跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

product-discovery

Run product discovery to identify what to build. Use when the user says "product discovery", "how do I know what to build", "validate this idea", "talk to customers", "are we building the right thing", "discovery process", or wants to reduce the risk of building something users don't want - even if they don't say "discovery".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Overview

Based on Inspired by Marty Cagan (Silicon Valley Product Group). Cagan's central argument: the biggest risk in product is not execution risk - it's value risk (will users buy it?), usability risk (can users figure it out?), feasibility risk (can we build it?), and business viability risk (does it work for the business?). Discovery is how you tackle all four before writing a line of code.

The best product teams run discovery and delivery in parallel. Discovery is not a phase - it's a continuous habit.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the four risks

For the idea or problem at hand, assess:

  • Value risk - Do users actually want this? Will they use it?
  • Usability risk - Will users understand how to use it?
  • Feasibility risk - Can the team build it with current skills and tech?
  • Viability risk - Does it work legally, financially, and ethically for the business?

Rate each: High / Medium / Low. Focus discovery on High risks.

Step 2: Frame the opportunity (not the solution)

State the problem as an opportunity: "Users struggle to [X], which causes [Y impact]." Avoid framing as a solution at this stage. Mocking up a solution before validating the problem is the most common discovery failure.

Step 3: Run customer interviews (Value risk)

Goal: understand the problem deeply, not validate your solution.

  • Talk to 5-8 users in the target segment
  • Ask about their current behavior, not hypothetical preferences
  • "What do you do today when [problem occurs]?" not "Would you use a feature that does X?"
  • Look for patterns across interviews, not individual quotes

Step 4: Run usability tests (Usability risk)

With a prototype (even paper):

  • Give users a task, watch silently
  • Don't explain how it works - if they can't figure it out, that's the data
  • 5 users reveal ~85% of usability issues (Nielsen's law)

Step 5: Validate feasibility with engineering (Feasibility risk)

Before committing: one-hour spike with the tech lead.

  • "Is this technically possible in our appetite?"
  • "What's the hardest part?"
  • Surface blockers early, not after the PRD is written.

Step 6: Check viability (Business risk)

  • Legal: any compliance, privacy, or IP issues?
  • Finance: does the unit economics work?
  • Marketing: can we explain this clearly?
  • Sales: does this help or hurt existing deals?

Step 7: Decide: persevere, pivot, or kill

Based on discovery findings:

  • Persevere - risks are manageable, move to shaping
  • Pivot - problem is real but solution needs rethinking
  • Kill - problem is smaller than assumed or solution isn't viable

Anti-Patterns

1. Validating solutions instead of discovering problems Bad: "We showed users our mockup and they said they liked it." Good: Users are polite. Test behavior, not opinion. "5 out of 5 users completed the task without prompting" is evidence. "They said it looked great" is not.

2. Discovery as a one-time phase Bad: "We did discovery in Q1, now we're in delivery mode." Good: Discovery never stops. Run continuous weekly interviews even during delivery.

3. PMs doing discovery alone Bad: PM interviews customers, reports findings to the team. Good: Cagan's "product trio" - PM, designer, and tech lead attend discovery together. Shared understanding beats written summaries.

4. Skipping feasibility until spec is written Bad: Beautiful PRD handed to engineering that has a fundamental technical blocker. Good: 1-hour feasibility spike before any spec writing.

Quality Checklist

  • All four risks assessed (value, usability, feasibility, viability)
  • Problem framed as opportunity, not solution
  • Customer interviews focused on behavior, not opinion
  • Usability tested with prototype (not described, tested)
  • Feasibility checked with tech lead before spec
  • Clear decision: persevere, pivot, or kill

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

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

qa-aman/claude-skills212026年10月19日 更新

查看 qa-aman 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题