data-consumer-discovery
Skill5 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Discover what internal data consumers actually need. Adapted Mom Test and JTBD for data teams. Use when conducting user research, interviewing stakeholders, gathering consumer requirements, running discovery sessions, or when someone asks "what do they need?" or "how do I figure out what to build?"
In this repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- analystSkill
- arbitrage-audit-dataSkill
- dashboards-to-decisionsSkill
- databricks-data-product-reviewSkill
- data-model-designSkill
- data-pipeline-qualitySkill
- data-product-operatorSkill
- data-product-thinkingSkill
- data-product-validationSkill
- data-quality-assessmentSkill
- data-storytellingSkill
- data-team-operating-modelSkill
- data-team-positioningSkill
- duckdb-data-profilingSkill
- ethical-risk-assessmentSkill
- grill-me-dataSkill
- healthcare-cohort-designSkill
- healthcare-data-domainSkill
- healthcare-data-readiness-debriefSkill
- healthcare-data-reconciliationSkill
- metrics-definitionSkill
- research-synthesis-dataSkill
- stakeholder-alignmentSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Ask these in order. Each builds on the prior answer:
- Distinctive: line 26
Never ask "what data do you want?" or "what would you like us to build?" These questions produce wish lists, not validated needs.
- Distinctive: line 36
Trust level: Do they trust their own workaround?
- Distinctive: line 56
Ask: "What would make you NOT trust this output?"
- Very specific: line 75
Never build on Emerging signals.
≈ “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
Five Discovery Questions
Ask these in order. Each builds on the prior answer:
- "What decision are you trying to make?" Not "what data do you need?" Data requests are solutions. Decisions are the actual problem. If they say "I need a dashboard," ask what decision the dashboard enables.
- "Walk me through the last time you made this decision." Concrete past behavior beats hypothetical future needs. Listen for: where the data came from, how long it took, what they trusted, what they second-guessed.
- "Where did the data come from? How much did you trust it?" Trust is the adoption barrier for data products. A perfect pipeline that nobody trusts is useless. Map their trust signals: source familiarity, recency, whether they cross-checked.
- "What did you end up doing?" The action reveals the real need. "I exported to Excel and manually combined three reports" tells you more than any requirements document.
- "If you could get this answer in under a minute, what changes?" Gauges impact. If the answer is "nothing much," the problem isn't painful enough to build for. If it's "we could catch billing errors before they go out," you have a validated need.
Never ask "what data do you want?" or "what would you like us to build?" These questions produce wish lists, not validated needs. The Mom Test applies to data teams: talk about their life, not your product.
Workaround Archaeology
The strongest discovery signal is existing workarounds. If an analyst built a 47-tab Excel workbook, that's a validated need with proven demand.
For every workaround you find, document:
- Tool: What they built it in (Excel, Python script, manual process)
- Frequency: How often they use it (daily = high demand)
- Time cost: Hours per week maintaining it
- Trust level: Do they trust their own workaround? Why or why not?
- Downstream dependents: Who else uses the output?
Workarounds with daily frequency and downstream dependents are the highest-signal discovery findings. Build for these first.
Consumer Segments
Data consumers fall into four segments. Each needs different product shapes:
| Segment | Need | Product Shape |
| Explorers | Flexible query access, iterate fast | Self-serve query tools, semantic layer |
| Reporters | Scheduled, consistent outputs | Automated reports, dashboards with alerts |
| Decision-makers | One number with context | Executive summaries, scorecards, red/yellow/green |
| Builders | Reliable APIs and tables | Documented APIs, data contracts, SLAs |
Identify which segment you're building for before writing requirements. A product that tries to serve all four serves none.
Trust Barrier Assessment
Ask: "What would make you NOT trust this output?"
Common trust barriers in data products:
- Source opacity: "I don't know where the numbers come from"
- Stale data: "This was true yesterday but what about right now?"
- Conflicting numbers: "Your dashboard says 10K, the other report says 12K"
- No validation path: "I can't check if this is right"
- Past incidents: "Last time we used this, the numbers were wrong"
Map each barrier to a specific data-quality-assessment dimension. Trust barriers are quality problems experienced from the consumer's perspective.
Signal Strength
Rank evidence before acting on it:
- Strong (build): Observed workarounds with time investment + multiple consumers reporting same pain. Requires: workaround documentation + 3 independent data points.
- Moderate (investigate): 3+ quotes describing same problem, or usage data showing repeated manual queries. Requires: pattern across sources, not just one loud voice.
- Emerging (watch): 1-2 mentions, no observed behavior change. Requires: nothing yet.
Never build on Emerging signals. Moderate signals justify a 1-day experiment (see data-product-validation). Strong signals justify a shaped pitch.
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.

