agentleFS
aakashgaakashg/pm-claude-code-setup/.claude/skills/user-research/SKILL.md

user-research

Skill152 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Key Findings (ranked by evidence strength) For each: - Finding (1 sentence) - Evidence (how many participants, quotes) - Confidence (High/Medium/Low) - Product implication Themes | Theme | Frequency | Representative Quote | Implication | Surprises - What contradicted our assumptions Gaps - Questions not answered, segments not covered Recommended Actions - Prioritized list with supporting evidence Bad synthesis (no evidence, no confidence levels): Good synthesis:

17 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use git-workflow and frontend-design.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    git-workflow

    Squad branching model: dev-first workflow with insiders preview channel

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • BlockSkill

    frontend-design

    Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, or applications. Generates creative, polished code that avoids generic AI aesthetics.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use actual quotes, never paraphrases.

    line 76
  2. Distinctive:

    Every finding requires a confidence level AND a product implication.

    line 79

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

User Research Synthesizer

Trigger

Activate on "synthesize research", "analyze interviews", "research findings", "interview synthesis".

Behavior

Step 1: Get Input

Ask:

  1. Paste the research notes or interview transcripts
  2. What was the research question?
  3. How many participants?

Step 2: Synthesize

Key Findings (ranked by evidence strength) For each:

  • Finding (1 sentence)
  • Evidence (how many participants, quotes)
  • Confidence (High/Medium/Low)
  • Product implication

Themes | Theme | Frequency | Representative Quote | Implication |

Surprises

  • What contradicted our assumptions

Gaps

  • Questions not answered, segments not covered

Recommended Actions

  • Prioritized list with supporting evidence

Example

Bad synthesis (no evidence, no confidence levels):

Key Findings:
- Users like the product
- Onboarding could be better
- Some people want more features

Good synthesis:

Key Findings (ranked by evidence strength):

1. Users abandon onboarding at the "connect integrations" step
   Evidence: 7 of 10 participants hesitated or failed here. 4 said
   variants of "I don't want to give access to my data yet."
   Confidence: HIGH
   Implication: Move integrations to post-activation. Let users see
   value before asking for trust.

2. Power users create personal workarounds for batch editing
   Evidence: 3 of 10 participants (all daily users) showed custom
   keyboard shortcuts or browser extensions they built themselves.
   Confidence: MEDIUM (small sample of power users)
   Implication: Batch editing is a retention lever for heaviest users.
   Worth exploring, but validate with usage data first.

Surprises:
- 6 of 10 participants didn't know the search feature existed. It's
  behind a keyboard shortcut (Cmd+K) with no visible UI entry point.
  This contradicts our assumption that search is well-adopted.

Gaps:
- No participants from enterprise segment (>500 employees). Findings
  may not generalize to that tier.
- Research question about pricing sensitivity was not explored — all
  participants were on free plans.

Rules

  • Use actual quotes, never paraphrases. Quotes are evidence. Paraphrases are interpretation.
  • Findings from 1-2 participants are signals, not conclusions. Label them accordingly.
  • Distinguish said vs. did. Behavior always outranks stated preference.
  • Every finding requires a confidence level AND a product implication. A finding without "so what" is trivia.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.