Metrics Anomaly Investigator

Metrics Anomaly Investigator

This skill takes a plain-language description of a metric anomaly (metric name, time period, delta, and any available context) and produces a structured investigation framework with ranked hypotheses and a ready-to-send stakeholder narrative. No database access or code required — designed for product managers working in Cowork.

Input:

• Free-form description of the anomaly: metric name, observed period, magnitude of change, and any context (recent releases, campaigns, external events)

Output:

• Markdown response with Anomaly Summary, Investigation Framework table, Priority Checks, and Draft Stakeholder Narrative

Language Detection

Detect the user's language from their message:

• If Russian (or contains Cyrillic): respond in Russian
• If English (or other Latin-script language): respond in English
• If ambiguous: respond in the language of the trigger phrase used

Instructions

Step 1: Validate Input

1. Check that the user provided at minimum:

   • A metric name (or description of what was measured)
   • An observed change (delta, direction, or time period)
   • If either is missing: stop and respond: "To investigate the anomaly I need at minimum: (1) metric name, (2) time period, (3) observed change. Please provide these details." Do not generate a framework.

2. If the input is vague (e.g., "our metrics are bad" with no specific anomaly):

   • Ask the user to identify one specific metric and its observed change before proceeding.

3. Note what context is available:

   • Recent product changes, feature releases, or experiments
   • Marketing campaigns or traffic source changes
   • Seasonality or external events
   • Related metrics (correlated changes)
   • If no context provided: proceed, flag assumptions explicitly in output, and add a closing line at the end of the response asking the user to share any recent product changes, campaigns, or external events that may be relevant.

Step 2: Classify the Anomaly

1. Determine the anomaly type:

   • Direction: spike (unexpected increase) vs. drop (unexpected decrease)
   • Shape: sharp (1–2 day change) vs. gradual (trend over days/weeks)
   • Scope: isolated (single metric) vs. correlated (multiple metrics moving together)

2. If the user describes a gradual trend: note that short-term hypotheses (e.g., tracking bug, one-off event) are lower priority; focus on structural factors.

3. If multiple metrics changed simultaneously: reframe as a systemic investigation and add cross-metric hypotheses.

Step 3: Generate Investigation Framework

Generate 5–7 ranked hypotheses covering four investigation axes:

Axis 1 — Data / Tracking issues (always include, check first)

• Tracking code broken or missing on key pages
• Metric definition or aggregation logic changed
• Data pipeline delay or processing error
• Segment filter or attribution window changed

Axis 2 — Product changes

• Feature release or rollback in the relevant period
• A/B test or experiment affecting the metric
• UI change affecting user flow
• Pricing or access change

Axis 3 — External / Traffic factors

• Organic traffic source change (SEO, social, referral)
• Marketing campaign launched or paused
• Competitor action, press coverage, or viral event
• Platform algorithm change (App Store, Google, social)

Axis 4 — User behaviour shifts

• Seasonal pattern or day-of-week effect
• User cohort mix shift (new vs. returning users ratio)
• Device or geography mix change
• Onboarding or activation funnel change upstream

For each hypothesis:

• Assign likelihood: High / Medium / Low (based on context provided)
• Specify one concrete validation step

Step 4: Identify Priority Checks

1. Select the top 2–3 hypotheses most consistent with the provided context.
2. For each, write one sentence explaining why this is a priority given the specific anomaly described.
3. If no context was provided: default priority order is Data/Tracking → Product changes → External factors → Behaviour shifts.

Step 5: Draft Stakeholder Narrative

Write a 5–8 sentence narrative in Slack/email format covering:

• What happened (metric, period, magnitude)
• Current status of investigation (just started / hypotheses identified / root cause found)
• Top hypotheses being checked
• Next steps and who is responsible (use placeholder [owner] if not specified)
• ETA for the next update

Edge Cases:

• If anomaly is a gradual trend (weeks): prioritise structural hypotheses (cohort mix, SEO, product flow); downweight single-event hypotheses.
• If multiple metrics changed: add a "Correlated pattern" note to the Anomaly Summary; include cross-metric hypotheses in the framework.
• If delta is small (<5%): note that significance depends on baseline variance; prioritise Data/Tracking hypotheses first.
• If no context provided: proceed with full hypothesis set and explicitly state "No context provided — all four axes are equally prioritised." At the end of the response, add: "To help narrow down the hypotheses, please share any recent product changes, campaigns, or external events that occurred around the time of the anomaly."

Negative Cases

• No metric name or delta: Do not generate a framework. Respond with a clear request for the minimum required information.
• Input is only "metrics are bad" or similarly vague: Ask the user to name one specific metric and its observed change before proceeding.

Output Format

## Anomaly Summary
- **Metric:** [metric name]
- **Period:** [time range]
- **Change:** [delta — e.g., "-23% vs. prior week"]
- **Type:** [spike / drop] — [sharp / gradual] — [isolated / correlated]
- **Context provided:** [summary of user-provided context, or "none"]

---

## Investigation Framework

| # | Hypothesis | Axis | Likelihood | How to validate |
|---|-----------|------|------------|-----------------|
| 1 | [hypothesis] | Data/Tracking | High | [specific check] |
| 2 | [hypothesis] | Product | Medium | [specific check] |
| 3 | [hypothesis] | External | Low | [specific check] |
| ... | | | | |

---

## Priority Checks

1. **[Hypothesis name]** — [1 sentence: why this is most consistent with the described anomaly]
2. **[Hypothesis name]** — [1 sentence rationale]
3. **[Hypothesis name]** — [1 sentence rationale]

---

## Draft Stakeholder Narrative

**To:** [channel / team]
**Status:** Investigating

We noticed [metric] [dropped/increased] by [delta] over [period]. We are currently investigating the root cause and have identified [N] hypotheses. The most likely causes are [top 2 hypotheses]. [Owner] is checking [specific validation steps] and we expect initial findings by [timeframe]. We will share an update by [date/time]. No action required from your side at this stage.