name: high-stakes-analytics-decision-lab description: Build or review source-backed descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analysis for consequential decisions. Use when an agent must profile and safely prepare uploaded data, turn a real dataset or research question into a reproducible study, investigate drivers without overstating causality, validate a model, compare feasible actions under dependent uncertainty and tail risk, trace every parameter to evidence and approval, or produce an answer-first analytical report across health, business, finance, policy, engineering, operations, behavioral science, AI, or planning.

High-Stakes Analytics & Decision Lab

Turn a real research question into a defensible path from source evidence to prediction and, only when justified, action. Keep description, diagnosis, prediction, causal inference, value judgments, and the final recommendation visibly separate.

Workflow

0. Route the question

Classify the analytical request:

Select diagnostic analysis when the request asks why a pattern occurred or which drivers warrant investigation. Do not convert a correlated driver into a cause without an identification strategy.

When only a question is available, generate a visual analysis blueprint:

python3 scripts/route_question.py "How should we allocate limited capacity?" \
  --output-dir /absolute/path/to/blueprint

Use --scope full for the complete baseline-to-decision sequence. Use --scope auto for the primary route and its prerequisites. Read analytics-triad.md before routing an ambiguous or multi-stage question.

Do not fabricate results when data are absent. State the required data, metrics, horizon, validation design, alternatives, constraints, and affected groups.

1. Establish the real-evidence contract

Before analysis, prefer an official, academic, or otherwise authoritative source whose redistribution terms permit the intended repository use. Record:

• landing and direct-download URLs, publisher, version, access date, citation, license, and redistribution rule;
• the exact raw file paths and SHA-256 hashes;
• source grain, expected row count, privacy treatment, exclusions, and permitted analytical use;
• a reproducible download receipt and a prepared-data quality report.

Never substitute a synthetic case for an empirical project. Synthetic data are allowed only as clearly separated engineering fixtures for deterministic, property, boundary, or extreme-input tests. Read real-evidence-workflow.md before starting a new project.

2. Gate uploaded data before analysis

Whenever a user supplies row-level data, preserve the source unchanged and run the data-quality gate before calculating a descriptive result, fitting a model, or comparing decisions. For a new dataset, initialize the complete review workspace in one command:

python3 scripts/init_case.py /absolute/path/to/input.csv \
  --question "Which groups are most likely to need support next month?" \
  --output-dir /absolute/path/to/case-workspace

The initializer preserves and hash-checks the source, drafts the contract, profiles quality, routes the question, and lists unresolved decisions. It must not apply cleaning, fit a model, or generate a recommendation.

To run the gate separately, copy and complete data-contract-template.json, then run:

python3 scripts/profile_dataset.py /absolute/path/to/input.csv \
  --contract /absolute/path/to/data-contract.json \
  --output-dir /absolute/path/to/readiness

For XLSX, Parquet, database, or multi-table inputs, hash the original and create a traceable tabular extract; retain the conversion receipt, table relationships, join checks, and original-versus-extract hashes.

The gate checks grain, schema, completeness, uniqueness, type and domain validity, temporal reliability, distributions, privacy, and declared leakage rules. It produces a visual Data Readiness Report, machine-readable findings, and a dry-run cleaning plan with one of four statuses:

• ready;
• ready_with_documented_limitations;
• needs_user_confirmation;
• blocked.

Treat an inferred contract as profiling assistance, not permission to analyze: missing intended use or grain must pause at needs_user_confirmation. Duplicate or blank headers, unlabelled extra fields, missing predictive features or targets, target-as-feature overlap, broken keys, and declared leakage block the workflow. Apply user-declared missing sentinels and numeric ranges exactly; do not silently expand them.

Run only safe_auto actions without asking. Require approval by action ID for row deletion, column removal, imputation, outlier treatment, category merging, unit or timezone conversion, target correction, or grain changes. Never execute a non-executable manual-review action generically.

python3 scripts/prepare_dataset.py /absolute/path/to/input.csv \
  --quality-report /absolute/path/to/readiness/data-quality-report.json \
  --cleaning-plan /absolute/path/to/readiness/cleaning-plan.json \
  --approve clean-003 \
  --output-dir /absolute/path/to/prepared

Use the processed copy only after the post-cleaning gate permits the intended route. Do not continue when the gate is blocked, and do not continue past needs_user_confirmation until the relevant issue or cleaning choice is resolved. Fail closed if the source hash, reviewed action definition, approval ID, or raw/processed path binding changes. Read data-quality-gate.md for the complete policy and route-specific requirements.

3. Establish the descriptive baseline

Before forecasting or recommending:

• define the population, unit of analysis, time window, metric, and denominator;
• inspect missingness, coverage, outliers, comparability, and segment gaps;
• separate observed patterns from explanations;
• record source provenance and exclusions.

For a narrow descriptive request, stop here. For diagnostic, predictive, or prescriptive work, carry the baseline and data-quality findings into the next stage.

4. Build or review the predictive layer

Define the target, horizon, prediction grain, and information available at decision time. Compare against a simple baseline and use a time-aware or otherwise defensible validation design. Report calibration, uncertainty, subgroup error, leakage risk, and drift.

A prediction of outcomes under an intervention is not automatically the causal effect of that intervention. When the decision depends on intervention effects, require experimental, quasi-experimental, or otherwise defensible causal evidence.

When row-level evidence is supplied, select an executable method module before building the decision case:

• use scripts/evidence_analysis.py for two-group binary, continuous, and time-to-event evidence;
• use scripts/prediction_validation.py for held-out score validation, calibration, subgroup errors, and drift;
• use scripts/allocation_optimizer.py for a small discrete resource-allocation problem with linear constraints and scenarios.

Read method-modules.md for commands, output contracts, and method boundaries. Do not use a method merely because the columns exist; match the estimand and decision. Read advanced-method-boundaries.md when using survival, repeated-measures, financial-risk, spatial, or responsible-AI methods.

5. Frame the decision

Identify:

• the decision owner and affected stakeholders;
• the decision that must be made now;
• a status-quo alternative plus at least one feasible intervention;
• the time horizon and scope;
• evaluation criteria, their units, directions, weights, and defensible scales;
• hard constraints;
• material uncertainties and scenarios;
• shared shock factors, signed loadings, and a stronger-correlation stress;
• a source and approval-chain rule for every governed parameter family;
• groups that may experience different benefits or harms.

Do not begin simulation while the alternatives or decision owner remain ambiguous. Ask only for information that materially changes the model.

6. Classify the evidence

Label every quantitative input as one of:

• observed descriptive evidence;
• experimental or quasi-experimental estimate;
• predictive-model output;
• expert elicitation;
• policy target;
• analyst assumption or value judgment.

Never relabel an association, prediction, or scenario assumption as a causal effect. Read methodology.md before analyzing causal, clinical, financial, or safety-critical claims.

7. Build the case file

Copy case-template.json and replace every placeholder. Follow case-schema.md. Keep criterion identifiers and alternative identifiers stable and machine-readable.

Use fixed external scales rather than the observed minimum and maximum across current alternatives. This reduces rank reversal when an alternative is added.

Require criterion weights to be nonnegative. Normalize them during analysis. Use schema 1.3. Represent marginal uncertainty with fixed, normal, uniform, triangular, empirical, or bootstrap distributions and declare whether each term is parameter, process, scenario, or no uncertainty. Preserve repeated, temporal, market, campaign, participant, and geographic dependence through shared resampling units or latent factors. Never leave material common shocks independent merely for convenience.

Map every weight, scale, distribution field, scenario input, constraint threshold, dependence loading, and model parameter to a traceable source and approval chain. Read provenance-contract.md.

Migrate a legacy 1.2 fixture without changing it in place:

python3 scripts/migrate_case_v12_to_v13.py old-case.json \
  --output migrated-case.json

The migration conservatively labels every non-fixed legacy distribution as parameter uncertainty. Review those labels before using the result.

8. Validate before running

Run from the skill directory:

python3 scripts/validate_case.py /absolute/path/to/case.json

Resolve every error. Treat warnings as disclosure requirements; do not silently suppress them.

9. Analyze uncertainty and trade-offs

Run:

python3 scripts/run_case.py /absolute/path/to/case.json \
  --output-dir /absolute/path/to/output \
  --samples 10000 \
  --seed 20260726

The engine produces:

• expected, tail, and risk-adjusted decision value scores;
• matched independent, declared-correlation, and stronger-correlation results for P(best), CVaR10, breach U95, feasibility, and winner changes;
• aggregate and constraint-level violation events, observed rates, one-sided 95% upper bounds, declared-support diagnostics, and signed margins;
• probability of being best among decision-feasible alternatives;
• expected criterion values and uncertainty intervals;
• scenario-specific risk-adjusted performance and stability;
• feasible and unconstrained Pareto frontiers;
• two-sided, risk-consistent weight sensitivity;
• scale-clipping diagnostics;
• parameter-level source coverage and decision-use approval coverage;
• a transparent four-component robustness score;
• decision status separated from numerical robustness;
• group-impact gaps and ratios;
• a machine-readable result and an executive decision brief;
• GitHub-native SVG scorecards, ranking, constraint-risk, uncertainty, correlation-stress, criterion, scenario, sensitivity, and group-impact figures.

Use at least 10,000 samples for a shareable analysis. Use fewer only for a quick draft and label it accordingly.

10. Interpret, challenge, and communicate

Check whether:

• the recommendation remains stable under criterion-weight sensitivity;
• the winner and tail-risk result survive a stronger shared-shock stress;
• P(best) changes materially when residual independence is removed;
• every governed parameter has a resolved source and approval scope matching the declared decision use;
• a different alternative wins in a plausible adverse scenario;
• feasibility depends on an optimistic assumption;
• distributional harms are hidden by average outcomes;
• the status quo is dominated;
• the evidence supports the strength of the wording.

Read reporting-standard.md before finalizing a brief. Read visual-report-system.md and editorial-visual-system.md before producing a shareable visual report. The Evidence Intelligence Report is the primary evidence product. A Decision Intelligence Brief is a conditional downstream layer and must never replace, abbreviate, or hide the primary evidence product. Read domain-playbooks.md for domain-specific criteria and failure modes. To select the smallest defensible analytical path from the question and available data, read method-routing.md.

Compose shareable reports as an evidence sequence, not as a chart gallery followed by a text wall. Alternate a bounded result, its full-width visual, the adjacent interpretation and claim boundary, then the next relevant source, design, quality, or method block. Use compact tables for exact metrics and contracts. Parameter-level registers and reproducibility receipts may be placed in <details> blocks, but never hide the bottom line, methods, validation result, uncertainty, limitations, or decision status. Every visual must answer a stated analytical question; do not add decorative graphics merely to break up prose.

Do not recommend an alternative merely because it has the highest expected utility. Prefer a feasible option with acceptable tail performance and disclose any robustness or equity trade-off.

If a simulation observes zero constraint breaches, never write “zero risk.” Report the event count, the one-sided 95% upper bound, and whether the declared input support mathematically excluded a breach. A bounded-support zero is an assumption diagnosis, not evidence that real-world risk is impossible.

Bundled real-data projects

Use the fifteen-project case index when a worked precedent would improve method selection or reporting. The bundle contains fifteen complete, reproducible projects across operations, urban information systems, marketing, responsible AI, financial risk, fintech, real estate, wildfire decision analysis, regulatory filings, field experiments, population health, public policy, repeated measures, transportability, and spatial planning.

Each project includes its reviewed raw source snapshot, source manifest and hashes, configuration, preparation and analysis code, Evidence Intelligence Report, all figures, machine-readable results, and an evidence-matched Decision Intelligence Brief. The Evidence Intelligence Report is the primary project record. A Decision Intelligence Brief is added only when a separate decision layer is justified; otherwise the analytical result itself records the bounded terminal status. Decision Intelligence Briefs may end in a bounded comparison, do_not_deploy, a randomized-pilot requirement, targeted diligence, or an evidence request. Use examples/real-data-cases/cases.json as the machine-readable case index.

Treat the projects as method precedents, not answer templates. Copy neither a saved empirical result nor a threshold, weight, subgroup definition, causal claim, or recommendation into a new case without new evidence and review.

Output contract

Do not force every case into one report template. Keep a stable evidence spine, then add only the fields, sections, methods, and figures required by the selected route:

Every route must still include the question, scope, source lineage, data-quality status, supported findings, limitations, and next action. Dynamic fields must be machine-readable and mirrored in the narrative; omit inapplicable sections instead of filling them with generic prose.

For question routing, deliver:

1. analysis-blueprint.md explaining the selected routes, methods, required data, validity checks, and handoffs.
2. analysis-blueprint.json preserving the routing decision and data contract.
3. figures/analytics-lifecycle.svg visualizing the question-to-decision path.

For uploaded row-level data, deliver before analytical results:

1. data-quality-report.md and figures/data-quality-overview.svg as the answer-first readiness decision.
2. data-quality-report.json, data-contract.json, and cleaning-plan.json as the machine-readable gate and dry-run remediation plan.
3. When preparation runs, processed/analysis.csv, transformation-log.json, and a complete post-cleaning/ quality bundle.

The source file must remain unchanged. A blocked or confirmation-required quality gate is a valid terminal output and must not be hidden by a downstream analysis.

For every source-backed analytical project, deliver:

1. report.md as the Evidence Intelligence Report, including the question, evidence and data-quality contract, methods, validation, every material figure with adjacent interpretation, uncertainty, limitations, claim boundary, and reproducibility.
2. results.json containing the complete machine-readable analytical result.
3. figures/*.svg and chart-map.json covering every material visual, not only a representative chart.

When a real decision layer is requested and justified, additionally deliver:

1. decision-results.json containing assumptions, scores, sensitivity results, and provenance.
2. decision-report.md as the Decision Intelligence Brief, containing an answer-first executive summary, adjacent interpretation for every visual, recommendation, ranking, uncertainty, scenario resilience, group impacts, next steps, further questions, and caveats.

• Decision-layer figures must remain accessible, directly labeled, and GitHub-renderable.
• The decision-layer figures/chart-map.json must record each figure's analytical question, supported takeaway, benchmark, chart family, source, palette policy, accessibility treatment, and report section.
• Link the Decision Intelligence Brief back to the Evidence Intelligence Report (report.md) and results.json.

State “no decision-ready recommendation” when all alternatives breach hard constraints or when evidence limitations make the ranking misleading. Use “illustrative preference,” not “recommendation,” when evidence.decision_use is illustrative. Numerical stability must never upgrade the permitted use of the evidence.

Guardrails

• Treat weights as values, not empirical facts.
• Preserve every uploaded source unchanged and verify its hash before applying a cleaning plan.
• Never silently deduplicate, impute, delete outliers, merge categories, drop columns, change units, or redefine a target or grain.
• Fit learned preprocessing only on training data and carry it unchanged into validation and test data.
• Preserve the status quo or a credible do-nothing baseline.
• Never use synthetic examples as real medical, financial, or policy advice.
• Never count test fixtures as public research projects or empirical evidence.
• Never invent descriptive findings, forecast accuracy, or recommendations when the required data or decision inputs are absent.
• Never treat predictive accuracy as evidence that an intervention will work.
• Do not hide missing stakeholders, unmodeled externalities, or conflicting fairness definitions.
• Do not convert model precision into unwarranted decision confidence.
• Require domain review before operational deployment.

High-Stakes Analytics & Decision Lab

A platform-neutral, evidence-constrained Skill for moving from an ambiguous question to a defensible analysis—and only then, when justified, to action.

What the Skill does

This Skill turns an ambiguous, consequential question into a reproducible evidence product and, only when justified, a bounded decision product. It can start from a question alone or from uploaded row-level data. Instead of assuming the data are clean, the model is useful, or a recommendation must be produced, it makes each transition conditional on visible evidence.

Its contribution is an adaptive orchestration system for evidence gating, method selection, claim control, dependent-risk handling, and case-specific analytical communication.

The public portfolio contains 15 primary reports and 10 conditional briefs—25 intelligence products in total—plus 119 canonical accessible figures: 50 evidence figures and 69 decision figures.

Quick install

npx skills add limingrui679-design/high-stakes-analytics-decision-lab -g

See runtime-specific, manual, and no-install options.

One complete evidence-to-decision workflow

flowchart TD
    Q["1 · Frame the question <br/> decision · population · estimand · horizon"] --> S["2 · Establish the evidence contract <br/> source · license · grain · lineage"]
    S --> G{"3 · Data-readiness gate"}
    G -->|"blocked"| X["Stop <br/> request corrected evidence"]
    G -->|"confirmation required"| U["Approve named transformation <br/> or revise the source"]
    U --> G
    G -->|"ready or bounded limitations"| D["4 · Descriptive baseline <br/> always first"]
    D --> R{"5 · Which additional route <br/> does the case justify?"}
    R -->|"explain drivers"| A["Diagnostic"]
    R -->|"estimate outcomes"| P["Predictive"]
    R -->|"compare feasible actions"| O["Prescriptive"]
    R -->|"baseline is sufficient"| E["6 · Evidence Intelligence Report"]
    A --> E
    P --> E
    O --> E
    E --> J{"7 · Is a decision layer justified?"}
    J -->|"no"| N["Evidence request · negative validation · stop"]
    J -->|"yes"| B["Decision Intelligence Brief <br/> bounded action · pilot · diligence"]

Routes may be composed rather than chosen exclusively. Across every path, the fixed evidence spine remains the same:

Messy data does not go straight into a model

flowchart LR
    A["Uploaded source <br/> immutable + hashed"] --> B["Data contract <br/> grain · key · time · target"]
    B --> C["Quality profile <br/> missing · duplicates · validity · privacy · leakage"]
    C --> D{"Readiness gate"}
    D -->|"ready"| E["Safe normalization"]
    D -->|"limitations"| F["Proceed with visible boundaries"]
    D -->|"confirmation"| G["Approve specific action IDs"]
    D -->|"blocked"| H["Stop and request corrected evidence"]
    E --> I["Post-cleaning gate"]
    G --> I
    I --> J["Adaptive analytical route selection"]

The Skill distinguishes four outcomes instead of silently forcing every file through cleaning:

• Safe automation: trim surrounding whitespace, normalize declared missing sentinels, and canonicalize fully parseable contract-declared numbers or dates.
• Explicit approval: deduplication, imputation, deletion, outlier treatment, category merging, unit conversion, target correction, or grain changes.
• Hard stop or pause: ambiguous headers, ragged records, broken keys, invalid types or ranges, unreliable time fields, missing predictive fields, leakage, source/plan mismatches, or an undeclared intended use and grain.

Open the complete Data Quality Gate contract.

Four adaptive analytical routes

After the evidence passes the readiness gate, the Skill chooses the analytical path before it chooses the report format. Descriptive analysis establishes the baseline; diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive modules appear only when the question, data, and validation boundary justify them.

The routes may stop early or combine. The Skill never fills inapplicable sections with generic prose.

• descriptive baselines, trends, cohorts, distributions, and segments;
• diagnostic decomposition and hypothesis generation;
• two-group binary, continuous, and basic survival evidence;
• held-out prediction validation, calibration, subgroup error, and drift;
• rare-event capacity lift and negative model validation;
• small discrete resource-allocation problems;
• multi-criteria decisions under shared shocks and tail risk;
• financial or operational panel diagnostics;
• disclosure and measurement-readiness analysis;
• spatial need and facility-allocation framing.

See method-routing.md for selection rules and method-modules.md for executable boundaries.

Two intelligence products, one evidence contract

The Evidence Intelligence Report is the primary evidence product. It contains the source and data-quality contract, methods, validation, every material figure, uncertainty, limitations, and reproducibility.

The Decision Intelligence Brief is a conditional downstream product. It explains what the evidence means for a real decision, including evidence gates, feasible alternatives, constraints, tail risk, terminal status, and reversal conditions. It never replaces the Evidence Intelligence Report.

Real projects: fifteen complete evidence paths

Every project ships a reviewed real-da