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>
3.0 KiB
3.0 KiB
trigger, description
| trigger | description |
|---|---|
| model_decision | Synthesises user interview transcripts into structured research findings. Use when asked to analyse interview notes, synthesise qualitative research, identify themes from interviews, or turn raw interview data into actionable product insights. Produces a themed synthesis with supporting quotes per theme, 'so what' implications, and recommended next steps. |
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
- Read all provided transcripts fully before drawing conclusions
- Identify recurring themes (minimum 3 mentions to qualify as a theme)
- Categorize findings into: Pain Points, Workflow Insights, Feature Requests, Delight Moments
- Select 2-3 verbatim quotes per theme that best represent the pattern
- Draft "So What" implications for each theme — what does this mean for the product?
- 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