mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
56 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
56 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
# User Interview Synthesis Skill
|
|
|
|
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 Structure
|
|
|
|
### Research Synthesis: [Study Name]
|
|
**Participants:** [n]
|
|
**Date Range:** [dates]
|
|
**Research Questions:** [list]
|
|
|
|
#### Theme 1: [Theme Name]
|
|
- Summary (2-3 sentences)
|
|
- 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 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")
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not mix single-source signals into main themes — insights cited by only one participant must be flagged separately
|
|
- [ ] Do not write implications that are observations restated rather than product decisions enabled
|
|
- [ ] Do not include themes that only support the project hypothesis — contradictory findings must be surfaced, not omitted
|
|
- [ ] Do not present findings without quotes — every theme requires verbatim evidence from at least 3 participants
|
|
- [ ] Do not leave research questions unanswered — each question from the study brief must be explicitly addressed, even if the answer is inconclusive
|