agentleFS
varunk130varunk130/claude-code-skills/skills/product-management/customer-interview-synthesizer/SKILL.md

customer-interview-synthesizer

Skill1 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub

Synthesizes raw customer interview transcripts into themes, quotes, Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) signals, force-of-progress diagrams, and actionable opportunity hypotheses with confidence levels. Use when synthesizing a round of discovery, switching, win-loss, or churn interviews; preparing a research readout; aligning a team on what the customer signal actually says; or feeding inputs into an Opportunity Solution Tree (OST).

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    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:

    No theme saturation check (claiming a theme on a sample size of one)

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Read each transcript line by line.

    line 44
  3. Distinctive:

    Write the job statement: *When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome].*

    line 72
  4. Distinctive:

    Never blur the line. Stakeholders will treat them as the same unless you separate them.

    line 110
  5. Distinctive:

    Use the analyst's words as if they were the customer's

    line 135

≈ “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 Interview Synthesizer

Turns hours of qualitative interviews into a tight, evidence-anchored set of opportunities.

What this skill is

A structured workflow for synthesizing interview transcripts: code utterances, theme them, score saturation, extract Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) signals and forces of progress, identify opportunity hypotheses, and produce a readout that distinguishes evidence from interpretation. Designed to remove the analyst's narrative-fitting bias and keep the customer's voice central.

What it solves

  • "What did we learn?" readouts that summarize whichever interview was freshest
  • Cherry-picking quotes that support a pre-existing hypothesis
  • No theme saturation check (claiming a theme on a sample size of one)
  • Conflating what the customer said with what the analyst inferred
  • Failure to translate findings into prioritized hypotheses with confidence levels

When to invoke

  • Concluding a discovery or generative interview round
  • Synthesizing switching interviews after a churn wave
  • Win-loss analysis from a sales cycle
  • Sensemaking after a competitive deep-dive
  • Feeding the Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) with fresh evidence

Phase 1: Catalog the corpus

For each interview, log:

  • Participant pseudonym, segment, role
  • Date, duration, interviewer
  • Recording or transcript location
  • Recruitment source (and any selection bias)
  • Whether incentives were offered
  • Whether the participant is current, former, or prospective customer

Minimum saturation guideline: 5-8 interviews per segment for generative discovery; more for major decisions.

Phase 2: Code the utterances

Read each transcript line by line. Tag passages with codes - short labels for the topic discussed.

Two-pass approach:

  1. Open coding - generate codes inductively from the data
  2. Axial coding - group related codes into categories

Each code must include:

  • A verbatim quote from the transcript
  • Interview Identifier (ID) and timestamp
  • Whether it's a report (something they did or experienced) or opinion (something they said they'd do)

Reports far outweigh opinions in predictive value. Flag the distinction.

Phase 3: Theme the codes

Group codes into themes. For each theme:

  • Theme title in the customer's voice
  • Definition
  • Number of participants who mentioned it (saturation count)
  • 3-5 representative verbatim quotes
  • Segments where the theme is strongest
  • Disconfirming evidence (interviews where the theme didn't appear)

Saturation rule: a theme appearing in less than 30% of interviews in a segment is a hypothesis, not a finding.

Phase 4: Extract JTBD signals

For passages describing what the customer was trying to accomplish:

  • Write the job statement: When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome].
  • Classify functional / emotional / social
  • Identify the job stage (Define / Locate / Prepare / Confirm / Execute / Monitor / Modify / Conclude)

Phase 5: Forces of progress

For switching, churn, and win-loss interviews, map the four forces per participant:

ForceEvidence from interview
Push of current situationWhat was broken or frustrating?
Pull of new solutionWhat did they hope for?
Anxiety of new solutionWhat worried them about switching?
Habit of oldWhat kept them on the old solution?

Aggregate across interviews to identify which force dominates the decision.

Phase 6: Generate opportunity hypotheses

Convert themes into opportunity hypotheses:

We believe [customer segment] experiences [pain or unmet need] when [situation], because [evidence].

Confidence: [High / Medium / Low] based on [number of interviews] and [type of evidence].

If we solved this, we'd expect to see [observable outcome].

Each hypothesis links back to:

  • The theme(s) it came from
  • The verbatim quotes that support it
  • The disconfirming evidence (where it didn't show up)

Phase 7: Separate observation from interpretation

The synthesis output has two tiers, clearly labeled:

  • What we heard (verbatim, quoted, sourced) - high confidence
  • What it might mean (analyst interpretation) - explicitly labeled as inference

Never blur the line. Stakeholders will treat them as the same unless you separate them.

Output

  • Coded transcript library (referenceable for any future synthesis)
  • Theme list with saturation counts and supporting verbatims
  • JTBD inventory: functional, emotional, and social jobs by segment
  • Forces-of-progress diagram for switching or churn signals
  • Opportunity hypothesis register with confidence levels and source evidence
  • 1-page readout with the 3 most decision-grade findings
  • Explicit list of disconfirming evidence
  • Recommended next-round research questions

Operating rules

Always

  • Quote verbatim before paraphrasing
  • Distinguish reports from opinions
  • Score theme saturation (count of interviews / total interviews per segment)
  • Surface disconfirming evidence explicitly
  • Label observation versus interpretation

Never

  • Claim a theme from a single interview
  • Cherry-pick quotes that confirm a hypothesis
  • Use the analyst's words as if they were the customer's
  • Skip the recruitment-bias note
  • Merge wildly different segments into one theme

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.