empathy-map
Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when stakeholder motivation is unclear and the work requires a grounded, human view before messaging or intervention design. Use when applying the Empathy Map consulting method and when a user asks for Empathy Map, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- lalulali/vespyrtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- miovrag/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
- launchapp-dev/animus-clitheir own version, first seen Mar 15, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- launchapp-dev/animus-cli★ 39same name
- lalulali/vespyr★ 11same name
- miovrag/claude-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 repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- 5w1h-analysisSkill
- abductive-reasoningSkill
- account-planSkill
- affinity-diagramSkill
- assumption-inventorySkill
- balanced-scorecardSkill
- break-even-analysisSkill
- business-model-canvasSkill
- change-event-timelineSkill
- change-impact-analysisSkill
- communications-planSkill
- competitive-positioningSkill
- constraint-analysisSkill
- cost-benefit-analysisSkill
- critical-uncertaintiesSkill
- customer-segmentationSkill
- customer-success-health-scoreSkill
- deal-strategy-mapSkill
- decision-matrixSkill
- deductive-reasoningSkill
- effort-impact-matrixSkill
- evidence-mapSkill
- fifteen-percent-solutionsSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- fishbone-diagramSkill
- five-whys-root-causeSkill
- force-field-analysisSkill
- go-to-market-diagnosisSkill
- hypothesis-treeSkill
- inductive-reasoningSkill
- issue-treeSkill
- jobs-to-be-doneSkill
- kano-modelSkill
- mece-frameworkSkill
- metrics-treeSkill
- mind-map-analysisSkill
- min-specsSkill
- north-star-metricSkill
- pestel-analysisSkill
- porter-five-forcesSkill
- power-interest-gridSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- pricing-strategy-checkSkill
- raci-matrixSkill
- rice-scoringSkill
- risk-matrixSkill
- scenario-planningSkill
- service-blueprintSkill
- signal-vs-noise-filterSkill
- stakeholder-power-mapSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- user-journey-mappingSkill
- validation-planSkill
- weighted-scorecardSkill
- win-loss-reviewSkill
- wsjf-prioritizationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 9
Use this skill to run Empathy Map as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
- Distinctive: line 13
Use Says, Thinks, Does, Feels.
- Distinctive: line 14
Never put guesses into Says or Does.
- Very specific: line 25
If an input is missing, do not block automatically.
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not use to invent what users think or feel, or to map organizational power.
- Distinctive: line 86
Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Empathy Map
Use this skill to run Empathy Map as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
Method Notes
- Use Says, Thinks, Does, Feels; optionally add pains, gains, pressures, and trust signals.
- Never put guesses into Says or Does.
Required Inputs
Collect or infer these inputs before execution:
- target person or segment
- observed behavior
- quotes or facts
- uncertain assumptions
If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.
When Not To Use
Do not use to invent what users think or feel, or to map organizational power. Base the map on a defined user and context, with observations or interviews separated from assumptions.
Adjacent Methods
jobs-to-be-done: customer progress and switching forces.user-journey-mapping: chronological experience across stages.service-blueprint: service operations and handoffs.
Step-by-Step Execution
| Step | Required input | How to execute | Output |
| Choose target | One user, persona, buyer, stakeholder, or segment. | State the person/context and the decision the map should support. | Empathy-map scope. |
| Collect evidence | Quotes, observed behavior, meeting notes, interview notes, usage data. | Separate direct evidence from interpretation before filling quadrants. | Evidence list. |
| Fill quadrants | Evidence list. | Map Says, Thinks, Does, and Feels; optionally add pains, gains, pressures, and trust signals. | Empathy map. |
| Identify patterns | Completed map. | Find contradictions, repeated concerns, hidden anxieties, and unmet needs. | Need and concern diagnosis. |
| Translate to action | Diagnosis, message goal, product/service/action options. | Define message, question, offer, service change, or validation step. | Action implications. |
Output Template
### 1. Actor And Evidence
Actor / segment:
Situation:
Decision to inform:
Evidence sources:
### 2. Observed And Inferred Map
| Dimension | Observation | Fact / inference | Evidence | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |
### 3. Needs And Tensions
| Need / fear | Supporting evidence | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
### 4. Actionable Test
| Hypothesis | Conversation / observation | Owner | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:Quality Gate
- Produce the method-specific outputs for Actor And Evidence, Observed And Inferred Map, Needs And Tensions; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
- Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
- Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
- Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
- State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
- Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
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.

