Claude
572b8acf8c
Make the library multi-platform without duplicating content. Each skills/<name>/SKILL.md body remains the single source of truth; a new generator renders platform-ready exports from it. - scripts/build-exports.mjs — dependency-free Node generator with a PLATFORMS registry so new platforms (Gemini, Cursor, …) are a few lines. Ships ChatGPT exports at exports/chatgpt/<bundle>/<skill>/SYSTEM_PROMPT.md (172 skills), plus generated index READMEs. Supports --platform and --check. - exports/ — generated ChatGPT system prompts, ready to paste into a Custom GPT. - .github/workflows/check-generated.yml — fails a PR if exports or web/skills.json drift from the source skills. - README "Works With" now documents the ready-to-use exports and regen command. - CHANGELOG + SKILL-AUTHORING-STANDARD note the generated artifacts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px
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
|