agentleFS
impactbrusselsimpactbrussels/AINativeOS/skills/customer-discovery-that-doesnt-lie/SKILL.md

customer-discovery-that-doesnt-lie

Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a founder is running customer interviews and wants the truth, not applause - when they say "everyone loves it", "I talked to fifteen people and they're all interested", "how do I validate this with users", "I fed my call notes to the model and it says strong demand", "they said they'd definitely use it", or are about to build off interview enthusiasm. Produces a discovery question script, a transcript-extraction template, a ranked pain list, and the one belief to test next. Invoke after frame-the-hypothesis, before hypothesis-mining.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Never ask the model whether the interviews support you, or it will (sycophancy).

    line 44

≈ “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

Customer Discovery That Doesn't Lie

Talk is cheap, and AI made it cheaper. The people you interview are polite, and the model you hand the transcripts to is agreeable, so two lies stack into one dangerous object: a discovery process that feels rigorous and confirms exactly what you hoped. The friction that used to protect you, the slow read of every transcript by hand, is gone. Design the disconfirmation back in on purpose, or your research will only ever grant you the permission you came for.

The method

Discovery built to disconfirm, in the Mom-Test posture. Full framework: Handbook Chapter 04. Deep method, tables, and a worked example: references/discovery-method.md.

Step 1: Write a script that asks about the past, not the hypothetical

A good question is one the customer cannot answer with a compliment. Ask what they did, paid for, and worked around last month, never what they would do with your idea.

Bad question (invites a lie)Good question (extracts a fact)
"Would you use a tool that did X?""Walk me through the last time you hit [PROBLEM]. What did you do?"
"Do you think this is a good idea?""What have you tried to fix this? What did you pay for it?"
"How much would you pay?""What does the current workaround cost you in time or money?"

Step 2: Interview to advance, not to be liked

A compliment is not data. Seek a commitment that costs the customer something: time, a referral, access, money, a follow-up booked. No advance means no real interest, however warm the call felt.

Step 3: Extract facts from raw transcripts, never a mood summary

Feed the model the raw transcripts and forbid the average. Make it pull every concrete claim and tag who said it, then score each pain on four axes: severity, frequency, current workaround, and willingness-to-pay signal. The signal lives in the edge case, not the centre of mass.

Step 4: Run the adversarial pass so you cannot hear only what you want

Never ask the model whether the interviews support you, or it will (sycophancy). Order the inverse: "Based only on what these people actually said, give the five most likely reasons they will not pay, ranked, each with an exact quote." Take the top reason and name the cheapest test of it.

Output

  • A discovery question script (past-tense, fact-seeking) and a transcript-extraction template.
  • A ranked pain list scored on severity, frequency, workaround, and willingness-to-pay signal.
  • The five ranked reasons they won't pay, and the single belief to test next.
  • Next skill: hypothesis-mining to turn the ranked pains into falsifiable bets.

Constraints

  • Counting compliments as validation is the failure mode here. Only a commitment that costs the customer something counts as evidence; stated enthusiasm counts as zero.
  • Adversarial by default: if the model only justified the idea, the prompt failed. Make it refute you.
  • Weight revealed behaviour above stated preference, always. What they pay for beats what they say.
  • Stay theme-agnostic; the founder supplies the domain, you supply the rigour.

Dictionary

sycophancy · the 40% rule · the Remove-the-AI test

Copy-paste version

For non-coders: paste into any chatbot (Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini). Tag: chat.

Act as a sceptical customer-discovery coach trained on The Mom Test. My idea: [ONE_LINER]. For:
[ICP]. Problem I think they have: [PROBLEM]. Domain: [DOMAIN].
1. Write me 8 interview questions that ask about the customer's PAST behaviour, never about my idea
   or a hypothetical. No question a person can answer with a compliment.
2. Tell me, for each interview, what concrete commitment to ask for (time, a referral, access,
   money, a next meeting) so I learn whether interest is real, not polite.
3. Here are my raw notes: [PASTE TRANSCRIPTS]. Do NOT summarise the mood. Extract every concrete
   claim, tag who said it, and score each pain on severity, frequency, current workaround, and any
   willingness-to-pay signal. Put supporting and opposing evidence in two columns.
4. Now turn on me: based ONLY on what these people said, give the five most likely reasons they
   will NOT pay, ranked, each with an exact quote.
CONSTRAINTS: do not flatter the idea; do not average away the outlier; treat a compliment as zero
evidence and a costly commitment as real.
OUTPUT: the question script, the scored pain table, the five ranked reasons. End by naming the ONE
belief I should test next and the cheapest experiment that would expose it.

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.