跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

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.

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.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

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

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

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026年8月8日 更新

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

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026年8月8日 更新

查看 tjboudreaux 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题