mohitagw15856
05b6d799f0
Three more learnings from alirezarezvani/claude-skills, applied: 1. SkillCheck validator (scripts/skillcheck.mjs) — validates every SKILL.md against the authoring standard (frontmatter, name/folder match, trigger + produces clauses, required headings) plus tier referential integrity. Errors fail CI; --strict fails on warnings too. New skillcheck.yml workflow and a SkillCheck status badge in the README. Current: 0 errors / 14 advisory warnings across 172 skills. 2. Cursor export platform — build-exports.mjs now generates exports/cursor/<bundle>/<skill>/<skill>.mdc rule files. The PLATFORMS registry now supports per-skill filenames (file as a function). 3. Per-agent installers — scripts/install.sh unifies install for claude/hermes/codex/openclaw/cursor (--link, --target, --dry-run, --list). Curl-able one-liners codex-install.sh, openclaw-install.sh, and cursor-install.sh clone the library and install in a single command. README documents the one-line installs and Cursor exports; CHANGELOG and the authoring standard updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
69 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
69 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
description: "Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions."
|
|
globs:
|
|
alwaysApply: false
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Product Health Analysis Skill
|
|
|
|
Transform raw metrics data into a clear health narrative — what's working, what's not, and what needs immediate attention.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **Metrics data** (current values for key metrics — even rough numbers work)
|
|
- **Targets or benchmarks** (OKR targets, historical baselines, or industry benchmarks)
|
|
- **Period** (week / month / quarter being analysed)
|
|
- **Product area or segment** (are we looking at the whole product or a specific feature?)
|
|
|
|
## Metrics Framework
|
|
Analyse across four layers:
|
|
1. **Acquisition** — new users, source quality, CAC trends
|
|
2. **Activation** — time to first value, onboarding completion rates
|
|
3. **Engagement** — DAU/MAU, feature adoption, session depth
|
|
4. **Retention** — D1/D7/D30 retention, churn rate, resurrection rate
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
1. For each metric, compare: current period vs. previous period, current vs. target
|
|
2. Flag anything more than 10% off target as requiring investigation
|
|
3. Look for correlations — does a drop in activation explain a retention dip 2 weeks later?
|
|
4. Write a plain-English health summary (no jargon) suitable for sharing with non-data stakeholders
|
|
5. Recommend top 3 areas for immediate investigation with suggested diagnostic steps
|
|
6. **Validate** — Confirm every flagged metric has a plausible root cause hypothesis, not just a raw number, and every recommended action has a specific owner or team
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### Product Health Report — [Period]
|
|
**Overall Health:** 🟢 On Track / 🟡 Watch / 🔴 Action Required
|
|
|
|
| Metric | Current | Target | vs. Last Period | Status |
|
|
|--------|---------|--------|-----------------|--------|
|
|
| [metric] | [value] | [target] | [+/-%] | [🟢/🟡/🔴] |
|
|
|
|
**Key Observations:**
|
|
[3-5 bullet observations written in plain English]
|
|
|
|
**Areas Requiring Investigation:**
|
|
1. [Metric + hypothesis + suggested diagnostic]
|
|
2. [Metric + hypothesis + suggested diagnostic]
|
|
3. [Metric + hypothesis + suggested diagnostic]
|
|
|
|
**Recommended Actions:**
|
|
[Specific next steps with owners and timelines]
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every metric includes both a target and a trend (not just a snapshot)
|
|
- [ ] At least one correlation is drawn between metrics (e.g., activation → retention)
|
|
- [ ] Every flagged metric has a root cause hypothesis, not just "it dropped"
|
|
- [ ] Observations are written for a non-technical stakeholder (no raw query language or data jargon)
|
|
- [ ] Overall health rating is justified with specific evidence
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not report a single aggregate metric without segment breakdowns — averages hide opposing trends
|
|
- [ ] Do not flag a metric as healthy just because it is above the target — check if the target itself is meaningful
|
|
- [ ] Do not list metric movements without root cause hypotheses — observations without explanations are not analysis
|
|
- [ ] Do not mix product health metrics with business KPIs without explaining the relationship between them
|
|
- [ ] Do not omit recommended actions — a health report that only describes problems without prioritised next steps is incomplete
|