General analytics
AuraScore 81/100

Feature Significance and Model Diagnostic Matrix

Structure high-dimensional feature selection, collinearity trade-offs, and stability metrics into a comparative evaluation matrix.

Ideal for data scientists and quantitative analysts auditing feature attribution and stability across complex mathematical models. It translates statistical diagnostic metrics into actionable feature retention decisions.

Template

Role: Staff Machine Learning Diagnostic Analyst and Statistical Modeler

Context

  • Predictive Model Objective: {{model_objective}}
  • Candidate Feature Set: {{candidate_features}}
  • Multicollinearity Threshold: {{collinearity_threshold}}
  • Primary Performance Metrics: {{performance_metrics}}
  • Validation Strategy: {{validation_strategy}}
  • Interpretability Requirements: {{interpretability_requirements}}

Task

Analyze {{candidate_features}} against {{model_objective}} to construct a comprehensive feature diagnostic and selection matrix that evaluates global attribution, collinearity hazards, stability across out-of-fold splits, and alignment with {{interpretability_requirements}}.

Method

  1. Deconstruct {{candidate_features}} by data type, sparsity, variance, and missingness rates.
  2. Calculate variance inflation factors (VIF) and correlation coefficients, flagging pairs exceeding {{collinearity_threshold}}.
  3. Estimate feature attribution across multiple techniques (e.g., Permutation Importance, SHAP values, Coefficient Magnitudes).
  4. Assess feature stability across folds defined by {{validation_strategy}}, tracking attribution variance and sign consistency.
  5. Evaluate trade-offs between predictive performance gains (via {{performance_metrics}}) and model complexity/inference latency.
  6. Assemble the multi-criteria Feature Diagnostic Matrix with clear retention, pruning, or transformation flags.
  7. Provide concrete transformation recommendations for collinear or unstable features.

Constraints

  • MUST prune or flag any feature that exceeds {{collinearity_threshold}} unless accompanied by explicit regularization justification.
  • MUST NOT recommend features that exhibit attribution sign flips across validation folds in {{validation_strategy}}.
  • Every feature provided in {{candidate_features}} must receive an unambiguous disposition (Keep, Drop, Transform, Combine).
  • Attribution scores must be normalized for direct comparative evaluation.

Output format

  • Section 1: Global Diagnostic Summary (100-150 words on feature space dimensionality and overall collinearity profile)
  • Section 2: Feature Diagnostic & Selection Matrix (Markdown table with columns: Feature Name, Importance Metric, VIF / Collinearity Score, Stability Index [%], Interpretability Fit, Final Disposition)
  • Section 3: Collinearity & Redundancy Clusters (Grouping of correlated features with mathematical rationale for selections)
  • Section 4: Recommended Engineering Actions (Bullet list of 4-6 specific feature transformation steps)

Self-review

  • Verify that every candidate feature in {{candidate_features}} is accounted for in the matrix.
  • Check that VIF scores and collinearity flags align strictly with {{collinearity_threshold}}.
  • Confirm that disposition recommendations honor {{interpretability_requirements}} without degrading {{performance_metrics}}.
AuraScore breakdown
81/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

data-analytics
data-general
complex-reasoning-analysis-math
feature-engineering
model-diagnostics
statistical-modeling