本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

thinking-jobs-to-be-done

Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Jobs to Be Done

Core rule: users hire solutions for progress in a situation. Prioritize the job, forces, outcome, and competing workaround—not the feature list.

When to Use

  • Choosing what to build, cut, or prioritize when user need is unclear
  • Explaining low adoption of a shipped feature
  • Mapping competition beyond same-category products (email, spreadsheets, manual work, non-consumption)
  • Positioning or research when the progress sought is contested

Requires at least one evidence source: PRD/spec, tickets, support/sales notes, analytics/logs, or current product behavior. If none exist, name the research gap; do not invent quotes.

When NOT to Use

  • Pure execution once the job is known (bug fix, schema, CI, performance)—implement, do not rediscover the job
  • Retro-justifying a decision already locked—framework theater
  • Infrastructure/internal work with no end-user progress decision
  • When the open question is only how to implement a settled job

Procedure

  1. Name performers and circumstance. Who hires a solution, in what trigger situation, how often, and with what stakes. Prefer primary performers with daily high-stakes jobs over rare secondary ones.
  2. State the job, not the solution. Frame: When [circumstance], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]. Reject solution-shaped statements ("use Slack", "add a dashboard"). Capture functional, emotional, and social dimensions only if evidence supports them.
  3. Map forces and switch. From artifacts: what push made the old way fail, what pull the new progress offers, what anxiety blocks switching, what habit keeps the status quo. List what they hire today—including non-software and non-consumption.
  4. Define done and outcome metrics. How the performer knows the job is finished. List outcomes to minimize and maximize (time-to-progress, rework, confidence, surprises). Prefer frequent, poorly served jobs over rare, adequately worked-around ones.
  5. Score candidates against the job. For each feature/priority: which job step it serves, performer share, frequency, quality of alternatives. Promote high-frequency underserved dimensions; demote polished work for well-served or low-stakes jobs.
  6. Strongest countercase. State the best case that the stated job is wrong (wrong performer, vanity metric, process-is-the-job, competition is actually non-consumption). If the countercase fits evidence better, revise the job before recommending build.
  7. Stop. Stop when one primary job statement, competing set, and outcome metrics are evidence-backed enough to change a build/position decision—or when artifacts cannot answer and research is the only next step.

Output

Produce a JTBD decision artifact:

Job statement: When …, I want to …, so I can …
Performers: primary / secondary (frequency, stakes)
Forces: push / pull / anxiety / habit
Competition: direct | indirect | non-consumption
Outcomes: minimize […] ; maximize […]
Priority implication: build / cut / reposition — because job gap is …
Countercase checked: …
Evidence used / gaps: …

Verification

  • Falsify: If replacing the job statement with a feature name does not change the recommendation, you never left solution-space—rewrite the job from circumstance and progress.
  • Stop: Do not keep mapping job steps once the ranking decision is stable.
  • Over-application guard: Skip on pure implementation tasks and known jobs. Never fabricate user quotes or personas to fill missing evidence.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

Under genuine uncertainty with no reliable forecast, inventory means, cap downside at affordable loss, act for commitments, and let goals emerge from controllable moves.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

When a constraint is treated as fixed, separate physics from convention, keep only independently supported primitives, and rebuild the simplest solution that satisfies real constraints.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

When a fault is localized and the proximate cause is known but the systemic root is not, chain evidence-linked whys with a counterfactual stop and a countermeasure.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

tjboudreaux のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する