design-thinking
Skill20 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use for design thinking, or when a product or service problem needs user understanding before solutions: "what do users really need?", "how might we...", "plan a discovery sprint", "validate this concept". Skip when the spec is frozen or the task is code maintenance.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- curlymolelabs/design-thinking-skilltheir own version, first seen Oct 26, 2026
- tronghieu/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- ironyjk/strategy-frameworkstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- shalomb/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 23, 2026
- shuwarida/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 14, 2026
- ljucask/pureinn-product-developmenttheir own version, first seen Jul 12, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- tronghieu/agent-skills★ 94same name
- ironyjk/strategy-frameworks★ 14same name
- deciqAI/knowledge-skills★ 13same name
- rastian/design-thinking-skills★ 13same name
- connerkward/ckw-design-skill★ 9same name
- shalomb/agent-skills★ 3same name
- ljucask/pureinn-product-development★ 2same name
- ORBWEVA/dt-skill★ 1same name
- shristi2211/Claude_Skills★ 1same name
- curlymolelabs/design-thinking-skill★ 0same name
1 more not listed
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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- analytical-thinkingSkill
- creative-thinkingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- ethical-thinkingSkill
- fermi-estimationSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- five-whysSkill
- lateral-thinkingSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- prioritizationSkill
- six-thinking-hatsSkill
- strategic-thinkingSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- thinking-method-selectorSkill
- tradeoff-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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 26
Gather first: Read tickets, interview notes, support threads, analytics or the product itself before writing Empathize.
- Distinctive: line 28
If Empathize has no real user input, say so in Define and keep the POV narrow.
- Distinctive: line 35
Context: when and where the need shows up.
- Distinctive: line 37
No fabricated quotes. Paraphrase only what the user supplied.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Design Thinking
Fall in love with the problem, not the first solution. End with what to learn next, not just ideas.
When to use
- A product, service or UX problem where the real user need is unclear.
- "How might we" framing, discovery sprints, concept validation before building.
- Reframing a request using what users actually do or say.
Skip: the spec is fully frozen and no discovery is wanted, or the task is code-only maintenance with no user problem to frame.
Before you start
- State in one block: Design challenge (who is affected, in what situation) and Pass (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test plan).
- Gather first. Read tickets, interview notes, support threads, analytics or the product itself before writing Empathize. Ask up to 3 questions only for users, constraints or success signals that tools cannot answer.
- Light path. Small ask: 1-2 lines per stage, 3 ideas, one prototype, 2 signals.
- If Empathize has no real user input, say so in Define and keep the POV narrow. Never invent research.
Stages
1. Empathize
- Who: primary user or stakeholder. Mark facts from the user versus
[INFERRED]. - Jobs, pains, gains: what they are trying to do and what hurts.
- Context: when and where the need shows up.
No fabricated quotes. Paraphrase only what the user supplied.
2. Define
- Insight: a non-obvious tension connecting pains and context.
- POV: "[User] needs [verb] because [insight]."
- How Might We: 2-3 well-scoped questions opened by the POV.
3. Ideate
Quantity and variety, using each HMW as a prompt. Tag each idea desirable, feasible or viable as a hypothesis, not a fact. Default 8-10 ideas unless the user sets a number.
4. Prototype
Describe low-fidelity artifacts: paper flow, roleplay script, landing-page smoke test, clickable sketch. For each: Purpose: the question it answers. Fidelity: one line placing it between sketch-only and interactive.
5. Test plan
- Learning goals: what would convince you the idea is wrong?
- Participants: who and how many, or "to be decided".
- Signals: behaviors or metrics to observe, stated so they can fail.
- Next iteration: what changes if results are mixed.
Pitfalls
- A POV that restates the solution ("users need a dashboard").
- HMW questions that are too broad ("improve the experience") or too narrow (they hide the solution).
- Treating desirable / feasible / viable tags as proven.
- A Test plan with no signal that could show the idea is wrong.
Worked example: references/example.md.
Checklist
- Challenge and Pass stated
- Empathize separates facts from
[INFERRED] - POV and HMW before Ideate
- Ideas tagged desirable, feasible or viable as hypotheses
- Prototype gives purpose and a fidelity line
- Test plan has learning goals and falsifiable signals
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.

