L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Données et recherche · SKILL.md

pilot-debrief

pilot-debrief

Synthesize pilot observations into structured debrief reports and spec updates. Use this skill when: - A pilot has completed and you have observation notes, tickets, or feedback transcripts - You need to turn messy pilot data into actionable spec changes - You want to generate edge case user stories from field observations - You need negative acceptance cri…

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: pilot-debrief description: | Synthesize pilot observations into structured debrief reports and spec updates. Use this skill when:

  • A pilot has completed and you have observation notes, tickets, or feedback transcripts
  • You need to turn messy pilot data into actionable spec changes
  • You want to generate edge case user stories from field observations
  • You need negative acceptance criteria from pilot bugs
  • You want a structured debrief report for stakeholder communication

Pilot Debrief

Synthesize unstructured pilot data (observations, tickets, feedback transcripts) into a structured debrief report with spec change recommendations. Converts field findings into edge case stories, negative ACs, and design requirements.

Workflow

  1. Gather pilot inputs — Read all available pilot data sources
  2. Categorize findings — Sort into UX issues, bugs, feature requests, positive signals
  3. Map to spec sections — Link each finding to the spec section it affects
  4. Generate artifacts — Edge case stories, negative ACs, design requirements
  5. Write debrief report — Structured report for stakeholders
  6. Output spec change list — Specific edits to make to existing specs

Categorization Framework

1. UX Issues

Problems with how users interact with the product.

  • Navigation confusion, unclear feedback, unexpected behavior
  • Accessibility gaps, language/comprehension issues Maps to: Design sections (interaction patterns, states, accessibility)

2. Bugs

Things that broke or didn't work as specified.

  • Crashes, data loss, wrong behavior, performance issues Maps to: Error States, NFRs

3. Feature Requests

Things users wished existed.

  • Direct requests from users, observer inferences from user behavior Maps to: Scope (in-scope for next phase or out-of-scope), backlog

4. Positive Signals

Things that worked well — validates assumptions and celebrates wins.

  • Engagement, comprehension, adoption signals Maps to: Success Metrics, Objectives

Synthesis Principles

Observation -> Edge Case User Story

Every unexpected user behavior becomes an edge case story.

Bug -> Negative Acceptance Criteria

Every pilot bug becomes a "must NOT" criterion on the relevant story.

UX Confusion -> Design Requirement

Every navigation/comprehension issue becomes an explicit interaction pattern.

Analytics Gap -> Metric Requirement

Missing data that would have been useful during the pilot.

Output Format

# Pilot Debrief Report

**Pilot:** {name}
**Dates:** {start} - {end}
**Location:** {location}
**Participants:** {count and types}
**Prepared:** {DD-MM-YYYY}

## 1. Executive Summary
{2-3 paragraphs: key findings, overall assessment, top 3 actions}

## 2. Pilot Goals vs Outcomes

| # | Goal | Success Criteria | Outcome | Status |
|---|------|-----------------|---------|--------|
| 1 | {goal} | {criteria} | {actual} | Pass/Partial/Fail |

## 3. Findings by Category

### 3.1 UX Issues ({count})
| # | Finding | Severity | Users Affected | Spec Section | Action |
|---|---------|----------|---------------|-------------|--------|

### 3.2 Bugs ({count})
| # | Finding | Ticket | Severity | Reproducible? | Action |
|---|---------|--------|----------|--------------|--------|

### 3.3 Feature Requests ({count})
| # | Finding | Requested By | Frequency | Recommendation |
|---|---------|-------------|-----------|----------------|

### 3.4 Positive Signals ({count})
| # | Finding | Evidence | Validates |
|---|---------|---------|-----------|

## 4. Generated Artifacts
### 4.1 New Edge Case Stories
### 4.2 New Negative Acceptance Criteria
### 4.3 Design Requirements Updates
### 4.4 New Metrics Required

## 5. Spec Change Recommendations
### Priority: Must Update Before Next Pilot
### Priority: Update Before Next Sprint
### Priority: Backlog

Rules

  1. Every finding gets categorized — No finding should be left uncategorized
  2. Every bug becomes an AC — Pilot bugs are the most valuable input for acceptance criteria
  3. Quantify when possible — "3 out of 5 users" is better than "some users"
  4. Quote users directly — Direct quotes add credibility and empathy
  5. Don't speculate on fixes — The debrief identifies what needs to change, not how
  6. Positive signals matter — Don't only report problems

Quality Checklist

  • All findings categorized
  • Every bug has a corresponding negative AC
  • Quantified observations where possible
  • Direct user quotes included
  • Spec change recommendations prioritized
  • Positive signals documented alongside issues
Skills enregistrées