assumption-mapper
Skill2 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Surfaces the assumptions a product or strategy depends on, classifies them by criticality and evidence quality, and produces a prioritized test plan. Use when: assumption mapping, identify assumptions, what could go wrong, leap-of-faith assumptions, riskiest assumption test, RAT, assumption inventory, validate before building.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- imohammadfaraz/claude-skills-for-product-managertheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- hollandkevint/thinkhaven-method-kittheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- pratikshadake/claude-product-management-skillstheir own version, first seen Feb 19, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- pratikshadake/claude-product-management-skills★ 33same name
- imohammadfaraz/claude-skills-for-product-manager★ 19same name
- hollandkevint/thinkhaven-method-kit★ 0same 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- competitive-analyzerSkill
- feedback-prioritizerSkill
- jtbd-extractorSkill
- north-star-metric-finderSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Distinctive: line 20
Every product bet rests on a stack of assumptions.
- Distinctive: line 52
Assumption Inventory: - every assumption surfaced, by category
≈ “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
Assumption Mapper
Every product bet rests on a stack of assumptions. This skill makes them explicit, classifies each as Known / Believed / Hoped, and produces a ranked test plan so the team validates the riskiest assumptions before committing to build.
Core Principle
The assumptions you don't write down are the ones that kill the product. Hidden assumptions become "obvious in hindsight" only because no one stress-tested them. The mapper's job is to drag them into the open and force a verdict on each.
The 3-Tier Classification
| Tier | Definition | Action |
| Known | Direct evidence, multiple independent sources, recent data | No test needed; document the evidence link |
| Believed | Reasonable inference from indirect or partial evidence | Test if assumption is critical; defer if not |
| Hoped | Wishful thinking dressed as reasoning; no real evidence | Test before any meaningful investment |
Cross with criticality (Critical / High / Medium / Low) → the Critical × Hoped quadrant is the team's actual risk surface.
Assumption Categories
The mapper walks through 5 categories to surface assumptions a one-shot brainstorm misses:
| Category | Example Assumptions |
| Customer / Demand | "SMB ops leaders feel this pain weekly"; "buyers will pay $X" |
| Solution / Product | "Our approach is materially better than the workaround"; "the model can hit 90% accuracy on this task" |
| Channel / Distribution | "We can acquire this segment via content"; "our sales team can sell this without retraining" |
| Economic / Unit | "CAC stays under $X at this segment"; "support cost scales sublinearly" |
| Competitive / Time | "Incumbents won't ship this within 6 months"; "the platform shift continues for 2+ years" |
Output
Save to outputs/assumption-map-[initiative]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
- Assumption Inventory - every assumption surfaced, by category
- Classification Matrix - Known / Believed / Hoped × Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Risk Surface - the Critical × Hoped quadrant, called out explicitly
- Test Plan - for each Critical × (Hoped or Believed) assumption: smallest test that would invalidate it, expected duration, success criteria
- Defer List - Low-criticality assumptions that don't justify a test (named so they're not silently treated as Known)
Process
Step 1: Frame the Bet
I'll ask:
"Describe the initiative or strategy in 2-3 sentences. What does success look like 12 months from now?"
Step 2: Walk the 5 Categories
Surface 4-8 assumptions per category. Aim for uncomfortable assumptions - the ones the team would rather not name.
Step 3: Classify
For each assumption, classify Known / Believed / Hoped with the evidence (or absence thereof) noted.
Step 4: Rank by Criticality
Critical = the bet fails if this assumption is wrong. Most initiatives have 3-5 Critical assumptions; if the count is higher, the initiative is too entangled and should be decomposed.
Step 5: Build the Test Plan
For each Critical × (Hoped or Believed), design the smallest test that would invalidate the assumption. Tests are ranked by speed-to-disconfirm, not by speed-to-confirm.
Step 6: Pre-Mortem Pass
For each Critical × Hoped, write one sentence: "If this assumption is wrong, the initiative fails because…" If you can't write that sentence, the assumption isn't actually Critical.
Tips
- Tests are designed to disconfirm, not confirm. Confirmation bias is the default; rigorous tests look for the cheapest way to be proven wrong.
- Decompose entangled bets. An initiative with 8 Critical assumptions is really 3 initiatives stacked.
- Re-map at major milestones. Yesterday's Known can become today's Believed when context shifts.
- Hoped is not a slur. Most novel products start with several Hoped assumptions; the discipline is acknowledging them, not avoiding them.
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.