fix: sync all skill updates and new skills into plugin bundles
- Synced 97 existing skill SKILL.md files from skills/ to their plugin bundle copies - Added 7 new skills to plugin bundles: - seo-content-brief, media-pitch -> pm-gtm - tax-planning-checklist -> pm-finance - change-management-plan -> pm-hr - sales-forecasting-model -> pm-sales - workshop-facilitation-guide -> pm-operations - teaching-lesson-plan -> pm-cross Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
@@ -1,36 +1,59 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: assumption-mapper
|
||||
description: Extract and risk-rate all hidden assumptions in a product brief or PRD
|
||||
tool_integration: Miro
|
||||
description: "Extract and risk-rate hidden assumptions in a product brief or PRD. Use when asked to review a product brief for assumptions, audit a PRD for risks, find hidden assumptions, validate product plans, or run an assumption analysis. Produces a prioritised assumption map with confidence and impact scores, recommended validation methods, and critical assumption flags."
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Assumption Mapping Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
# Assumption Mapper Skill
|
||||
|
||||
Surface and prioritize the untested assumptions embedded in any product plan before development begins.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Product brief, PRD, or concept description** (even rough notes work)
|
||||
- **Stage** (concept / discovery / pre-build / post-launch — affects which assumptions matter most)
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
1. Read the provided brief, PRD, or concept description
|
||||
2. Extract all assumptions across four categories:
|
||||
2. Extract assumptions across four categories:
|
||||
- **Desirability** (do users want this?)
|
||||
- **Feasibility** (can we build it?)
|
||||
- **Viability** (will it sustain the business?)
|
||||
- **Usability** (can users actually use it?)
|
||||
3. For each assumption, score:
|
||||
3. Score each assumption:
|
||||
- Confidence (1-5): How sure are we this is true?
|
||||
- Impact (1-5): How badly does the plan fail if this assumption is wrong?
|
||||
- Priority = Impact minus Confidence (higher score = test this first)
|
||||
4. Output a ranked list with recommended validation methods
|
||||
- Priority = Impact − Confidence (higher = test first)
|
||||
4. **Validate completeness** — Ensure at least one assumption per category. If a category is empty, re-read the brief looking specifically for that type.
|
||||
5. Output a ranked list with recommended validation methods
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Assumption Map: [Feature/Product Name]
|
||||
| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority Score | Recommended Validation |
|
||||
|------------|----------|------------|--------|----------------|----------------------|
|
||||
|
||||
| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority | Validation Method |
|
||||
|------------|----------|------------|--------|----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| [assumption] | [type] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [score] | [method] |
|
||||
|
||||
#### Top 3 Assumptions to Validate First
|
||||
[Detailed recommendations for highest-priority items]
|
||||
#### Critical Assumptions (Impact 4+ and Confidence 2 or below)
|
||||
[Flagged items with detailed validation recommendations]
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
- Flag any assumption that scores 4+ on Impact and 2 or below on Confidence as CRITICAL
|
||||
- Suggest specific research methods: usability test, survey, prototype test, data analysis
|
||||
#### Top 3 Assumptions to Validate First
|
||||
[Detailed recommendations including specific research method, estimated effort, and what the result would change]
|
||||
|
||||
## Example (Partial)
|
||||
|
||||
Input: *"We're building a self-serve onboarding flow to reduce time-to-value for SMB customers."*
|
||||
|
||||
| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority | Validation Method |
|
||||
|------------|----------|------------|--------|----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| SMB users can complete onboarding without human help | Usability | 2 | 5 | 3 | Unmoderated usability test (n=8) |
|
||||
| Faster onboarding correlates with higher retention | Viability | 3 | 4 | 1 | Cohort analysis of current onboarding times vs. 90-day retention |
|
||||
| The current onboarding is the primary reason for slow time-to-value | Desirability | 2 | 4 | 2 | User interviews with recent churned SMB accounts |
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] At least one assumption per category (Desirability, Feasibility, Viability, Usability)
|
||||
- [ ] All Impact 4+ / Confidence 2− assumptions flagged as CRITICAL
|
||||
- [ ] Each validation method is specific (not just "do research" — name the method and sample size)
|
||||
- [ ] Priority scores are consistent (Impact − Confidence, higher = more urgent)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: discovery-interview-guide
|
||||
description: Creates structured user discovery interview guides with screener questions, discussion guides, and synthesis frameworks. Use when planning user interviews, customer discovery sessions, Jobs-to-be-Done research, or problem validation. Triggers on "user interview", "discovery interview", "customer research", "JTBD", "problem validation".
|
||||
description: "Create a structured user discovery interview guide with screener questions, a discussion guide, and a synthesis framework. Use when planning user interviews, customer discovery sessions, Jobs-to-be-Done research, or problem validation. Produces a complete guide covering warm-up, problem exploration, and a per-session synthesis template."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Discovery Interview Guide Skill
|
||||
@@ -81,6 +81,23 @@ Understand the competitive landscape from their perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Research topic or question** (what decision will this inform?)
|
||||
- **Target participant profile** (role, behaviour, company type)
|
||||
- **Session length** (30 / 45 / 60 / 90 minutes)
|
||||
- **Number of interviews planned**
|
||||
- **Known hypotheses to test or avoid confirming prematurely** (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No future-tense questions ("would you...") — only past-behaviour questions
|
||||
- [ ] Product or solution not mentioned until after pain is confirmed
|
||||
- [ ] Questions open-ended (cannot be answered yes/no)
|
||||
- [ ] Synthesis template included for per-session notes
|
||||
- [ ] Screener questions identify and disqualify wrong participants
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Recommend 5–8 interviews to reach thematic saturation for most discovery questions
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: job-story-mapper
|
||||
description: Writes Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) job stories and maps customer jobs across functional, social, and emotional dimensions. Use when defining user needs, writing job stories, conducting JTBD research, or reframing features around customer outcomes. Triggers on "job story", "JTBD", "jobs to be done", "when I want to", "user need", "hire a product".
|
||||
description: "Write Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) job stories and map customer jobs across functional, social, and emotional dimensions. Use when defining user needs, writing job stories, conducting JTBD research, or reframing features around customer outcomes. Produces a job story map with opportunity scoring, pain intensity ratings, and product opportunity analysis."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Job Story Mapper Skill
|
||||
@@ -105,6 +105,15 @@ Rate each job story on:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Job stories use the "When / I want to / So I can" format (not user story format)
|
||||
- [ ] Situation is specific (not "as a user" — a real moment or trigger)
|
||||
- [ ] All three dimensions covered: functional, emotional, social
|
||||
- [ ] Opportunity score calculated for each job story
|
||||
- [ ] Current workaround identified for each high-opportunity story
|
||||
- [ ] Product opportunity is distinct from "build the feature" (it's an outcome)
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Never write a job story for a feature — write it for the situation that makes the feature valuable
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,21 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: user-interview-synthesis
|
||||
description: Synthesise user interview transcripts into structured research findings
|
||||
tool_integration: Notion
|
||||
description: "Synthesise user interview transcripts into structured research findings. Use when asked to analyse interview notes, synthesise qualitative research, identify themes from user interviews, or turn raw interview data into actionable product insights. Produces a themed synthesis with supporting quotes, 'so what' implications, and recommended next steps."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# User Interview Synthesis Skill
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Transform raw interview transcripts into a structured synthesis document that surfaces themes, pain points, and actionable insights.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **Interview transcripts or notes** (even rough notes work)
|
||||
- **Number of participants and their profiles** (role, company size, context)
|
||||
- **Research questions** (what was the study trying to answer?)
|
||||
- **Date range** of research (for context)
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
1. Read all provided transcripts fully before drawing conclusions
|
||||
2. Identify recurring themes (minimum 3 mentions to qualify as a theme)
|
||||
3. Categorize findings into: Pain Points, Workflow Insights, Feature Requests, Delight Moments
|
||||
4. Select 2-3 verbatim quotes per theme that best represent the pattern
|
||||
5. Draft "So What" implications for each theme — what does this mean for the product?
|
||||
6. **Validate** — Confirm every theme has quotes from at least 3 participants. Flag any insight resting on fewer as low-confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
## Output Structure
|
||||
|
||||
### Research Synthesis: [Study Name]
|
||||
**Participants:** [n]
|
||||
@@ -24,15 +32,21 @@ Transform raw interview transcripts into a structured synthesis document that su
|
||||
|
||||
#### Theme 1: [Theme Name]
|
||||
- Summary (2-3 sentences)
|
||||
- Supporting quotes
|
||||
- Supporting quotes (from at least 3 participants)
|
||||
- Implication for product
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat for each theme]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Low-Confidence Signals (1-2 participants only)
|
||||
[Findings worth tracking but not acting on yet — note what further research would confirm or deny]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Recommended Next Steps
|
||||
[Specific, actionable recommendations based on findings]
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
- Every theme must be supported by quotes from at least 3 participants
|
||||
- Implications must connect to product decisions, not just observations
|
||||
- Avoid researcher bias — let the data lead
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every theme is supported by quotes from at least 3 participants
|
||||
- [ ] Implications connect to specific product decisions, not just observations
|
||||
- [ ] Researcher bias check: no leading language, findings don't all support one hypothesis
|
||||
- [ ] Single-source signals are flagged separately, not mixed into main themes
|
||||
- [ ] Research questions from the study brief are each addressed (even if the answer is "inconclusive")
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user