界面已本地化;技能介绍与说明文档按所选语言由 AI 自动翻译,代码、命令、路径和专业术语保留原文,以原作者文档为准。
探索技能
数据与研究 · SKILL.md

product-discovery

product-discovery

【数据与研究】Discover product requirements from human stakeholders — map who to talk to, ask questions that surface hidden assumptions, detect gaps in real time, resolve conflicts, and translate conversations into structured SDD specs. Phase 0 upstream of Spec-Driven Development. Also grill a PRD, interrogate a proposal, poke holes in a spec, or interview its aut…

独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准

技能说明

GitHub

name: product-discovery description: >- Discover product requirements from human stakeholders — map who to talk to, ask questions that surface hidden assumptions, detect gaps in real time, resolve conflicts, and translate conversations into structured SDD specs. Phase 0 upstream of Spec-Driven Development. Also grill a PRD, interrogate a proposal, poke holes in a spec, or interview its author about an existing draft, one consequential question at a time. Do not use for personal-life discovery (daily-life-discovery), general research without product requirements (research-methodology), or implementation planning. license: MIT compatibility: Agent-agnostic — works with any agent supporting a spec-driven or requirements pipeline.

Product Discovery — Stakeholder Map

For an existing draft, use the artifact-first entry below. For a new discovery effort, begin with stakeholder mapping:

ReferenceLoad whenFile
Stakeholder Mapping & SequencingYou need to decide who to interview and in what orderreferences/stakeholder-mapping.md
Interview Protocol DesignYou're designing a question stack for a specific stakeholder typereferences/question-patterns.md
Gap Detection TechniquesYou're preparing to recognize what stakeholders don't sayreferences/gap-detection.md

Pipeline: Phase 0 — Discovery

RAW NEED → [MAP] → [INTERVIEW] → [SYNTHESIZE] → [DISTILL] → [VALIDATE] → SPEC.md
              |           |              |            |            |
         Who to       What to        Resolve      Convert to   Stakeholder
         talk to      ask            conflicts    structured   review

Load the reference for the phase you're entering.

Core principles

  • Closed questions confirm what you already think; open questions discover what you didn't know to ask. If the answer can be "yes" or "no," you're validating, not discovering.
  • Knowledge holders come first; authority holders validate — they don't originate. The person who knows the problem is not the same person who approves the budget.
  • Conflicts are almost never about what they appear to be. Surface disagreements are proxies for unstated differences in assumptions, risk tolerance, or incentives.
  • Every weasel word represents a gap. "Probably," "ideally," "eventually" — each is a known issue the stakeholder hasn't committed to addressing.

Quick Start — Where to Enter

You have thisStart here
A PRD, brief, or spec to grill with its authorLoad references/artifact-first-interview.md — ask one consequential question at a time, then patch only affected passages
A vague idea or problem spaceLoad references/stakeholder-mapping.md — identify who to interview
An interview scheduled with no protocolLoad references/question-patterns.md and references/gap-detection.md — design your question stack
Raw interview notes from one or more sessionsLoad references/transcript-to-spec.md — distill into structured spec components
A draft spec that needs stakeholder verificationLoad references/transcript-to-spec.md (Interpretation Audit Trail section) — run the validation loop
Stakeholders who disagree on requirementsLoad references/conflict-resolution.md — classify and resolve before spec
Limited time with a stakeholderLoad references/time-constrained-discovery.md — maximize signal in minimal time
An AI agent conducting interviewsLoad references/ai-conducted-discovery.md — account for sycophancy and trust dynamics

Done with discovery? Use product-methodology to choose scope, then product-design-and-ux to define user-facing behavior. Jump to the Is Discovery Complete? checklist at the bottom.

Artifact-first review

When the user brings a draft to interrogate, load artifact-first interviewing. Read the artifact before asking; choose one decision-bearing question, wait for the answer, then adapt. Reuse the gap register for assumptions and unresolved conflicts, and the interpretation log for decisions and patch provenance. Stop when the user stops, the agreed question budget expires, or no consequential unresolved decision remains. Return a targeted proposed patch and explicitly unverified gaps. This bounded review does not satisfy the full-discovery checklist below.

When not to use

Route personal routines and life priorities to daily-life-discovery, general research plans to research-methodology, and execution sequencing for settled requirements to implementation-planning. General stakeholder research for a product still uses this skill’s existing MAP/INTERVIEW workflow; do not force it into draft review.

Trigger Conditions

Load this skill when:

  • You want to grill a PRD, poke holes in a proposal, or be interviewed about a draft
  • You're starting product discovery for a new feature or project
  • You have a vague idea that needs to become a structured specification
  • You need to interview stakeholders but don't have a protocol
  • You have raw interview notes that need to become a SPEC.md
  • You're about to enter Phase 1 (SPECIFY) of SDD and need upstream input
  • You're evaluating whether you've done enough discovery work

Loading Guide

PhaseLoad WhenFile
MAPYou need to identify who to interview, in what order, and how to find the right stakeholdersreferences/stakeholder-mapping.md
INTERVIEWYou're about to conduct stakeholder interviews and need question patterns, gap detection, and conflict handlingreferences/question-patterns.md + references/gap-detection.md + references/conflict-resolution.md
SYNTHESIZEYou have raw interview notes and need to identify conflicts, risks, and gaps before distillationreferences/conflict-resolution.md
DISTILLYou need to transform interview notes into structured SPEC.md with ACs, edge cases, and NFRsreferences/transcript-to-spec.md
VALIDATEYou have a draft spec and need to verify interpretations with stakeholdersreferences/transcript-to-spec.md (Interpretation Audit Trail section)

Cross-Cutting Concerns

These dimensions apply across all phases. Load when relevant:

ConcernLoad whenFile
AI-conducted discoveryAn AI agent is conducting discovery interviewsreferences/ai-conducted-discovery.md
Power dynamicsStakeholders span multiple organizational levels; hierarchy may distort responsesreferences/power-dynamics.md
Time constraintsStakeholder time is limited; need maximum signal extractionreferences/time-constrained-discovery.md

Templates

TemplatePipeline PhaseLoad whenFile
Discovery PlanMAPYou need to structure the full discovery effort — stakeholder map, interview schedule, timelinetemplates/discovery-plan.md
Interview GuideINTERVIEWYou need a structured question stack for an interview sessiontemplates/interview-guide.md
Distillation WorksheetDISTILLYou're transforming raw notes into structured spec componentstemplates/distillation-worksheet.md
Gap RegisterSYNTHESIZEYou need to track unresolved gaps, deferred decisions, and open questions across interviewstemplates/gap-register.md
Interpretation LogDISTILL → VALIDATEYou need to track every translation from stakeholder language to spec languagetemplates/interpretation-log.md

Quick Reference: Is Discovery Complete?

For full stakeholder discovery before handing off to SDD Phase 1 (SPECIFY), use this checklist. A stopped artifact-first review reports remaining gaps instead of declaring these complete:

  • All stakeholder types interviewed (knowledge holders, authority holders, affected parties, implementation knowers)?
  • At least 3 independent sources for every requirement?
  • Abstract nouns decomposed into measurable thresholds?
  • Conflicts resolved or documented with decision-maker identified?
  • Edge cases extracted from stakeholder anecdotes?
  • Every AC classified: SAID / IMPLIED / INTERPRETED / INFERRED?
  • HIGH-risk interpretations identified and flagged for validation?
  • Gaps, deferred decisions, and avoided topics documented?
  • Stakeholder validation loop completed?
  • Interpretation audit trail preserved for handoff?
我的收藏