user-persona
Skill0 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub
Synthesizes interview notes, surveys, support tickets, and analytics into evidence-based user personas that drive design decisions, with every claim traced to source data. Use when someone asks "build personas from our research", "turn these interview notes into personas", "how many personas do we need", or "are our personas evidence-based". Do NOT use for sales-targeting ideal customer profiles with filterable firmographics and buying committees - use icp-persona-builder instead. Do NOT use for extracting jobs-to-be-done from research - use jtbd-extractor instead.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- fullstackinnoAI/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- shiarauzo/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- miovrag/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
- launchapp-dev/animus-clitheir own version, first seen Mar 15, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- launchapp-dev/animus-cli★ 39same name
- fullstackinnoAI/skills★ 1same name
- miovrag/claude-skills★ 1same name
- shiarauzo/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- jira-ticket-writerSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- product-analyticsSkill
- product-roadmapSkill
- sprint-planningSkill
- technical-specSkill
- user-flow-mapperSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Ask for the source material: interview notes or transcripts, survey results, support tickets, analytics, session recordings.
- Distinctive: line 20
If there is no research at all, say so plainly and offer a research plan.
- Distinctive: line 76
Do NOT invent demographics, hobbies, or stock-photo characterization the data does not support - they add false vividness and invite …
- Distinctive: line 77
Do NOT cluster by demographic category.
- Distinctive: line 78
Do NOT average across participants - the "average user" is a statistical fiction nobody can design for.
- Distinctive: line 79
Do NOT present proto-personas (assumption-based) with the same visual authority as researched ones.
- Distinctive: line 80
Do NOT ship a persona without a design implication line - an implication-free persona changes no decisions.
- Distinctive: line 84
Every goal and frustration carries an evidence count or source.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
User Persona Builder
Build personas that designers and PMs actually consult - grounded in observed behavior, not demographics invented for a slide. A persona is a research artifact, not a character. The costly failure this prevents is the decorative persona: a stock photo, a name, an age, and a made-up hobby that no design decision ever touches, which quietly teaches the team that research outputs are theater.
Operating procedure
Step 1: Gather inputs and enforce the evidence floor
Ask for the source material: interview notes or transcripts, survey results, support tickets, analytics, session recordings. Then apply the evidence rules:
- Minimum for defensible personas: 8-12 interviews across the target population; below 5, refuse to call the outputs personas - label them proto-personas (assumption maps) and recommend research first, offering to design it (pair with interview-guide-builder).
- Surveys and analytics alone cannot produce personas - they show what and how much, never why. They corroborate interview-derived clusters; they do not replace them.
- If there is no research at all, say so plainly and offer a research plan. Never fabricate a persona from team assumptions and present it as evidence.
Also collect: the decisions the personas must inform (onboarding? pricing? feature priority?), and any existing segmentation to reconcile against. Label assumed context as a guess.
Step 2: Find patterns, not averages
Read across all data and tag recurring behaviors, goals, and pain points. Cluster users by behavior and motivation, not by age or job title - two 28-year-old marketers can need opposite products, and a 24-year-old and a 55-year-old with the same workflow belong in the same persona. Averaging produces a user who does not exist; clustering finds users who do.
Aim for the smallest number of personas that captures the meaningful differences - usually 3-5. Each persona must represent a distinct strategy or need; if two clusters would lead to the same design decisions, merge them.
Step 3: Build each persona from the skeleton
PERSONA - [FILL: memorable label tied to defining behavior, e.g. "The Batch Processor"]
Evidence base: [FILL: n of X interviews, plus corroborating sources] Research date: [FILL]
SNAPSHOT [FILL: one sentence - who they are via what they do, not who they resemble]
CONTEXT [FILL: role, environment, constraints - time, budget, skill level]
GOALS [FILL: what they are ultimately trying to accomplish - the job-to-be-done]
Evidence: [FILL: e.g. 7/10 interviews; P2, P4, P7 explicit]
FRUSTRATIONS [FILL: concrete obstacles from the data, not generic gripes]
Evidence: [FILL]
BEHAVIORS [FILL: how they actually act - tools, workarounds, frequency]
Evidence: [FILL: observed vs self-reported, noted separately]
QUOTES [FILL: 1-3 verbatim quotes, participant IDs attached]
NEEDS [FILL: what the product must do to serve them]
ASSUMPTIONS [FILL: anything inferred rather than observed - marked to validate]
DESIGN IMPLICATION Because [goal/frustration], the product should [decision].The design implication line is mandatory - it is what makes a persona drive decisions instead of decorating a wall.
Step 4: Tie every claim to evidence
For each goal and frustration, note how many participants expressed it or which data point supports it ("6 of 10 interviews", "38% of survey respondents", "top-3 support ticket driver"). A claim supported by one participant is a signal, not a persona trait. Mark anything inferred as an assumption to validate later - the assumptions row is a feature, not an embarrassment.
Contrast pair:
Bad: "Sarah, 34, loves technology and values efficiency. She enjoys yoga."
Good: "Batch Processor - clears all approvals in one Friday session because context-switching costs her more than delay does (8/12 interviews; P3: 'I'd rather let it pile up than break focus'). Design implication: build a bulk-approve queue, not per-item notifications."
Step 5: Differentiate and rank
Place personas on the one or two dimensions that matter most for the decision at hand (e.g., expertise vs. usage frequency). If two personas sit on top of each other, merge them; if one has no distinct need, question whether it earns its place. Then designate: primary (design for), secondary (accommodate), anti-persona (explicitly not for - naming who you will not serve is as clarifying as naming who you will).
Step 6: Set the expiry
Personas decay. Stamp each with the research date and recommend revalidation - every 12-18 months for stable products, after any major product or market shift otherwise. An undated persona is unfalsifiable and will be trusted long after it is wrong.
Deliverable
Produce a persona set containing: 3-5 personas built from the skeleton with per-claim evidence counts, verbatim quotes with participant IDs, a primary/secondary/anti-persona designation, a one-line design implication per persona, an explicit assumptions-to-validate list, and the research date with a revalidation cadence.
Do NOT
- Do NOT invent demographics, hobbies, or stock-photo characterization the data does not support - they add false vividness and invite stereotyping.
- Do NOT cluster by demographic category; behavior and motivation only. Demographic clustering produces stereotypes with citations.
- Do NOT average across participants - the "average user" is a statistical fiction nobody can design for.
- Do NOT present proto-personas (assumption-based) with the same visual authority as researched ones; label the difference loudly.
- Do NOT ship a persona without a design implication line - an implication-free persona changes no decisions.
Quality bar
- Every goal and frustration carries an evidence count or source; zero unsourced claims.
- Each persona is behaviorally distinct - no two would lead to the same design decisions.
- Quotes are verbatim and attributed to participant IDs, anonymized for external sharing.
- Assumptions are explicitly separated from findings.
- The set names a primary persona and the research date.
Escalation
For sales-facing targeting with firmographics, triggers, and buying committees, route to icp-persona-builder. To generate the interview data these personas require, pair with interview-guide-builder; to theme the raw notes first, pair with interview-synthesis.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

