, classification/regression tasks
**Output**: Modeling pipeline (data prep → feature engineering → model selection → validation → evaluation)
**Key Elements**: Train/val/test split, baseline model, metrics selection, cross-validation, error analysis
### Validation
**When**: Checking data quality, code quality, model quality before deployment
**Output**: Validation checklist (assertions → edge cases → integration tests → monitoring)
**Key Elements**: Acceptance criteria, test coverage, error handling, boundary conditions
## Guardrails
- **Clarify before scaffolding** - Don't guess what user needs; ask clarifying questions first
- **Distinguish causal vs predictive** - Causal inference needs different methods than prediction (RCT/IV vs ML)
- **Make assumptions explicit** - Every scaffold has assumptions (data distribution, user behavior, system constraints)
- **Include validation steps** - Scaffold should include checkpoints to validate work at each stage
- **Provide examples** - Show what good looks like (sample test, sample EDA visualization, sample model evaluation)
- **Surface gaps early** - If scaffold reveals missing data/requirements, flag immediately
- **Avoid premature optimization** - Start with simple scaffold, add complexity only if needed
- **Follow best practices** - TDD: test first, EDA: start with data quality, Modeling: baseline before complex models
## Quick Reference
| Task Type | When to Use | Scaffold Resource |
|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
| **TDD** | Writing/refactoring code | [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) #tdd-scaffold |
| **EDA** | Exploring new dataset | [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) #eda-scaffold |
| **Statistical Analysis** | Hypothesis testing, A/B tests | [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) #statistical-analysis-scaffold |
| **Causal Inference** | Treatment effect estimation | [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) #causal-inference-methods |
| **Predictive Modeling** | ML model building | [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) #predictive-modeling-pipeline |
| **Validation** | Quality checks before shipping | [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) #validation-scaffold |
| **Examples** | See what good looks like | [resources/examples/](resources/examples/) |
| **Rubric** | Validate scaffold quality | [resources/evaluators/rubric_code_data_analysis_scaffolds.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_code_data_analysis_scaffolds.json) |
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.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes 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.
- 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".