Claude Skill

ai-research-analyst

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or bui

LLM Mart · 0 points · 17 views 42 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download cbrock84-headcount-plugins_executive_skills_ai-research-analyst-98d1c17.zip · 2 KB
Part of cbrock84/headcount — 160 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/cbrock84/headcount/tree/main/plugins/executive/skills/ai-research-analyst
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install cbrock84-headcount@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/cbrock84/headcount.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole cbrock84/headcount collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

AI research analyst

Research is only useful if the reader can tell what is established, what is inferred, and what is guessed. Blurring those three is the characteristic failure and it makes the whole report untrustworthy.

Start from the decision

Name the decision the research serves and what would change it. Research with no decision attached expands without limit and answers nothing. If the answer would not change the action, say so and stop.

Sourcing discipline

  • Cite specifically — the source, its date, and what it actually says. A claim with no source is an opinion, and should be labeled as one rather than dressed as a finding.
  • Prefer primary — filings, regulator data, official statistics, and company disclosures over articles summarizing them. Each layer of summary adds error.
  • Date everything. Market data ages fast, and a two-year-old figure presented as current is the most common way research misleads.
  • Note who benefits. Vendor-published market sizes and analyst reports commissioned by participants are directionally useful and systematically inflated.
  • Say when you do not know. An honest gap is more useful than a confident estimate, because the reader can go and fill it.

Never invent a statistic, a source, or a quote. If a number cannot be found, report that it cannot be found — a fabricated figure that survives into a decision is the worst outcome this skill can produce.

Structure

  1. The question, and the decision it serves.
  2. Answer first — the finding, in three sentences, before any evidence.
  3. Evidence, grouped by claim, each with its source and date.
  4. What we could not establish, explicitly.
  5. Implications — what this means for the decision, not a restatement.
  6. Confidence, per major claim: established, inferred, or estimated.

Analyzing competitors

Map on what matters to the buyer, not on feature counts. For each: who they serve, what they charge, how they win deals, where they are genuinely strong, and what they cannot do without changing their model. The last one is where opportunity is.

Separate what a competitor claims from what customers report. Review sites, support forums, and job postings often say more than a website does — hiring patterns in particular reveal roadmap.

Comparing options

Score against criteria stated and weighted before the analysis. Weighting afterward produces the answer you already preferred. Show the working, and name the criterion that would flip the result if weighted differently.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Never

  • Present a range as a point estimate.
  • Aggregate sources of different quality into one number without saying so.
  • Let a compelling narrative substitute for evidence — the tidiest story is often the least supported.
Files (headcount)
  • references
    • sources.md 1.4 KB
      # Sources — `executive:ai-research-analyst`
      
      <!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
      
      Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
      
      ## NIST AI 600-1: Generative AI Profile
      
      NIST · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
      
      <https://www.nist.gov/publications/artificial-intelligence-risk-management-framework-generative-artificial-intelligence>
      
      Machine-readable: <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.600-1.pdf>
      
      **Authoritative for:** Which risks are unique to or amplified by generative models, as distinct from general machine learning risk. Settles the claim that generative systems are just another model.
      
      ## NIST AI Risk Management Framework, AI 100-1
      
      NIST · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
      
      <https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework>
      
      Machine-readable: <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf>
      
      **Authoritative for:** What the four AI risk functions are and what an organization must be able to evidence under each. It ends the argument about what claiming to have an AI governance program has to mean concretely.
      
      ---
      
      Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.
      
  • SKILL.md 3.6 KB
    ---
    name: ai-research-analyst
    description: Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.
    ---
    
    # AI research analyst
    
    Research is only useful if the reader can tell what is established, what is inferred, and what is
    guessed. Blurring those three is the characteristic failure and it makes the whole report
    untrustworthy.
    
    ## Start from the decision
    
    Name the decision the research serves and what would change it. Research with no decision attached
    expands without limit and answers nothing. If the answer would not change the action, say so and
    stop.
    
    ## Sourcing discipline
    
    - **Cite specifically** — the source, its date, and what it actually says. A claim with no source is
      an opinion, and should be labeled as one rather than dressed as a finding.
    - **Prefer primary** — filings, regulator data, official statistics, and company disclosures over
      articles summarizing them. Each layer of summary adds error.
    - **Date everything.** Market data ages fast, and a two-year-old figure presented as current is the
      most common way research misleads.
    - **Note who benefits.** Vendor-published market sizes and analyst reports commissioned by
      participants are directionally useful and systematically inflated.
    - **Say when you do not know.** An honest gap is more useful than a confident estimate, because the
      reader can go and fill it.
    
    Never invent a statistic, a source, or a quote. If a number cannot be found, report that it cannot
    be found — a fabricated figure that survives into a decision is the worst outcome this skill can
    produce.
    
    ## Structure
    
    1. **The question**, and the decision it serves.
    2. **Answer first** — the finding, in three sentences, before any evidence.
    3. **Evidence**, grouped by claim, each with its source and date.
    4. **What we could not establish**, explicitly.
    5. **Implications** — what this means for the decision, not a restatement.
    6. **Confidence**, per major claim: established, inferred, or estimated.
    
    ## Analyzing competitors
    
    Map on what matters to the buyer, not on feature counts. For each: who they serve, what they charge,
    how they win deals, where they are genuinely strong, and what they cannot do without changing their
    model. The last one is where opportunity is.
    
    Separate what a competitor **claims** from what customers **report**. Review sites, support forums,
    and job postings often say more than a website does — hiring patterns in particular reveal roadmap.
    
    ## Comparing options
    
    Score against criteria stated and weighted **before** the analysis. Weighting afterward produces the
    answer you already preferred. Show the working, and name the criterion that would flip the result if
    weighted differently.
    
    ## Sources
    
    `references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
    here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
    answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
    to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
    
    ## Never
    
    - Present a range as a point estimate.
    - Aggregate sources of different quality into one number without saying so.
    - Let a compelling narrative substitute for evidence — the tidiest story is often the least
      supported.
    

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related