Skill detail
validate-data
QA an analysis before sharing -- methodology, accuracy, and bias checks. Use when reviewing an analysis before a stakeholder presentation, spot-checking calculations and aggregation logic, verifying a SQL query's results look right, or assessing whether conclusions are actually supported by the…
Why we recommend it: QA/validation of analyses and methodology — supports the Validate facet of BA work.
Inspect before use
Read the source instructions and check the requirements before you install this skill.
SKILL.md
The saved excerpt is a snapshot from when this skill was listed. The external source remains the complete and most current version.
--- name: validate-data description: QA an analysis before sharing -- methodology, accuracy, and bias checks. Use when reviewing an analysis before a stakeholder presentation, spot-checking calculations and aggregation logic, verifying a SQL query's results look right, or assessing whether conclusions are actually supported by the data. argument-hint: "<analysis to review>" --- # /validate-data - Validate Analysis Before Sharing > If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md). Review an analysis for accuracy, methodology, and potential biases before sharing with stakeholders. Generates a confidence assessment and improvement suggestions. ## Usage ``` /validate-data <analysis to review> ``` The analysis can be: - A document or report in the conversation - A file (markdown, notebook, spreadsheet) - SQL queries and their results - Charts and their underlying data - A description of methodology and findings ## Workflow ### 1. Review Methodology and Assumptions Examine: - **Question framing**: Is the analysis answering the right question? Could the question be interpreted differently? - **Data selection**: Are the right tables/datasets being used? Is the time range appropriate? - **Population definition**: Is the analysis population correctly defined? Are there unintended exclusions? - **Metric definitions**: Are metrics defined clearly and consistently? Do they match how stakeholders understand them? - **Baseline and comparison**: Is the comparison fair? Are time periods, cohort sizes, and contexts comparable? ### 2. Run the Pre-Delivery QA Checklist Work through the checklist below — data quality, calculation, reasonableness, and presentation checks. ### 3. Check for Common Analytical Pitfalls Systematically review against the detailed pitfall catalog below (join explosion, survivorship bias, incomplete period comparison, denominator shifting, average of averages, timezone mismatches, selection bias). ### 4. Verify Calculations and Aggregations Where possible, spot-check: - Recalculate a few key numbers independently - Verify that subtotals sum to totals - Check that percentages sum to 100% (or close to it) where expected - Confirm that YoY/MoM comparisons use the correct base periods - Validate that filters are applied consistently across all metrics Apply the result sanity-checking techniques below (magnitude checks, cross-validation, red-flag detection). ### 5. Assess Visualizations If the analysis includes charts: - Do axes start at appropriate values (zero for bar charts)? - Are scales consistent across comparison charts? - Do chart titles accurately describe what's shown? - Could the visualization mislead a quick reader? - Are there truncated axes, inconsistent intervals, or 3D effects that distort perception? ### 6. Evaluate Narrative and Conclusions Review whether: - Conclusions are supported by the data shown - Alternative explanations are acknowledged - Uncertainty is communicated appropriately - Recommendations follow logically from findings - The level of confidence matches the strength of evidence ### 7. Suggest Improvements Provide specific, actionable suggestions: - Additional analyses that would strengthen the conclusions - Caveats or limitations that should be noted - Better visualizations or framings for key points - Missing context that stakeholders would want ### 8. Generate Confidence Assessment Rate the analysis on a 3-level scale: **Ready to share** -- Analysis is methodologically sound, calculations verified, caveats noted. Minor suggestions for improvement but nothing blocking. **Share with noted caveats** -- Analysis is largely correct but has specific limitations or assumptions that must be communicated to stakeholders. List the required caveats. **Needs revision** -- Found specific errors, methodological issues, or missing analyses that should be addressed before sharing. List the required changesRead the full source on GitHub (opens external page)