Chart Big Idea

Chart Big Idea

Frame the chart before you pick it. A chart is a rhetorical act — it makes an argument about the data. If you can't state the argument in one sentence, the chart type will be wrong no matter how it's rendered.

This skill produces a Chart Brief — a short structured record of Big Idea + story arc + audience + style stance — which then feeds the flint-chart skill's §0.2 selection table.

Scope. Steps 0, 1, and 3 — read the context, state the claim in one sentence, read the audience — apply to any communication artifact: a slide, a memo, a diagram, a report section. Steps 2, 4, and 5 are chart machinery, which is why this skill is chart-named. If you are framing something that is not a chart, run Steps 0–1 and 3 and stop there.

When to invoke

Invoke this skill BEFORE flint-chart selection when any of these fire:

• User says "chart this", "visualize this", "make a chart", "show me the data"
• User attaches a dataset without a stated question
• User says "which chart should I use for..." and gives a data description
• The /render-chart prompt fires — this skill is its Step 0
• Existing chart is being redesigned ("this doesn't land — can we improve it?")

Do NOT invoke when:

• User provides a fully-formed spec asking to render it verbatim
• User is iterating on style/color/spacing of an already-chosen chart type
• The chart is diagnostic-only (e.g. exploratory data profiling); framing overhead isn't earned

Step 0: Read the surrounding context first (before asking anything)

Before you ask the user for the Big Idea, look for it in the material they've already produced. Often the Big Idea is written in prose next to where the chart will live — you just have to find it and lift it. Interrogating the user for a claim they already wrote is wasteful and slightly insulting.

Where to look, in order:

What to do with what you find:

• Found a claim-shaped sentence: draft the Big Idea from it, show it to the user in Step 1 as "Here's what I think you're arguing — confirm or correct?", let them fix in one hop. Do not silently rewrite the user's own words — if their prose already states the Big Idea, quote it verbatim in the Brief and cite the source.
• Found only a topic: skip to Step 1 elicitation with the topic as your anchor.
• Found nothing (cold ask, no doc, no ticket): go directly to Step 1 elicitation with no anchor.
• Found conflicting framings (e.g. ticket says one thing, prose says another): surface the conflict to the user before drafting — "the ticket asks for X but the section prose argues Y — which is the chart supposed to land?"

Skip Step 0 when: the user pasted a Big Idea directly ("Chart this: X grew 3× faster than Y"). Context-gathering isn't needed when the framing arrived on the request.

Time budget: Step 0 should take under a minute. If you're spelunking through 20 files trying to reconstruct intent, stop and ask the user — the doc genuinely doesn't have it.

Step 1: The Big Idea (one sentence)

First, check the intent — not just the finding

The Big Idea asks what the data shows. Before that, ask what this artifact is actually for. Answer both from Step 0 context where you can; escalate to the user only when the answer is unclear or uncomfortable.

1. Should this exist at all? A chart with no claim is decoration. If Step 0 surfaced no argument and the data holds no surprise, say so and offer the cheaper alternative — a sentence, a table, or nothing. A competent chart nobody needed is a failure that looks like success.
2. Is the stated purpose the real one? Sometimes the request is "show that X worked" rather than "show what X did" — a decision already made, looking for a picture to ratify it. That is a legitimate thing to build, but name it: it belongs in the Brief as Persuasive, and the honest version makes its case without suppressing the counter-evidence.

If the intended message and the data disagree, surface it before drafting the Big Idea. Do not quietly pick the chart that makes the requested point. Say what the data supports, name the gap, and let the user decide. This is the one moment in the workflow where the right answer may be "not this chart" — every later step assumes the chart should exist.

Adapted from Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic's Storytelling with Data framing. Write ONE sentence that:

1. States a unique point of view — not a topic. "Adoption is up" beats "Q3 adoption metrics".
2. Conveys what's at stake — why the reader should care. "…so we need to reallocate the training budget" beats "…which is notable".
3. Is a complete sentence — subject + verb + object. If it reads like a chart title, tighten it into a claim.

Template: "[Subject] [did/is/shows] [specific finding], [therefore/so-what implication]."

Examples:

If the Big Idea is still not clear after Step 0 — help the user find it

Run this 3-question elicitation ladder. Ask one question at a time; stop as soon as a Big Idea sentence writes itself. Do not batch the questions — batching is an interrogation, not a conversation.

1. "What surprised you in this data?" — the surprise is almost always the Big Idea. If nothing surprised, the chart may not have a claim to make (in which case, ask whether it's decorative / reference-only).
2. "What decision should change if this chart lands?" — gets the "so-what" clause. If no decision changes, the chart is informational; that's fine, but the Big Idea shape shifts from persuasive to descriptive.
3. "If a colleague read only the chart title and moved on, what one sentence do you want stuck in their head?" — the Big Idea reframed as a headline the user can imagine writing. This one usually unlocks users who couldn't answer #1 or #2 abstractly.

If all three come back vague ("just show the data", "I don't know, you pick"): propose a Big Idea yourself from Step 0 context + what the data actually shows, mark it clearly as **Proposal**:, and let the user confirm or edit. Do not stall waiting for a perfect answer. A specific proposal the user can react to is faster than an open-ended prompt.

Anti-pattern: running the whole ladder in one message ("What surprised you? What decision changes? What headline?"). One question, wait, listen, next.

Step 2: Story arc

Once the Big Idea is written, classify the story arc. This narrows chart families before flint-chart §0.2 fires:

A single chart usually leans on ONE arc. If the Big Idea needs two arcs (e.g. "compare + show distribution"), that's the hybrid signal — flag it for Step 4.

Step 3: Audience + stakes

Three quick reads. Do not turn this into an interview:

If the user hasn't told you, infer defaults: Glance / General / Persuasive for external audiences, Read / Domain-fluent / Decision-critical for internal analytics work.

Step 4: Style stance — TRADITIONAL vs INNOVATIVE

Ask the user explicitly (unless they already stated a preference):

"Do you want the traditional treatment — a familiar chart everyone will read at a glance — or an innovative treatment that shows more of the story but costs the reader a few seconds of study?"

Both are valid design choices. The tradeoff:

Style-stance × Story-arc → concrete chartType hints for flint-chart §0.2:

Rule of thumb: default to TRADITIONAL when the audience is glance-time or general-fluency. Default to INNOVATIVE when the audience is domain-fluent AND has 30+ seconds of study time AND the extra dimensions materially strengthen the Big Idea. When in doubt, ask.

Step 5: Write the Chart Brief and hand off

Output a compact brief (fits in one message, ~10 lines) that the flint-chart skill or /render-chart prompt consumes directly:

### Chart Brief

- **Big Idea**: <one sentence, from Step 1>
- **Story arc**: <one label from Step 2 taxonomy>
- **Audience**: <reading-time> / <fluency> / <stakes>
- **Style stance**: TRADITIONAL | INNOVATIVE (with one-sentence rationale)
- **Suggested chartType(s)**: <1-2 from the Step 4 crosstab>
- **Alternates considered**: <1-2 the crosstab surfaced but you didn't pick, with why>
- **Anti-patterns to avoid**: <call out any per flint-chart §0.3 that this brief risks>

Then invoke flint-chart §0.2 with the brief as context. The brief locks the framing; §0.2 handles the mechanical chartType lookup + Flint coverage check.

Anti-patterns

Worked example (AIRS fig07 ultimate)

• Step 0 sources (context found before asking the user anything):
  • AIRS/paper/manuscript.html § Results — paragraph before the figure reads "cluster centroids on BI diverge sharply, but the within-cluster spread tells the more actionable story" → near-verbatim Big Idea seed
  • Existing R plot caption: "BI by cluster with SD bars" → topic-shaped, needed upgrading to a claim
  • AIRS/SUMMARY.md audience note: technical readers, decision-critical for training program design → fixed Audience read without a separate question
• Big Idea: "The three AI-readiness clusters differ not just in average Behavioral Intention but in how tightly their members cluster around the mean — Enthusiasts are uniformly high, Skeptics span the full Likert range." (drafted from Step 0 seed, confirmed by user in one hop — no elicitation ladder needed)
• Story arc: Ranking-with-context (comparison + distribution)
• Audience: Study (2min+) / Domain-fluent / Decision-critical
• Style stance: INNOVATIVE — the Big Idea has two arcs, so a traditional single-arc chart (bar of means) loses half the argument. Study-time + domain-fluent audience can afford the extra read cost.
• Suggested chartType: layered lollipop_chart (centroid + stem) overlaid on strip_plot (respondent-level jitter)
• Alternates considered: (a) traditional bar with error bars — chosen against because it hides the floor/ceiling clamping that makes the Skeptics story vivid; (b) boxplot + strip — chosen against because box quartile lines are redundant with the strip density and add visual noise.
• Anti-patterns to avoid: over-layering (kept to strip + lollipop + centroid, no boxplot); starting y at 0 on a Likert scale (started at 1); putting metadata inside the plot area (n= labels moved to the axis).

Would Revise If

Revise this skill by 2026-10-22 (90 days) or sooner if any of the following fires:

• The Brief format is skipped in ≥3 consecutive /render-chart invocations because it's too heavy for the common case → tighten to 3 fields.
• The TRADITIONAL/INNOVATIVE binary produces user confusion in ≥2 sessions (users say "I don't know, you pick") → replace the ask with an inferred default per audience, keep the binary as an override.
• The Step 4 crosstab produces a chartType that flint-chart §0.4 can't render more than once per quarter → the crosstab is out of sync with Flint coverage and needs a refresh pass.
• Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic publishes a materially revised Big Idea framing that supersedes the three-part rule used here.
• The Step 1 intent check never changes an outcome across ~10 invocations → it is ceremony; fold it back into the elicitation ladder's first question.
• Users invoke this skill to frame non-chart artifacts often enough that Steps 2/4/5 are routinely skipped → the general half (Steps 0/1/3) has outgrown the chart-specific half, and it should be split into its own skill rather than scope-noted.