justin/pm-claude-skills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: v9.0.0 — three new agent templates (Discovery, Stakeholder Comms, Launch)

Browse Source 
This release adds three new agent templates to the library, bringing the total to four.

New templates:
- PM Discovery Agent: synthesises customer interviews from Notion or Google Drive,
  identifies cross-interview themes, scores assumption confidence, generates follow-up questions
- PM Stakeholder Comms Agent: detects audience type (executive/investor/stakeholder/board),
  pulls activity from Linear/Jira/Drive, drafts in audience-appropriate format
- PM Launch Agent: end-to-end launch coordination with channel-specific content,
  calendar, success metrics, and launch checklist

Each template follows the established pattern: README, AGENT.md, orchestrate.sh,
2 subagents, connectors with example configs, examples, smoke test.

Total file count: 37 new files across 3 templates.

Updated README to position library as 4-template collection.
Bumped marketplace.json from v8.0.0 to v9.0.0.
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
2026-05-07 22:30:34 +01:00
parent 9274b3d378
commit 59c4510055
50 changed files with 4659 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
templates/pm-discovery-agent/examples/input-example.md
+87
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
# Example: Input to the PM Discovery Agent
## Command-line invocation
```bash
bash orchestrate.sh \
--research-question "Why are users abandoning the onboarding flow?" \
--interview-source notion \
--interview-count 10 \
--filter-by-segment "smb"
```
## What the agent reads from your connector
### From Notion
The agent automatically pulls from your configured Notion database:
- Most recent N interviews where Status = "Completed"
- For each interview:
- Title (interviewee name or identifier)
- Interview date
- Interviewee role and segment tags
- Full page content (notes, transcript, observations, quotes)
If you've applied a segment filter, only interviews matching that segment are included.
### From Google Drive
The agent automatically pulls from your configured folder:
- Most recently modified Google Docs in the folder
- For each doc:
- Document title
- Last modified date
- Full text content
If your filenames follow the `YYYY-MM-DD - Name.gdoc` convention, the agent uses the date for sorting and the name for interviewee identification.
## What the agent does NOT need from you
- A summary of what the interviews said — that's what the agent produces
- Pre-tagged themes — the agent finds them
- A list of which interviews are most important — the agent uses all included interviews
- Statistical analysis — this is qualitative discovery, not quantitative
## What you should know before running
- **Have at least 5 interviews completed.** The agent works best with 5+ interviews. With fewer, themes will be tagged as "Emerging" rather than "Strong" — directional insights only.
- **Have a specific research question.** Vague questions produce vague synthesis. "What do users think?" is too broad. "Why are users abandoning the onboarding flow at step 3?" is specific enough to drive useful synthesis.
- **Check your interview notes are accessible.** The agent can only read what your connector has access to. If notes are in a different database/folder than configured, results will be empty.
## Example: Real-world invocations
```bash
# Standard discovery synthesis from Notion
bash orchestrate.sh \
--research-question "What's blocking users from completing checkout?" \
--interview-source notion \
--interview-count 8
# Synthesis filtered to a specific segment
bash orchestrate.sh \
--research-question "How are enterprise customers using the API?" \
--interview-source notion \
--interview-count 12 \
--filter-by-segment "enterprise"
# Synthesis from Google Drive folder (all recent interviews)
bash orchestrate.sh \
--research-question "What workflows do power users have that we don't support?" \
--interview-source google-drive \
--interview-count 10
# Smaller batch with low-confidence findings excluded (cleaner stakeholder report)
bash orchestrate.sh \
--research-question "Validate our pricing hypothesis" \
--interview-source notion \
--interview-count 6 \
--include-low-confidence false
# Dry run to validate config
bash orchestrate.sh \
--research-question "Test" \
--interview-source notion \
--dry-run
```
templates/pm-discovery-agent/examples/output-example.md
+176
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
# Discovery Report — May 2026
**Research Question:** Why are users abandoning the onboarding flow?
**Interview Source:** notion
**Interview Count:** 10
**Generated:** 2026-05-06 14:30 BST
---
## Executive Summary
Across 10 SMB customer interviews, three high-confidence findings emerged about onboarding abandonment:
1. **Users feel they're being asked to commit before understanding what they're getting.** The current flow asks for credit card details and integration setup before showing any value. 8 of 10 interviews mentioned this directly.
2. **The integration setup step is the highest-friction point.** Users are willing to set up integrations once they're convinced of value — but doing it before that point feels like extra work for no clear payoff. 7 of 10 interviews mentioned this.
3. **The pricing display creates anxiety, not clarity.** Showing pricing tiers without clear differentiation between them creates decision paralysis. 6 of 10 interviews described this.
Two medium-confidence findings worth validating in the next research round:
- Users may be abandoning because they confuse onboarding with set-up (5 interviews)
- The "skip for now" option may be reducing completion rather than helping (4 interviews)
---
## Themes Identified
### Theme 1: Premature commitment ask (Strong)
Users feel they're being asked to commit (credit card, integrations, team invites) before they understand what they're getting from the product.
- **Supporting interviews:** 8 — IDs: I-103, I-105, I-107, I-109, I-110, I-112, I-114, I-115
- **Strength:** Strong
- **Quotes:**
- "I just wanted to see if this would work for my team. Why am I being asked for my credit card?" — I-105
- "It felt like I was already a customer before I'd even decided." — I-110
- "The first thing it asked me was to invite my whole team. I haven't even tried it yet." — I-114
- **Contradicting evidence:** None
- **Why this matters:** This is the strongest signal in the synthesis. The team should consider redesigning the flow so users see value before being asked to commit.
### Theme 2: Integration setup friction (Strong)
The integration setup step (connecting to Slack, Google Drive, etc.) is happening too early in the flow. Users are willing to set up integrations once convinced, but doing it before is friction.
- **Supporting interviews:** 7 — IDs: I-103, I-105, I-109, I-110, I-112, I-114, I-115
- **Strength:** Strong
- **Quotes:**
- "I gave up at the Slack integration step. I wasn't sure I wanted my team to know I was trying this yet." — I-109
- "Why does it need access to my Google Drive before I've even seen what it does?" — I-103
- **Contradicting evidence:** I-107 mentioned that integration setup felt natural — "I expected to connect my tools, that's normal." This is a single contradiction within the broader pattern.
- **Why this matters:** This connects to Theme 1. Users want value first, commitment second.
### Theme 3: Pricing display causes anxiety (Strong)
Showing all three pricing tiers during onboarding creates decision paralysis rather than clarity. Users aren't sure which tier they need.
- **Supporting interviews:** 6 — IDs: I-105, I-107, I-110, I-112, I-114, I-115
- **Strength:** Strong
- **Quotes:**
- "I don't know if I'm a Pro user or a Team user. I just wanted to try it." — I-107
- "Showing me three columns of features I don't understand made me close the tab." — I-114
- **Contradicting evidence:** None
- **Why this matters:** The current pricing display is optimised for users who already know they want to buy. For first-time users, it's a distraction.
### Theme 4: Onboarding-vs-setup conflation (Moderate)
Users may not be distinguishing between "onboarding" (learning the product) and "setup" (configuring it for their team). They expected the first to come before the second.
- **Supporting interviews:** 5 — IDs: I-103, I-109, I-110, I-114, I-115
- **Strength:** Moderate
- **Quotes:**
- "I thought I'd see how to use it. Instead I was configuring it." — I-115
- "Onboarding should be 'here's what this does'. Not 'fill out these forms'." — I-103
- **Contradicting evidence:** None — but this finding is partially redundant with Theme 1.
- **Why this matters:** Could be reframed: the issue isn't onboarding vs. setup specifically — it's that setup is happening before value demonstration.
### Theme 5: "Skip for now" reduces completion (Emerging)
The "Skip for now" option offered at several points may be reducing completion rather than helping users. Users who skip rarely come back to complete those steps.
- **Supporting interviews:** 4 — IDs: I-105, I-110, I-112, I-114
- **Strength:** Emerging
- **Quotes:**
- "I clicked Skip on three things. Then I forgot to come back." — I-110
- **Contradicting evidence:** None — but only 4 interviews and behavioural data would validate this better than interview observations.
- **Why this matters:** If validated, this suggests the team should either remove the skip option or implement reminders.
---
## Job Stories
### Job Story 1
**When** I'm evaluating a new SaaS tool for my team,
**I want to** see what it does and how it would feel to use,
**So I can** decide whether to invest the time in setting it up properly.
### Job Story 2
**When** I'm in the early evaluation phase of a tool,
**I want to** avoid commitments (payment, team invites, integrations),
**So I can** stay in low-stakes exploration mode.
### Job Story 3
**When** I'm shown pricing during evaluation,
**I want to** understand which tier fits my situation without comparing all features,
**So I can** focus on whether the product solves my problem.
---
## Confidence Assessment
| Finding | Confidence | Breadth | Quality | Contradictions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Premature commitment ask | High | 8 interviews | High | None |
| Integration setup friction | High | 7 interviews | High | 1 (likely segment-specific) |
| Pricing causes anxiety | High | 6 interviews | High | None |
| Onboarding/setup conflation | Medium | 5 interviews | Medium | None — but redundant with Theme 1 |
| "Skip for now" reduces completion | Low | 4 interviews | Medium | None — needs behavioural data |
### Recommended actions
- **High confidence findings:** Safe to use in product decisions. Can frame in stakeholder communications without caveat.
- **Medium confidence findings:** Use directionally. Validate with one more interview round before major product decisions.
- **Low confidence findings:** Treat as hypothesis. Do not use in product decisions until validated with behavioural analytics.
---
## Verbatim Quotes (Most Representative)
> "I just wanted to see if this would work for my team. Why am I being asked for my credit card?" — I-105
> "It felt like I was already a customer before I'd even decided." — I-110
> "The first thing it asked me was to invite my whole team. I haven't even tried it yet." — I-114
> "I don't know if I'm a Pro user or a Team user. I just wanted to try it." — I-107
> "Onboarding should be 'here's what this does'. Not 'fill out these forms'." — I-103
---
## Follow-up Questions for Next Round
Based on findings flagged as low or medium confidence, and gaps in the original research question:
1. **Validate "Skip for now" hypothesis:** Pair the next 5 interviews with behavioural analytics on completion rates for users who skip vs. don't skip. — Would validate Theme 5.
2. **Test the integration ordering:** What if integration setup came after the first value demonstration? Would users still be reluctant? — Would help design the redesigned flow.
3. **Probe enterprise users:** All 10 interviews were SMB. Do enterprise users have different expectations about commitment depth during evaluation? — Fills the segment gap.
4. **Validate the redundancy of Themes 1 and 4:** Are these the same finding stated differently, or genuinely separate? — Affects how we frame the findings to stakeholders.
5. **Understand competitive context:** Are users abandoning to try competitors, or just not coming back? — Would tell us if this is a problem of conversion specifically or activation more broadly.
---
## Appendix: Interview Summary
| ID | Date | Interviewee | Segment | Notes Length |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-103 | 2026-04-15 | David Park, founder | SMB | Substantial |
| I-105 | 2026-04-17 | Sarah Lee, marketing manager | SMB | Substantial |
| I-107 | 2026-04-18 | Marcus Wong, ops lead | SMB | Brief |
| I-109 | 2026-04-22 | Priya Patel, team lead | SMB | Substantial |
| I-110 | 2026-04-23 | Jamie Roberts, founder | SMB | Substantial |
| I-112 | 2026-04-25 | Lin Chen, CTO | SMB | Substantial |
| I-114 | 2026-04-28 | Tom Bradley, marketer | SMB | Substantial |
| I-115 | 2026-04-30 | Aisha Khan, ops manager | SMB | Substantial |
| I-117 | 2026-05-02 | (Excluded — test interview) | — | — |
| I-118 | 2026-05-04 | (Excluded — segment mismatch, enterprise) | — | — |
8 of 10 interviews included in synthesis (2 excluded for the reasons above).
---
*Generated by [PM Discovery Agent](https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/templates/pm-discovery-agent) — second agent template in pm-claude-skills*
templates/pm-discovery-agent/examples/sample-interview.md
+95
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
# Sample Interview Note Format
This is a recommended structure for interview notes to maximise the quality of synthesis from the PM Discovery Agent. Use this as a template for your team.
The agent will work with notes in any format, but consistent structure dramatically improves results.
---
# Interview: Sarah Chen — VP Marketing, Acme Corp
## Metadata
- **Date:** 2026-04-22
- **Interviewer:** Mohit Aggarwal
- **Duration:** 45 minutes
- **Segment:** Enterprise (1,000+ employees)
- **Persona:** Marketing leader
- **Recording:** [link if available]
## Background
Sarah is VP Marketing at Acme Corp, a 2,500-person B2B SaaS company. She's been in role 18 months, previously held similar roles at two other companies. She manages a team of 12 marketers across content, demand gen, brand, and analyst relations.
We spoke as part of the discovery research into our planned content collaboration tool.
## Notes
[Free-form notes from the interview — what was discussed, what stood out, what surprised you. Aim for 500-1500 words depending on interview depth.]
Sarah opened with frustration about her team's content review process. She estimates that her team spends 30% of their time on internal coordination — getting reviews from product, legal, sales — rather than actually creating content.
The current process is: someone drafts in Google Docs, shares with reviewers, reviewers leave comments, the writer addresses comments, multiple back-and-forth rounds happen, eventually it ships. For a single piece of content, this can take 2-3 weeks.
The breaking point for her was a recent quarter where they tried to ship 8 thought leadership pieces tied to a product launch. They shipped 3. The other 5 are still in review purgatory months later.
When asked what would solve this, she didn't immediately reach for a tool — she reached for process. "We need clearer SLAs on review turnaround. We need to know who can approve what without escalating." Tools came up as a follow-up: "If there was something that gave us visibility into where each piece was stuck, that'd help."
She mentioned trialing several tools in the past: Workfront, Asana for marketing, Trello. None stuck. Her diagnosis was that they were good for tracking work but didn't actually solve the review bottleneck.
Interesting tangent: she mentioned that her best marketers have started bypassing the formal review process entirely, going to specific reviewers directly via Slack. This works for them but creates inconsistency and accountability gaps.
## Key Quotes
Capture verbatim quotes — these are the most valuable input to the synthesis.
> "We're not stuck because we don't have ideas. We're stuck because we can't get ideas through the system."
> "I've trialed every project management tool you can name. They're all great for tracking. None of them solve the actual problem, which is that humans don't review things on time."
> "My best marketer just sends Slack DMs to specific people. She gets her stuff out the door. But it's all dependent on her relationships."
> "I don't need another tool to add to my stack. I need something that makes the existing process actually work."
## Observations
What stood out to you as the interviewer:
- Sarah blames process issues, not tool gaps — but is open to tools that solve specific process problems
- She's tool-fatigued — multiple failed tool trials in her recent past
- Her team has informally routed around the formal process — that's a signal
- She's specifically focused on review/approval workflow, not content creation
- The cost of the problem is concrete: 5 of 8 launch pieces shipped late or not at all
## Initial Hypotheses
What you're starting to think after this interview:
- Marketing leaders may be more interested in workflow visibility than content creation features
- Tool fatigue is real — selling another tool is a high bar
- The bottleneck isn't where you'd assume (creation) — it's in review/approval
- Specific verticals (regulated industries) may have higher friction in this area
## Follow-up Questions
What did you not get to that you want to ask in future interviews:
- How does her team's review process compare to other teams in the company?
- What would she actually pay for if a solution existed?
- Is the bypass behaviour a problem she's actively trying to solve, or has she accepted it?
- How much of this is unique to enterprise size vs. universal across companies?
---
## Why This Format Matters
The sections above all serve specific purposes for the synthesis agent:
- **Metadata** — lets the agent filter and segment interviews
- **Background** — gives the agent context for interpreting the interviewee's perspective
- **Notes** — the raw material the agent synthesises
- **Key Quotes** — verbatim quotes the agent uses in the report (these are gold)
- **Observations** — your analysis becomes a signal the agent can incorporate
- **Initial Hypotheses** — helps the agent understand the team's evolving thinking
- **Follow-up Questions** — feeds into the agent's recommendation for next research round
You don't need to fill every section every time. The Notes and Key Quotes sections are the most important. Everything else is a bonus.