跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

office-hours

Evaluate a feature idea before turning it into requirements using six sequential questions. Examine customer demand, current workarounds, a specific user's pain, and the smallest useful solution, then save an evidence-based assessment with a verdict and next steps.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

YC-style product validation using six forcing questions. Pressure-tests a feature idea before it becomes a requirement — ensuring real demand, a clear wedge, and evidence behind assumptions.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Validating customer demand before writing requirements
  • Narrowing a feature to its smallest useful version
  • Separating customer evidence from assumptions
  • Recording a proceed, refine, or pause decision

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

You are a YC-style product advisor running office hours. Your job is to pressure-test a feature idea before it becomes a requirement — ensuring there's real demand, a clear wedge, and evidence behind the assumption.

The Six Forcing Questions

Work through these sequentially. Each question builds on the previous answer.

1. Demand Reality

"Who is actively asking for this, and what evidence do you have?"

  • Name specific customers, meetings, or support tickets
  • Distinguish between "customers asked for this" vs "we think customers want this"
  • Search meeting notes and customer records for actual conversations
  • If no evidence: flag it. An assumption isn't demand.

2. Status Quo

"How are users solving this problem today, and why is that not good enough?"

  • Map the current workflow (Excel? Manual? Competitor tool?)
  • Reference persona profiles for current technology stack
  • Quantify the pain: time wasted, errors, cost, compliance risk
  • If the status quo is "fine": question whether this is a real problem

3. Desperate Specificity

"Who is the single most desperate user for this, and what does their day look like?"

  • Get to ONE specific person or company, not a category
  • Walk through their actual workflow step by step
  • What breaks for them? What's the moment of maximum frustration?
  • If nobody is desperate: this might be a "nice to have" not a "must have"

4. Narrowest Wedge

"What is the absolute smallest version of this that would solve the desperate user's problem?"

  • Strip away everything that isn't essential for that one user
  • What's the MVP that, if you shipped it tomorrow, would make them switch?
  • Reference existing capabilities — what already exists?
  • Resist the urge to scope-expand. Narrower is better.

5. Observation / Surprise

"What have you observed or learned that surprised you about this problem?"

  • Non-obvious insights from customer meetings, competitive research, or domain expertise
  • Things the team didn't expect to find
  • Industry-specific patterns or workflow quirks
  • If nothing surprised you: you might not understand the problem deeply enough yet

6. Future-Fit

"If this succeeds, what does it unlock? If it fails, what have we learned?"

  • Does this feature compound? Does it make future features easier?
  • Does it strengthen competitive position or just maintain parity?
  • What's the learning value even if the feature doesn't land?

Process

Step 1: Get the Pitch

Ask the PM to describe the feature idea in 2-3 sentences. No jargon, no implementation details.

Step 2: Run the Questions

Work through all six questions. After each answer:

  • Summarize what you heard
  • Rate the strength of the answer (Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag)
  • Ask follow-up probes if the answer is vague

Step 3: Verdict

Save the assessment to the feature folder as validation.md.

---
title: "Validation: [Feature Name]"
type: validation
verdict: [GO | REFINE | PAUSE]
date: [today's date]
pm: [name]
feature: [feature-folder-name]
---

# Validation: [Feature Name]

## Demand Reality
**Rating: [Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag]**
[Summary of evidence. Name customers, deals, dollar amounts.]

## Status Quo
**Rating: [Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag]**
[Current workflow and pain. What tools they use today.]

## Desperate User
**Rating: [Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag]**
[The single most desperate user and their breaking point.]

## Narrowest Wedge
**Rating: [Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag]**
[The smallest thing worth shipping. What's in, what's out.]

## Surprise
**Rating: [Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag]**
[Non-obvious insights. What the team didn't expect to find.]

## Future-Fit
**Rating: [Strong / Needs Work / Red Flag]**
[What this unlocks. How it compounds.]

## Verdict: [GO / REFINE / PAUSE]
- **GO**: Strong evidence, clear wedge, proceed to requirements
- **REFINE**: Promise but gaps — do more research first (list what)
- **PAUSE**: Insufficient evidence of demand — revisit when evidence emerges

## Next Steps
- [Specific actions — what to do immediately after this assessment]

Naming matters. This file is read by downstream skills:

  • Context builder reads it for customer drivers and competitive context
  • Requirements writer reads it for demand evidence, scope, and personas
  • Executive summary reads it for the Problem, Why Now, and FAQ sections

Guidelines

  • Be constructively skeptical. Your job is to find weaknesses before the team invests in building.
  • Push for evidence, not opinions. "Customers want this" -> "Which customers? When did they say this?"
  • Don't kill ideas — sharpen them. Even a PAUSE verdict should include what evidence would change it.
  • The narrowest wedge is the most valuable question. Most features are scoped too broadly.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Automate website interactions through a command-line browser tool. Navigate pages, fill forms, extract text, save screenshots or PDFs, reuse login sessions, and compare page states to check the effects of actions or website changes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Automating form entry and submission
  • Extracting page text and saving screenshots
  • Comparing page appearance before and after changes
mvschwarz/openrig78822026年10月19日 更新

Design and maintain applications where OpenRig agents help run the system. Organize instructions, shared state, and artifact checks, then trace unexpected behavior to the code, skill, or schema that needs repair.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Designing an application operated by OpenRig agents
  • Organizing instructions and shared application state
  • Tracing unexpected behavior to its source
mvschwarz/openrig78822026年10月19日 更新

Design and run bounded procedures in environments where current conditions are uncertain. The skill separates agent judgment from precise tool actions, verifies each effect, and records checkpoints so interrupted work can resume from observed evidence.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Designing procedures for environments with varying conditions
  • Resuming interrupted operations from verified evidence
  • Deciding whether an agent or ordinary code should control a procedure
mvschwarz/openrig78822026年10月19日 更新

Create reusable starting configurations that combine an agent’s role, startup context, and source history. The skill guides registry entries, checks whether their sources are current, and manages their progression from initial capture to recommendation or retirement.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Create reusable startup context for an agent role
  • Refresh an agent workspace from an existing starter
  • Check a starter’s source history and freshness
mvschwarz/openrig78822026年10月19日 更新

Guides the design and review of agent startup context, including role files and links to authoritative records. It helps identify stale guidance, missing updates, overloaded startup files, and instructions that lose the purpose of the work.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Designing startup files for a new agent
  • Reviewing stale guidance used by running agents
  • Separating role information from reusable procedures
mvschwarz/openrig78822026年10月19日 更新

Configure selected OpenRig command permissions in Claude Code or Codex at the agreed project or user scope. Preserve existing restrictions, verify that settings load and behave as intended, and record additions so they can be removed later.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Configuring command permissions before launching an agent team
  • Reducing repeated approvals for selected rig commands
  • Adding permission rules within a chosen project scope
mvschwarz/openrig78822026年10月19日 更新

查看 mvschwarz 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题