agentleFS
hollandkevinthollandkevint/data-product-operator/skills/data-product-thinking/SKILL.md

data-product-thinking

Skill5 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

First-principles reasoning for data product decisions. Frames problems as data products, not dashboards or pipelines. Use when evaluating data product strategy, making build-vs-buy decisions, scoping data product features, assessing product-market fit for data offerings, or when someone asks "should we build this data product?"

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Ownership over handoffs: Every handoff loses context.

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Before committing to any data product bet, evaluate all five risks:

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Never skip ethical data risk.

    line 36
  4. Distinctive:

    Start with the problem, not the data.

    line 40
  5. Distinctive:

    Never confuse data availability with product viability.

    line 48
  6. Distinctive:

    AVOID "we could also..." scope expansion.

    line 50
  7. Very specific:

    Before applying the Five-Risk Evaluation, validate that the problem is worth solving.

    line 54
  8. Distinctive:

    Ask: "How good would this solution have to be if we were charging users to use it?" If the answer requires custom work, build.

    line 60

≈ “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.

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

Core Principles

Apply these when making data product decisions:

  1. Trust over features. A single data quality incident can destroy months of trust. One bad number in a board deck costs more than a delayed feature. Protect data accuracy before adding capabilities.
  2. Outcomes over outputs. "47 dashboards and no answers" is the failure mode. Define what decisions the data product enables before defining what data it needs. Measure decisions enabled, revenue generated, time saved. Not models deployed or dashboards built.
  3. Teams over tools. Technology is 20% of data product success. The other 80% is people, process, and product thinking. Don't lead with tool selection.
  4. Uncertainty over certainty. Fix the time, vary the scope. Six-week cycles with variable scope beat two-week sprints with fixed scope for data products, where discovery is continuous.
  5. Ownership over handoffs. Every handoff loses context. The team that discovers the problem should own it through delivery.

Five-Risk Evaluation Model

Before committing to any data product bet, evaluate all five risks:

  1. Value risk - Will customers actually use this? (Validate with 3+ customer data points)
  2. Usability risk - Can they figure it out without training?
  3. Feasibility risk - Can we build it with available data and infrastructure?
  4. Business viability risk - Does it work for the business model?
  5. Ethical data risk - Can we build it without bias, privacy violations, or unintended harm? (This is the 5th risk unique to data products. See ethical-risk-assessment for the full framework.)

Never skip ethical data risk. A technically correct model that produces biased outcomes is worse than no model.

Decision Framing

Start with the problem, not the data. "Payers need to reduce readmissions" before "we have claims data."

Define success metrics before data requirements. Build an outcome metric tree:

  • Business outcome (reduce readmissions 10%)
  • Product outcome (clinical decisions 3x faster)
  • Feature outcome (risk scores updated real-time)
  • Leading indicator (query latency under 1 second)

Never confuse data availability with product viability. Having the data doesn't mean there's a product.

AVOID "we could also..." scope expansion. If it doesn't serve the defined outcome, it waits.

Upstream Discovery

Before applying the Five-Risk Evaluation, validate that the problem is worth solving. Use data-consumer-discovery to gather evidence from actual consumers. Use data-product-validation to score demand, feasibility, and schema risk. Use research-synthesis-data to convert raw findings into ranked problems with traceable evidence chains.

The sequence: discover consumers → synthesize findings → validate demand → then scope and evaluate risks here.

Build vs Buy

Ask: "How good would this solution have to be if we were charging users to use it?" If the answer requires custom work, build. If an off-the-shelf tool meets 80% of the bar, buy and customize.

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.