Add files via upload
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
GitHub
@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: competitive-analysis
|
||||
description: Analyze competitors and create competitive landscape documentation. Use when the user asks to analyze competitors, create competitive analysis, compare features with competitors, track competitive landscape, or understand competitive positioning.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Competitive Analysis Skill
|
||||
|
||||
This skill creates structured competitive analyses for product decision-making.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis Framework
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Executive Summary
|
||||
- **Market Position**: Where we stand relative to competitors
|
||||
- **Key Findings**: Top 3-5 insights from analysis
|
||||
- **Strategic Implications**: What this means for our roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Competitor Profiles
|
||||
|
||||
For each major competitor:
|
||||
|
||||
**[Competitor Name]**
|
||||
- **Company Overview**: Size, funding, market position
|
||||
- **Target Customer**: Who they serve
|
||||
- **Value Proposition**: Their core positioning
|
||||
- **Business Model**: How they make money
|
||||
- **Strengths**: What they do well
|
||||
- **Weaknesses**: Where they fall short
|
||||
- **Recent Activity**: Major updates, funding, announcements
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Feature Comparison Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|
||||
|---------|-----|--------------|--------------|--------------|
|
||||
| Core Feature 1 | ✅ Full | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Limited | ❌ None |
|
||||
| Core Feature 2 | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Limited | ✅ Full | ✅ Full |
|
||||
| Advanced Feature 1 | ⚠️ Beta | ❌ None | ✅ Full | ❌ None |
|
||||
|
||||
Legend:
|
||||
- ✅ Full: Complete, production-ready feature
|
||||
- ⚠️ Limited/Beta: Partial or in-development
|
||||
- ❌ None: Feature not available
|
||||
|
||||
Include notes on quality/implementation differences where significant.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Pricing Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Plan Type | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|
||||
|-----------|-----|--------------|--------------|--------------|
|
||||
| Free/Trial | $0 | $0 | $0 | N/A |
|
||||
| Starter | $29/mo | $25/mo | $39/mo | $49/mo |
|
||||
| Professional | $79/mo | $89/mo | $79/mo | $99/mo |
|
||||
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | $299/mo | Custom |
|
||||
|
||||
**Pricing Strategy Notes**:
|
||||
- How our pricing compares
|
||||
- Value perception
|
||||
- Packaging differences
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Strengths & Weaknesses Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Our Competitive Advantages:**
|
||||
1. [Strength] - [Why it matters]
|
||||
2. [Strength] - [Why it matters]
|
||||
3. [Strength] - [Why it matters]
|
||||
|
||||
**Our Gaps vs. Competition:**
|
||||
1. [Gap] - [Impact on customers]
|
||||
2. [Gap] - [Impact on customers]
|
||||
3. [Gap] - [Impact on customers]
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Customer Perception Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**What Customers Say About Competitors** (from reviews, G2, social media):
|
||||
|
||||
**Competitor A:**
|
||||
- Most Praised: [Common positive feedback]
|
||||
- Most Criticized: [Common complaints]
|
||||
- Typical User: [Who uses them]
|
||||
|
||||
**Competitor B:**
|
||||
- Most Praised: [Common positive feedback]
|
||||
- Most Criticized: [Common complaints]
|
||||
- Typical User: [Who uses them]
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Market Positioning Map
|
||||
|
||||
Describe or diagram positioning on key dimensions:
|
||||
- Y-Axis: [e.g., Enterprise vs. SMB]
|
||||
- X-Axis: [e.g., Simple vs. Comprehensive]
|
||||
|
||||
**Our Position**: [Where we sit and why]
|
||||
**Whitespace Opportunities**: [Underserved segments]
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Win/Loss Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Why We Win Against Competitors:**
|
||||
- Better at: [Specific capabilities]
|
||||
- Target customers that value: [What matters]
|
||||
|
||||
**Why We Lose to Competitors:**
|
||||
- When customers need: [Specific requirements]
|
||||
- When they prioritize: [What they value]
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Strategic Implications & Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
**Immediate Actions** (0-3 months):
|
||||
1. [Action] - [Rationale]
|
||||
2. [Action] - [Rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
**Medium-term Strategy** (3-12 months):
|
||||
1. [Action] - [Rationale]
|
||||
2. [Action] - [Rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
**Long-term Positioning** (12+ months):
|
||||
1. [Strategic direction] - [Rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Sources:**
|
||||
- Competitor websites and documentation
|
||||
- G2, Capterra, TrustRadius reviews
|
||||
- Customer interviews (especially win/loss)
|
||||
- Sales team feedback
|
||||
- Social media and community discussions
|
||||
- Industry analysts and reports
|
||||
- Competitor job postings (reveal strategy)
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Standards:**
|
||||
✅ Use recent data (within 3-6 months)
|
||||
✅ Include sources for claims
|
||||
✅ Focus on verifiable facts over assumptions
|
||||
✅ Consider different customer segments
|
||||
✅ Update regularly (at least quarterly)
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Don't rely solely on competitor marketing
|
||||
❌ Don't ignore smaller/emerging competitors
|
||||
❌ Don't assume features work well just because they exist
|
||||
❌ Don't forget about indirect/substitute competitors
|
||||
|
||||
**Ethical Guidelines:**
|
||||
- Use only publicly available information
|
||||
- Don't misrepresent competitor capabilities
|
||||
- Be honest about their strengths
|
||||
- Don't disparage competitors personally
|
||||
|
||||
## Monitoring Cadence
|
||||
|
||||
**Weekly**: Check for major announcements, funding, leadership changes
|
||||
**Monthly**: Review feature releases, pricing changes, marketing campaigns
|
||||
**Quarterly**: Comprehensive feature comparison, strategic assessment
|
||||
**Annually**: Market position analysis, long-term trend evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Analysis Section
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Competitor Profile: DataSync Pro
|
||||
|
||||
**Company Overview**
|
||||
- Founded 2019, 85 employees, $12M Series A (2023)
|
||||
- Fast-growing in mid-market segment
|
||||
- Strong presence in Europe
|
||||
|
||||
**Target Customer**
|
||||
- Mid-market companies (100-1000 employees)
|
||||
- Technical users comfortable with APIs
|
||||
- Data-intensive operations
|
||||
|
||||
**Value Proposition**
|
||||
"The fastest way to sync data across your entire stack"
|
||||
- Focus on speed and reliability
|
||||
- Developer-first approach
|
||||
|
||||
**Business Model**
|
||||
- Freemium with generous free tier
|
||||
- Usage-based pricing above free limits
|
||||
- Professional services for enterprise
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**
|
||||
- Superior sync speed (2-3x faster than alternatives)
|
||||
- Best-in-class developer documentation
|
||||
- Strong developer community (5k+ GitHub stars)
|
||||
- Excellent uptime (99.97% vs industry 99.5%)
|
||||
- Modern, intuitive API design
|
||||
|
||||
**Weaknesses**
|
||||
- Limited no-code options (requires technical knowledge)
|
||||
- Smaller integration library (45 vs our 120)
|
||||
- No dedicated enterprise features
|
||||
- Limited customization options
|
||||
- Support can be slow (avg 8hr response time)
|
||||
|
||||
**Recent Activity**
|
||||
- Jan 2026: Released real-time sync capabilities
|
||||
- Dec 2025: Raised $12M Series A
|
||||
- Nov 2025: Added webhooks and event streaming
|
||||
- Hired ex-Stripe engineering lead as CTO
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategic Implications**
|
||||
- Their focus on speed creates pressure on our performance
|
||||
- Developer-first approach winning technical buyers
|
||||
- Gaps in no-code and enterprise create opportunities
|
||||
- Need to monitor their enterprise moves closely
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
When comparing features:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Group by Category**
|
||||
- Core functionality
|
||||
- Integration capabilities
|
||||
- Analytics/reporting
|
||||
- Security/compliance
|
||||
- Collaboration features
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Note Quality Differences**
|
||||
- Not all implementations are equal
|
||||
- Speed, reliability, UX matter
|
||||
- Example: "Both have API, but theirs has rate limits"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Consider the Complete Experience**
|
||||
- Onboarding process
|
||||
- Documentation quality
|
||||
- Support responsiveness
|
||||
- Mobile experience
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Identify Gaps That Matter**
|
||||
- What customers actually care about
|
||||
- Not just feature count
|
||||
- Focus on differentiators
|
||||
|
||||
## Win/Loss Analysis Template
|
||||
|
||||
When analyzing why you win or lose deals:
|
||||
|
||||
**Win Against [Competitor]**
|
||||
- **Scenarios**: When do we win?
|
||||
- **Key Differentiators**: What tips the decision?
|
||||
- **Customer Quotes**: What they tell us
|
||||
- **Typical Profile**: Who chooses us?
|
||||
|
||||
**Loss Against [Competitor]**
|
||||
- **Scenarios**: When do we lose?
|
||||
- **Their Advantages**: What tips the decision?
|
||||
- **Customer Quotes**: What they tell us
|
||||
- **Typical Profile**: Who chooses them?
|
||||
|
||||
**Lessons Learned**
|
||||
- What we need to improve
|
||||
- What we need to communicate better
|
||||
- Where we should compete differently
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: meeting-notes
|
||||
description: Structure and format meeting notes following PM best practices. Use when the user needs to create, format, or organize meeting notes, capture action items from meetings, or document discussions and decisions.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Meeting Notes Skill
|
||||
|
||||
This skill structures meeting notes to maximize value and ensure follow-through.
|
||||
|
||||
## Standard Meeting Notes Template
|
||||
|
||||
### Meeting Header
|
||||
**Meeting**: [Meeting Title]
|
||||
**Date**: [Date]
|
||||
**Attendees**: [Names/Roles]
|
||||
**Note Taker**: [Name]
|
||||
**Duration**: [Actual duration]
|
||||
|
||||
### Agenda
|
||||
- [ ] Topic 1
|
||||
- [ ] Topic 2
|
||||
- [ ] Topic 3
|
||||
|
||||
*(Check off items as discussed)*
|
||||
|
||||
### Decisions Made
|
||||
Clear documentation of decisions:
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision**: [What was decided]
|
||||
**Context**: [Why this decision]
|
||||
**Owner**: [Who's responsible for executing]
|
||||
**Deadline**: [When if applicable]
|
||||
|
||||
Use this format for each decision made.
|
||||
|
||||
### Action Items
|
||||
All action items should be:
|
||||
- [ ] **[Action item]** - @Owner - Due: [Date]
|
||||
- [ ] **[Action item]** - @Owner - Due: [Date]
|
||||
|
||||
Format:
|
||||
- Clear, specific action
|
||||
- Single owner (no "team" ownership)
|
||||
- Concrete deadline
|
||||
- Checkbox for tracking
|
||||
|
||||
### Discussion Notes
|
||||
Key points discussed organized by topic:
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic 1: [Name]**
|
||||
- Key point or discussion highlight
|
||||
- Important context or concern raised
|
||||
- Any data or information shared
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic 2: [Name]**
|
||||
- Key discussion points
|
||||
- Decisions or conclusions reached
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Questions / Follow-Up
|
||||
Questions that couldn't be answered:
|
||||
- **Question**: [What we need to know]
|
||||
- **Owner**: [Who will find out]
|
||||
- **By When**: [Deadline]
|
||||
|
||||
### Next Steps
|
||||
Clear summary of what happens next:
|
||||
1. [Immediate next action]
|
||||
2. [Follow-up meeting if needed]
|
||||
3. [Any broader process to start]
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
**During the meeting:**
|
||||
- Focus on decisions and action items over dialogue
|
||||
- Capture specific commitments, not general discussion
|
||||
- Note dissenting opinions on important decisions
|
||||
- Ask for clarity on vague commitments ("I'll look into it" → "I'll analyze the data and share findings by Friday")
|
||||
|
||||
**After the meeting:**
|
||||
- Send notes within 2 hours while fresh
|
||||
- Tag action item owners (@mention them)
|
||||
- Include links to relevant documents
|
||||
- Follow up on overdue action items
|
||||
|
||||
**What to capture:**
|
||||
✅ Decisions made
|
||||
✅ Action items with owners and deadlines
|
||||
✅ Key points of discussion
|
||||
✅ Open questions
|
||||
✅ Next steps
|
||||
|
||||
**What to skip:**
|
||||
❌ Verbatim transcripts
|
||||
❌ Off-topic tangents
|
||||
❌ Preliminary discussion before decisions
|
||||
❌ Redundant information
|
||||
|
||||
## Meeting Types & Adaptations
|
||||
|
||||
### 1:1 Meetings
|
||||
Focus on:
|
||||
- Career development discussions
|
||||
- Feedback (both directions)
|
||||
- Current challenges
|
||||
- Action items for both parties
|
||||
|
||||
Template additions:
|
||||
- **Recent Wins**: What's going well
|
||||
- **Challenges**: What's not going well
|
||||
- **Career Discussion**: Development topics
|
||||
- **Feedback**: For both parties
|
||||
|
||||
### Sprint Planning
|
||||
Focus on:
|
||||
- Story acceptance criteria
|
||||
- Sizing/estimation decisions
|
||||
- Dependency identification
|
||||
- Sprint commitment
|
||||
|
||||
Template additions:
|
||||
- **Sprint Goal**: What we're committing to
|
||||
- **Story Points**: Capacity and estimates
|
||||
- **Dependencies**: External blockers
|
||||
- **Definition of Done**: Acceptance criteria
|
||||
|
||||
### Product Reviews
|
||||
Focus on:
|
||||
- Design decisions
|
||||
- User feedback discussed
|
||||
- Changes requested
|
||||
- Launch readiness assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Template additions:
|
||||
- **Design Decisions**: What was approved/rejected
|
||||
- **User Feedback**: Key insights discussed
|
||||
- **Open Design Questions**: What needs iteration
|
||||
- **Launch Criteria**: Remaining requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### Stakeholder Sync
|
||||
Focus on:
|
||||
- Status updates delivered
|
||||
- Concerns raised
|
||||
- Approvals given
|
||||
- Escalation needs
|
||||
|
||||
Template additions:
|
||||
- **Status Overview**: High-level progress
|
||||
- **Approvals Obtained**: Sign-offs received
|
||||
- **Escalations**: Issues raised to stakeholders
|
||||
- **Next Sync**: When and what to cover
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Meeting Notes
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
# Product Roadmap Review - Q1 2026
|
||||
**Date**: January 20, 2026
|
||||
**Attendees**: Sarah (CPO), Mike (Eng Lead), Jennifer (Design), Tom (PM)
|
||||
**Note Taker**: Tom
|
||||
**Duration**: 45 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
## Agenda
|
||||
- [x] Review Q1 planned features
|
||||
- [x] Discuss resource constraints
|
||||
- [x] Prioritization discussion
|
||||
- [x] Timeline alignment
|
||||
|
||||
## Decisions Made
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision**: Move multi-channel dashboard to Q2, prioritize mobile app improvements for Q1
|
||||
**Context**: Customer feedback shows mobile experience is significantly impacting retention (65% of users primarily mobile). Engineering team can only tackle one major initiative this quarter.
|
||||
**Owner**: Tom (PM) to communicate to stakeholders
|
||||
**Deadline**: January 22
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision**: Allocate 20% of engineering time to technical debt
|
||||
**Context**: Accumulated tech debt is slowing feature development. Team velocity dropped 30% last quarter.
|
||||
**Owner**: Mike (Eng Lead) to create tech debt backlog
|
||||
**Deadline**: January 27
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision**: Run mobile beta with 100 users before full launch
|
||||
**Context**: Need to validate improvements on diverse devices
|
||||
**Owner**: Jennifer (Design) to coordinate with QA
|
||||
**Deadline**: February 10
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
- [ ] **Update Q1 roadmap deck with new prioritization** - @Tom - Due: Jan 22
|
||||
- [ ] **Schedule alignment meeting with support team about dashboard delay** - @Tom - Due: Jan 24
|
||||
- [ ] **Create tech debt prioritization rubric** - @Mike - Due: Jan 27
|
||||
- [ ] **Run user testing on mobile designs** - @Jennifer - Due: Feb 3
|
||||
- [ ] **Document decision rationale for executives** - @Sarah - Due: Jan 23
|
||||
- [ ] **Identify 100 beta users for mobile** - @Tom - Due: Feb 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Discussion Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Q1 Feature Prioritization**
|
||||
- Customer retention is #1 company priority this quarter
|
||||
- Mobile app NPS score is 6.2 (vs 8.1 for web)
|
||||
- Mobile accounts for 65% of daily active users
|
||||
- Multi-channel dashboard would take 8 engineering weeks
|
||||
- Mobile improvements estimated at 6 engineering weeks with higher ROI
|
||||
- Sales has 3 enterprise deals waiting on dashboard feature
|
||||
|
||||
**Resource Constraints**
|
||||
- Currently 4 engineers available (down from 6 last quarter due to attrition)
|
||||
- Design team can support both initiatives but at reduced capacity
|
||||
- QA team needs 2 weeks for thorough testing on mobile
|
||||
- One engineer on loan to security team through February
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Discussion**
|
||||
- Delaying dashboard may impact enterprise sales (3 deals waiting)
|
||||
- Sarah noted: "We can position mobile improvements as foundation for enterprise features"
|
||||
- Mike raised concern about mobile tech stack stability - addressed through tech debt allocation
|
||||
- Need to communicate clearly with Sales about timeline change
|
||||
|
||||
**Mobile Implementation Plan**
|
||||
- Week 1-2: Design refinements based on user feedback
|
||||
- Week 3-4: Engineering implementation
|
||||
- Week 5: Internal testing
|
||||
- Week 6: Beta with 100 users
|
||||
- Week 7: Full rollout
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
- **Question**: What's the impact on enterprise pipeline if we delay dashboard?
|
||||
**Owner**: Sarah will check with Sales leadership
|
||||
**By When**: January 23
|
||||
|
||||
- **Question**: Can we do a limited beta of dashboard for enterprise customers?
|
||||
**Owner**: Tom will explore MVP scope with Mike
|
||||
**By When**: January 25
|
||||
|
||||
- **Question**: What's our plan if mobile improvements don't hit target metrics?
|
||||
**Owner**: Tom will create contingency plan
|
||||
**By When**: January 27
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
1. Tom to send updated roadmap to leadership by EOD Wednesday (Jan 22)
|
||||
2. Team to begin sprint planning for mobile improvements next Monday (Jan 27)
|
||||
3. Follow-up meeting on Feb 1 to review progress and validate prioritization
|
||||
4. Sarah to present decision rationale to executive team on Jan 24
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Next Meeting**: February 1, 2026 - Progress Check-in
|
||||
**Notes Sent**: January 20, 2026 5:30 PM
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes Distribution
|
||||
|
||||
**Subject Line Format**: "[Meeting Type] Notes - [Date] - [Key Topic]"
|
||||
|
||||
Example: "Product Roadmap Review Notes - Jan 20 - Q1 Prioritization"
|
||||
|
||||
**Recipients**:
|
||||
- All attendees
|
||||
- Anyone mentioned in action items
|
||||
- Anyone who requested notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Follow-Up**:
|
||||
- Send reminder 3 days before action item due dates
|
||||
- Weekly summary of all open action items
|
||||
- Mark action items as complete and share updates
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: prd-template
|
||||
description: Product Requirements Document creation following proven PM template structure. Use when the user asks to create, write, draft, or help with a PRD, product requirements document, product spec, feature specification, or product documentation for a new feature or product.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# PRD Template Skill
|
||||
|
||||
This skill helps create professional Product Requirements Documents following industry best practices.
|
||||
|
||||
## Template Structure
|
||||
|
||||
Every PRD should include these sections in order:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Overview
|
||||
- **Problem Statement**: What problem are we solving? (2-3 sentences)
|
||||
- **Proposed Solution**: High-level description of what we're building (2-3 sentences)
|
||||
- **Success Metrics**: How we'll measure success (3-5 key metrics)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Context & Background
|
||||
- **Why Now**: Why is this the right time?
|
||||
- **Strategic Alignment**: How does this align with company objectives?
|
||||
- **User Research Summary**: Key insights from research (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. User Stories & Use Cases
|
||||
Format: "As a [user type], I want to [action] so that [benefit]"
|
||||
- Include 3-7 primary user stories
|
||||
- Add acceptance criteria for each
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Requirements
|
||||
**Functional Requirements:**
|
||||
- Must-have features (P0)
|
||||
- Should-have features (P1)
|
||||
- Nice-to-have features (P2)
|
||||
|
||||
**Non-Functional Requirements:**
|
||||
- Performance expectations
|
||||
- Security considerations
|
||||
- Accessibility requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Design & User Experience
|
||||
- Link to design mocks or wireframes
|
||||
- Key user flows
|
||||
- Edge cases and error states
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Technical Considerations
|
||||
- Architecture implications
|
||||
- Dependencies on other systems
|
||||
- Technical risks and mitigations
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Implementation Plan
|
||||
- **Phase 1 (MVP)**: What goes in first version
|
||||
- **Phase 2**: What comes next
|
||||
- **Phase 3**: Future enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Open Questions
|
||||
- Decisions that still need to be made
|
||||
- Stakeholders to consult
|
||||
- Research needed
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Appendix
|
||||
- Research links
|
||||
- Related documents
|
||||
- Competitive analysis
|
||||
|
||||
## Writing Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone**: Clear, concise, actionable
|
||||
**Audience**: Engineers, designers, stakeholders
|
||||
**Length**: Aim for 3-6 pages for features, 8-12 for products
|
||||
|
||||
**Best Practices:**
|
||||
- Use concrete examples over abstractions
|
||||
- Include "why" not just "what"
|
||||
- Make requirements testable
|
||||
- Link to supporting materials
|
||||
- Update as decisions are made
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes a Good PRD
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Do:**
|
||||
- Write from the user's perspective
|
||||
- Include specific success metrics
|
||||
- Address edge cases
|
||||
- Link to research and data
|
||||
- Make trade-offs explicit
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Don't:**
|
||||
- Write implementation details (that's tech spec)
|
||||
- Assume everyone has context
|
||||
- Leave requirements ambiguous
|
||||
- Skip the "why"
|
||||
- Forget about accessibility
|
||||
|
||||
## Example PRD Opening
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
# PRD: Multi-Channel Customer Support Dashboard
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem Statement**: Support teams are currently managing customer inquiries across email, chat, and social media using three separate tools, leading to delayed responses, duplicated work, and inconsistent customer experiences. On average, support agents waste 2.3 hours per day switching between tools and manually tracking conversation history.
|
||||
|
||||
**Proposed Solution**: Build a unified dashboard that aggregates customer inquiries from all channels into a single interface, maintains conversation history across channels, and provides intelligent routing based on agent expertise and availability.
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Metrics**:
|
||||
- Reduce average response time from 4 hours to 1 hour
|
||||
- Decrease tool-switching time by 80% (from 2.3 to <0.5 hours)
|
||||
- Improve customer satisfaction score from 3.8 to 4.5 (out of 5)
|
||||
- Increase support agent productivity by 35%
|
||||
|
||||
## Context & Background
|
||||
|
||||
**Why Now**: Customer satisfaction has declined 15% over the past 6 months, primarily due to slow response times. Our top competitor launched a unified support dashboard last quarter, and we're hearing about it in sales calls. Support team turnover is at 45% annually, with "tool complexity" cited as a top frustration.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategic Alignment**: This aligns with our Q1 company objective to "Improve customer retention by 10%" and our support team's OKR to "Reduce average handle time by 25%."
|
||||
|
||||
**User Research Summary**: We conducted interviews with 12 support agents and observed 20 hours of support sessions. Key findings:
|
||||
- Agents spend 35% of their time finding context from previous interactions
|
||||
- 65% of escalations are due to lack of conversation history
|
||||
- Agents rated tool-switching as their #1 daily frustration (9.2/10 pain)
|
||||
- Current NPS for support experience is -12
|
||||
|
||||
## User Stories & Use Cases
|
||||
|
||||
**US1: Unified Inbox**
|
||||
As a support agent, I want to see all customer inquiries in one place so that I don't miss urgent requests and can prioritize effectively.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
- Inbox shows inquiries from email, chat, and social media
|
||||
- Inquiries are sorted by priority (urgent, high, normal, low)
|
||||
- Agent can filter by channel, customer, or status
|
||||
- Real-time updates when new inquiries arrive
|
||||
|
||||
**US2: Cross-Channel Context**
|
||||
As a support agent, I want to see the full conversation history regardless of channel so that I can provide consistent, informed responses without asking customers to repeat themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance Criteria:
|
||||
- Timeline view shows all interactions chronologically
|
||||
- Each interaction displays channel, timestamp, and content
|
||||
- Customer profile shows demographics and account information
|
||||
- Previous issues and resolutions are accessible
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue with 5-7 total user stories...]
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: stakeholder-update
|
||||
description: Create executive stakeholder updates following proven communication frameworks. Use when the user needs to create a status update, progress report, executive summary, or communication for leadership, stakeholders, or executives.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Stakeholder Update Skill
|
||||
|
||||
This skill creates effective status updates for executives and stakeholders following the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) principle.
|
||||
|
||||
## Update Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)
|
||||
Start with the most important information:
|
||||
- **Status**: 🟢 On track / 🟡 At risk / 🔴 Blocked / ✅ Complete
|
||||
- **Key Takeaway**: One sentence summary of current state
|
||||
- **Action Needed**: What you need from stakeholders (if anything)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Progress Summary
|
||||
Brief overview of accomplishments:
|
||||
- What shipped this period
|
||||
- Milestones achieved
|
||||
- Key metrics movement
|
||||
|
||||
Keep to 3-5 bullet points maximum.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Metrics Dashboard
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Metrics**
|
||||
| Metric | Current | Target | Trend | Status |
|
||||
|--------|---------|--------|-------|--------|
|
||||
| [Metric name] | [Value] | [Target] | ↑/→/↓ | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
|
||||
|
||||
Include 3-5 most important metrics only.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Risks & Blockers
|
||||
|
||||
**High Priority Issues:**
|
||||
- **Issue**: Brief description
|
||||
- **Impact**: What's at stake
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: What you're doing about it
|
||||
- **Help Needed**: What stakeholders can do (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
Only include issues that matter at executive level.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Upcoming Milestones
|
||||
|
||||
**Next 30 Days:**
|
||||
- Milestone (expected date)
|
||||
- Milestone (expected date)
|
||||
|
||||
**Next 90 Days:**
|
||||
- Major milestone (month)
|
||||
- Major milestone (month)
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Decisions Needed (if applicable)
|
||||
- **Decision**: Clear description
|
||||
- **Options**: 2-3 options with pros/cons
|
||||
- **Recommendation**: What you recommend and why
|
||||
- **Timeline**: When decision is needed
|
||||
|
||||
## Writing Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**Tone**: Professional, concise, action-oriented
|
||||
**Length**: Keep under 1 page (or 2 minutes reading time)
|
||||
**Frequency**: Weekly for active projects, bi-weekly for maintenance
|
||||
|
||||
**Executive Communication Principles:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Lead with conclusions, not process**
|
||||
- ❌ "We ran 5 experiments this week and analyzed the data..."
|
||||
- ✅ "Conversion rate increased 15% from optimization work"
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Focus on impact, not activities**
|
||||
- ❌ "Held 12 customer interviews"
|
||||
- ✅ "Identified #1 barrier to adoption (complexity of setup)"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Make problems visible early**
|
||||
- Don't sugarcoat risks
|
||||
- Propose solutions, not just problems
|
||||
- Be specific about help needed
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Use data to tell story**
|
||||
- Quantify whenever possible
|
||||
- Show trends, not just snapshots
|
||||
- Connect metrics to business outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Make it scannable**
|
||||
- Use headers and bullet points
|
||||
- Bold key information
|
||||
- Use visual indicators (🟢🟡🔴, ↑→↓)
|
||||
|
||||
## Status Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**🟢 On Track**: Meeting all targets, no significant risks
|
||||
**🟡 At Risk**: Potential issues that could impact delivery
|
||||
**🔴 Blocked**: Critical issues preventing progress, needs intervention
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Update
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
# Product Update: Customer Onboarding Redesign
|
||||
**Week of Jan 20, 2026**
|
||||
|
||||
## BLUF
|
||||
**Status**: 🟡 At Risk
|
||||
**Key Takeaway**: New onboarding flow is performing well in tests (+35% completion), but launch delayed one week due to integration issues with billing system.
|
||||
**Action Needed**: Decision needed on whether to launch onboarding separately or wait for billing integration fix.
|
||||
|
||||
## Progress Summary
|
||||
- Completed user testing with 24 participants (94% positive feedback)
|
||||
- Implemented first-time user experience improvements
|
||||
- Resolved 12 of 15 bugs identified in QA
|
||||
- Engineering allocated resources to billing integration fix
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Metrics
|
||||
| Metric | Current | Target | Trend | Status |
|
||||
|--------|---------|--------|-------|--------|
|
||||
| Onboarding Completion | 45% | 60% | → | 🟡 |
|
||||
| Time to First Value | 4.2 min | 3.0 min | ↓ | 🟢 |
|
||||
| Setup Support Tickets | 45/week | <30/week | ↓ | 🟢 |
|
||||
| User Activation Rate | 52% | 65% | → | 🟡 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Risks & Blockers
|
||||
|
||||
**HIGH: Billing System Integration Delay**
|
||||
- **Impact**: Prevents users from completing onboarding flow; delays launch by 1-2 weeks
|
||||
- **Root Cause**: API deprecation by payment processor, requires code rewrite
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: Engineering team reallocated resources, fix ETA Feb 3
|
||||
- **Decision Needed**: Launch onboarding without payment integration or wait for fix? (See below)
|
||||
|
||||
**MEDIUM: Mobile Testing Coverage**
|
||||
- **Impact**: Some edge cases on older Android devices not tested
|
||||
- **Mitigation**: Partnering with QA to expand test matrix; running beta with internal users on diverse devices
|
||||
|
||||
## Upcoming Milestones
|
||||
|
||||
**Next 30 Days:**
|
||||
- Resolve billing integration (Feb 3)
|
||||
- Launch onboarding redesign (Feb 5 or Feb 12 depending on decision)
|
||||
- Begin measuring impact on conversion (Feb 12)
|
||||
|
||||
**Next 90 Days:**
|
||||
- Iterate based on production data (March)
|
||||
- Extend to mobile app (April)
|
||||
- Launch advanced features (May)
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Needed
|
||||
|
||||
**Should we launch onboarding separately from billing integration?**
|
||||
|
||||
**Option A: Launch Now (Recommended)**
|
||||
- Pros: Get 35% completion rate improvement to users immediately, gather production data, maintain momentum
|
||||
- Cons: Users need to complete payment in old flow, slightly disjointed experience
|
||||
- Timeline: Launch Feb 5
|
||||
|
||||
**Option B: Wait for Billing Fix**
|
||||
- Pros: Fully integrated experience from day one, no technical debt
|
||||
- Cons: Delays benefits by 2 weeks, Q1 metric targets at risk, team momentum lost
|
||||
- Timeline: Launch Feb 12
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation**: Option A. The onboarding improvements are valuable independently, and the old payment flow works fine. Waiting risks missing Q1 targets and delays validated improvements from reaching users.
|
||||
|
||||
**Timeline**: Need decision by Jan 22 for Feb 5 launch.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Questions?** Reply to this email or ping me on Slack.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Frequency Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
**Daily standups**:
|
||||
- Ultra-brief (3 bullets)
|
||||
- What shipped yesterday
|
||||
- What's shipping today
|
||||
- Blockers
|
||||
|
||||
**Weekly updates**:
|
||||
- Use full template above
|
||||
- Focus on progress and risks
|
||||
- Keep to 1 page
|
||||
|
||||
**Monthly reviews**:
|
||||
- Deeper metrics analysis
|
||||
- Strategic reflections
|
||||
- Quarterly goal progress
|
||||
- Longer format (2-3 pages) acceptable
|
||||
|
||||
**Quarterly business reviews**:
|
||||
- Comprehensive analysis
|
||||
- Trends over time
|
||||
- Strategic recommendations
|
||||
- Presentation format
|
||||
|
||||
## Adaptation by Audience
|
||||
|
||||
### For C-Suite
|
||||
- Lead with business impact
|
||||
- Connect to company OKRs
|
||||
- Focus on strategy and outcomes
|
||||
- Minimize technical details
|
||||
|
||||
### For Product/Engineering Leadership
|
||||
- Include technical context
|
||||
- Show sprint/milestone progress
|
||||
- Discuss architecture implications
|
||||
- Reference technical debt
|
||||
|
||||
### For Cross-Functional Teams
|
||||
- Balance technical and business context
|
||||
- Highlight dependencies
|
||||
- Call out collaboration needs
|
||||
- Make asks explicit
|
||||
|
||||
### For Board/Investors
|
||||
- Focus on metrics and traction
|
||||
- Competitive positioning
|
||||
- Market opportunities
|
||||
- Financial implications
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: user-research-synthesis
|
||||
description: Analyze and synthesize user research findings following PM best practices. Use when the user provides user research data, interview transcripts, survey results, or user feedback that needs to be analyzed, synthesized, or summarized into insights and recommendations.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# User Research Synthesis Skill
|
||||
|
||||
This skill helps analyze user research data and transform it into actionable insights following a structured methodology.
|
||||
|
||||
## Synthesis Framework
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Data Collection Overview
|
||||
- **Research Type**: Interviews, surveys, usability tests, etc.
|
||||
- **Participant Profile**: Demographics, segments, sample size
|
||||
- **Research Questions**: What we sought to learn
|
||||
- **Methodology**: How data was collected
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Key Themes Identification
|
||||
|
||||
Organize findings into themes using this structure:
|
||||
|
||||
**Theme Name**
|
||||
- **Description**: What this theme represents
|
||||
- **Prevalence**: How many participants mentioned this (e.g., "8 out of 12 participants")
|
||||
- **Supporting Quotes**: 2-3 representative quotes
|
||||
- **Implication**: What this means for our product
|
||||
|
||||
Aim for 4-8 major themes per research effort.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Pain Points Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
For each identified pain point:
|
||||
- **Pain Point**: Clear description
|
||||
- **Severity**: High/Medium/Low (based on impact and frequency)
|
||||
- **Current Workaround**: How users deal with it today
|
||||
- **Evidence**: Specific examples from research
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Feature Requests
|
||||
|
||||
Categorize requests:
|
||||
- **Must-Have**: Critical needs blocking user success
|
||||
- **High Value**: Would significantly improve experience
|
||||
- **Nice-to-Have**: Incremental improvements
|
||||
|
||||
For each request:
|
||||
- **Request**: What users asked for
|
||||
- **Frequency**: How often it came up
|
||||
- **User Quote**: Representative example
|
||||
- **Underlying Need**: Why they want this (dig deeper than surface request)
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. User Workflow Insights
|
||||
|
||||
Document actual workflows observed:
|
||||
- **Current State**: How users accomplish tasks today
|
||||
- **Pain Points**: Where they struggle
|
||||
- **Ideal State**: What they wish they could do
|
||||
- **Opportunities**: Where we can add value
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Segmentation Insights
|
||||
|
||||
If research reveals distinct user segments:
|
||||
- **Segment Name**: Descriptive label
|
||||
- **Characteristics**: What defines this segment
|
||||
- **Unique Needs**: How their needs differ
|
||||
- **Size/Importance**: Relative weight for prioritization
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Competitive Insights
|
||||
|
||||
If users mentioned competitors or alternatives:
|
||||
- **Competitor/Alternative**: What they use
|
||||
- **Why They Use It**: What it does well
|
||||
- **Gaps**: What it doesn't do
|
||||
- **Switching Barriers**: Why they don't switch fully
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
Prioritized recommendations based on insights:
|
||||
|
||||
**High Priority**
|
||||
- Recommendation with supporting evidence
|
||||
- Expected impact
|
||||
|
||||
**Medium Priority**
|
||||
- Recommendation with supporting evidence
|
||||
- Expected impact
|
||||
|
||||
**Low Priority / Future Consideration**
|
||||
- Recommendation with supporting evidence
|
||||
- Expected impact
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
Research gaps identified:
|
||||
- What we still need to understand
|
||||
- Suggested follow-up research
|
||||
- Uncertainties requiring validation
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
**When synthesizing interviews:**
|
||||
- Look for patterns across multiple participants
|
||||
- Note both what users say AND what they do
|
||||
- Pay attention to emotional reactions
|
||||
- Identify jobs-to-be-done, not just feature requests
|
||||
|
||||
**When analyzing quotes:**
|
||||
- Use verbatim quotes in "quotation marks"
|
||||
- Attribute quotes: [Participant ID, Role, Context]
|
||||
- Select quotes that illustrate patterns, not outliers
|
||||
- Include both positive and negative feedback
|
||||
|
||||
**When identifying themes:**
|
||||
- Use descriptive names, not generic labels
|
||||
- Provide evidence for each theme
|
||||
- Quantify when possible ("7 out of 10 users...")
|
||||
- Connect themes to business objectives
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Standards
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Good Synthesis:**
|
||||
- Identifies patterns, not just individual responses
|
||||
- Connects insights to product decisions
|
||||
- Includes supporting evidence for each claim
|
||||
- Separates observations from interpretations
|
||||
- Prioritizes findings by impact
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Poor Synthesis:**
|
||||
- Lists every individual comment
|
||||
- Lacks evidence or examples
|
||||
- Makes unsupported leaps
|
||||
- Focuses on solutions before understanding problems
|
||||
- Ignores contradictory data
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Theme
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
**Theme: Information Overload During Onboarding**
|
||||
|
||||
**Description**: Users consistently expressed feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information presented during initial setup, leading to incomplete onboarding and delayed time-to-value.
|
||||
|
||||
**Prevalence**: 9 out of 12 participants mentioned this issue unprompted
|
||||
|
||||
**Supporting Quotes**:
|
||||
- "I just wanted to get started, but it felt like I needed to read a manual first" [P3, Marketing Manager]
|
||||
- "By the third screen of instructions, I started clicking 'Next' without reading" [P7, Sales Rep]
|
||||
- "I wish there was a 'quick start' option for people like me who just want to try it" [P11, Product Designer]
|
||||
|
||||
**Implication**: Our current onboarding flow prioritizes completeness over engagement. We should consider a progressive disclosure approach where users can start using the product quickly and learn advanced features contextually.
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Action**:
|
||||
- Design a "Quick Start" path that gets users to first value in <3 minutes
|
||||
- Move advanced configuration to contextual help within the app
|
||||
- Test with 5-10 new users before full rollout
|
||||
- Expected impact: +20-30% activation rate improvement
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Template Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
When synthesizing research, use this structure:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# User Research Synthesis: [Research Topic]
|
||||
|
||||
## Research Overview
|
||||
- **Date**: [Date range]
|
||||
- **Methodology**: [Interview/Survey/Testing]
|
||||
- **Participants**: [Number] [User types]
|
||||
- **Research Questions**:
|
||||
1. [Question 1]
|
||||
2. [Question 2]
|
||||
3. [Question 3]
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
[2-3 sentence overview of key findings and implications]
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Themes
|
||||
|
||||
### Theme 1: [Theme Name]
|
||||
[Full theme documentation as shown in example above]
|
||||
|
||||
### Theme 2: [Theme Name]
|
||||
[Full theme documentation]
|
||||
|
||||
[Continue with 4-8 themes]
|
||||
|
||||
## Pain Points Summary
|
||||
|
||||
| Pain Point | Severity | Frequency | Current Workaround |
|
||||
|------------|----------|-----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| [Pain 1] | High | 10/12 users | [How they cope] |
|
||||
| [Pain 2] | Medium | 7/12 users | [How they cope] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Requests
|
||||
|
||||
### Must-Have
|
||||
1. **[Request]** - Mentioned by [X] participants
|
||||
- Quote: "[Representative quote]"
|
||||
- Underlying need: [Why they want this]
|
||||
|
||||
### High Value
|
||||
[Similar structure]
|
||||
|
||||
### Nice-to-Have
|
||||
[Similar structure]
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### High Priority (0-3 months)
|
||||
1. **[Recommendation]**
|
||||
- Supporting evidence: [Data from research]
|
||||
- Expected impact: [What will improve]
|
||||
- Effort estimate: [Rough sizing]
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium Priority (3-6 months)
|
||||
[Similar structure]
|
||||
|
||||
### Future Consideration (6+ months)
|
||||
[Similar structure]
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
1. [Question requiring more research]
|
||||
2. [Uncertainty to validate]
|
||||
3. [Follow-up study needed]
|
||||
|
||||
## Appendix
|
||||
- Interview guide used
|
||||
- Full participant demographics
|
||||
- Raw notes/transcripts (link)
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user