Marketing Foundation
Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.
The tunnel uses the same cards as the catalogue. Browse only as deep as needed — or load a broad bundle immediately.
SEO, Sales, Agents or another broad area → one bundle call → work.
Read-only access to published skills. Default 8, maximum 10 skills / 120,000 characters.
Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.
Build an evidence-led marketing plan from ICP and competition through positioning, campaigns, growth and measurement.
Diagnose architecture and context, plan agent-team responsibilities, then organize project context and session handoffs. Memory and cost-runtime reviews remain outside this pack.
Review the journey from landing page and lead capture through registration, first value and transparent upgrades.
Plan a campaign, draft its channel content and review the work against actual brand guidance.
Prioritize an editorial roadmap and plan how to launch and distribute it across suitable channels.
Understand customer needs, compare competitors and plan a community around real member value.
Choose a relevant lead magnet, then draft a permission-based nurture journey with entry, suppression and exit rules.
Define the API contract, then plan how to observe its latency, failures and retries. Guidance and checklist; no production changes.
Profile a dataset, choose and interpret statistical methods, then validate calculations and conclusions before sharing.
Choose research methods and organize evidence into an insight repository. Use UX Research and Journey Design for persona/journey artifacts.
---
name: product-research
description: Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.
version: 2.9.0
author: claude-code-skills
license: MIT
tags: [research-ops, product-research, ux-research, jtbd, usability, saturation, insight-synthesis, research-repository]
compatible_tools: [claude-code, codex-cli, cursor, antigravity, opencode, gemini-cli]
---
# product-research
Product / user research as an operational discipline: choosing the right method, sizing it honestly, and synthesizing findings into governed insights. The core rule: **method must match the goal**, and **an insight requires recurrence across independent participants** — a single quote is an anecdote.
## Purpose
Product researchers, ResearchOps teams, and PMs running discovery need method rigor and an insight repository they can trust. This skill structures three decisions:
Three deterministic tools:
1. `study_designer.py` — Maps (research goal × product stage) to an appropriate method and emits a method-matched plan skeleton (objective, participant criteria, guide structure, success criteria). Redirects live A/B to `product-team/experiment-designer`.
2. `saturation_planner.py` — Method-based sample guidance with an explicit **confidence label**: Nielsen problem-discovery (5/segment), Guest et al. thematic saturation (~12), and evaluative coverage. Never claims a prevalence rate from a small-n usability test.
3. `insight_synthesizer.py` — Clusters coded observations by tag, counts distinct participants, ranks by cross-participant recurrence, and flags any candidate below the source threshold as an **ANECDOTE**, never promoting it to an insight.
## When to use
Invoke this skill when:
- You are planning a study and need the method to match the goal (generative vs evaluative vs validation).
- You need a defensible sample size / saturation rationale with a stated confidence.
- You have raw coded observations and need to synthesize insights without over-claiming.
- You are setting up or auditing a research repository and need the insight-vs-observation discipline.
**Do NOT use this skill to**: generate personas / journey maps (use `product-team/ux-researcher-designer`), plan a discovery sprint or validate an opportunity (use `product-team/product-discovery`), design or analyze a live product A/B experiment (use `product-team/experiment-designer`), or do market sizing / surveys (use the `market-research` sibling).
## Workflow
1. **Frame the study** — Fill `assets/research_plan_template.md` (research questions, method rationale, participant criteria, analysis plan, repository tagging scheme).
2. **Pick the method** — Run `study_designer.py --goal {discovery|evaluative|validation} --stage {concept|prototype|beta|live} --profile {b2b-saas|consumer-app|enterprise|marketplace|hardware|platform}`. Honor the redirect if it routes to experiment-designer.
3. **Size it** — Run `saturation_planner.py --method {usability|thematic|evaluative-coverage} --segments N`. Record the confidence label and limits.
4. **Synthesize** — After fielding, code observations and run `insight_synthesizer.py --input observations.json --min-sources 3`. Treat ANECDOTE-flagged clusters as signals to probe, not findings to ship.
5. **File in the repository** — Tag insights to the atomic schema at synthesis time, with their evidence and confidence.
## Scripts
| Script | Purpose | Profiles |
|---|---|---|
| `scripts/study_designer.py` | (goal × stage) → method + plan skeleton | b2b-saas, consumer-app, enterprise, marketplace, hardware, platform |
| `scripts/saturation_planner.py` | Method-based sample guidance + confidence | n/a (method-driven) |
| `scripts/insight_synthesizer.py` | Cluster observations, flag anecdotes | n/a (evidence-driven) |
All three: stdlib-only, `--help`, `--sample`, `--output {human,json}`.
## Onboarding & customization
Run the onboarding questionnaire **once before you start** — it captures your defaults so every tool in this skill is pre-configured. Customization is the point: the answers actually change tool behavior (e.g. the insight source-threshold).
```bash
python3 scripts/onboard.py # interactive (also: --defaults, --set key=value, --reset)
python3 scripts/onboard.py --show # see the questions + current effective config
```
Answers are saved to `~/.config/research-ops/product-research.json` (global) or `./.research-ops/product-research.json` (`--scope project`) and are read automatically by `config_loader.py`. They set the default product **profile**, the **insight source-threshold** (how many independent participants make a finding an insight, not an anecdote), the default **saturation method**, and the **high-stakes** flag. CLI flags always override saved config; `RESEARCH_OPS_NO_CONFIG=1` ignores it.
**The four questions:** product profile · insight source-threshold · saturation method · high-stakes flag.
## Optimize with autoresearch (opt-in)
This skill ships an **isolated, opt-in** bridge to `engineering/autoresearch-agent`. Only when you ask to "optimize the synthesis" / "run a loop" does an autoresearch experiment iteratively refine the coding/clustering of a fixed evidence set so more cross-participant patterns surface. `scripts/ar_evaluator.py` is the ground-truth evaluator; it prints `validated_insights: <int>` (higher is better). It optimizes the **coding**, never fabricates evidence.
```bash
/ar:setup --domain custom --name insight-synthesis \
--target observations.json \
--eval "python3 ar_evaluator.py --target observations.json" \
--metric validated_insights --direction higher
/ar:loop custom/insight-synthesis
```
Isolated: no hard dependency — autoresearch runs only on demand, and the loop edits `observations.json`, never the evaluator.
## References
- `references/research_methods_canon.md` — Portigal *Interviewing Users*; Christensen/Ulwick JTBD; Rohrer's UX-research methods landscape (NN/g); Sauro & Lewis *Quantifying the User Experience*; Goodman/Kuniavsky.
- `references/sampling_and_saturation.md` — Nielsen "test with 5 users"; Guest, Bunce & Johnson saturation; Faulkner on more-than-5; Sauro usability sample size; Braun & Clarke thematic analysis.
- `references/repository_and_synthesis.md` — ResearchOps / atomic research (Tomer Sharon "Polaris"); insight-vs-observation discipline; repository governance; affinity mapping; democratization guardrails.
## Assumptions
- Method selection assumes you can name the goal honestly; if the goal is fuzzy, grill it first (the goal drives everything).
- Saturation guidance is method-based, not a power calculation — usability tests find problems, not prevalence rates.
- The synthesizer counts evidence you provide; coding quality is upstream of it. Garbage tags → garbage clusters.
- The insight threshold (`--min-sources`) defaults to 3; raise it for high-stakes or heterogeneous populations.
## Anti-patterns
- **Mismatching method to goal.** A usability test cannot discover unmet needs; an interview cannot measure task success.
- **Reporting usability problems as percentages.** Small-n tests surface problems, not population rates.
- **Promoting an anecdote to an insight.** One participant is a signal to probe, not a finding.
- **Framing interview questions as feature reactions.** Probe the job-to-be-done and recent real behavior, not hypothetical opinions.
- **Synthesizing without a repository scheme.** Tag at synthesis time, or insights rot unfindable.
## Distinct from
| Neighbor | Scope | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| `product-team/ux-researcher-designer` | Personas, journey maps, usability frameworks tied to design output | That produces **artifacts**; this is **method + repository discipline** |
| `product-team/product-discovery` | Opportunity validation, discovery-sprint planning | That plans **discovery sprints**; this designs and synthesizes the **research** |
| `product-team/experiment-designer` | Live product A/B hypothesis + sample size | That runs **live experiments**; this runs **qualitative/evaluative research** |
| `market-research` (sibling) | Market sizing, surveys, segmentation | That studies **the market**; this studies **users** |
## Quick examples
```bash
python3 scripts/study_designer.py --sample
python3 scripts/saturation_planner.py --method thematic --segments 3
python3 scripts/insight_synthesizer.py --sample --min-sources 3
```
The synthesizer sample correctly promotes "import-confusion" (3 independent participants) to INSIGHT and flags "wants-slack" (1 participant) as an ANECDOTE.
## Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline)
Walked one at a time by `/cs:grill-research-ops` or the orchestrator. Recommended answer + canon citation per question. Never bundled.
1. **"Is this study generative (discover problems) or evaluative (test a solution)?"**
Recommended: name it first — the method follows from the goal.
Canon: Rohrer, *When to Use Which User-Experience Research Methods* (NN/g).
2. **"What's your sample size and saturation rationale — and at what confidence?"**
Recommended: method-based n (5/segment usability; ~12 for thematic saturation), state the confidence.
Canon: Nielsen; Guest, Bunce & Johnson (2006); Faulkner (2003).
3. **"How many independent participants support each insight — or is it a single-source anecdote?"**
Recommended: require recurrence across ≥3 sources before calling it an insight; flag singletons.
Canon: atomic research / ResearchOps; Braun & Clarke thematic analysis.
4. **"Are your interview / usability tasks framed as outcomes (jobs) or as feature reactions?"**
Recommended: frame around the job-to-be-done and recent real behavior, not hypothetical opinion.
Canon: Christensen/Ulwick Jobs-to-be-Done; Portigal *Interviewing Users*.
5. **"Where does this land in the repository, and how is it tagged for reuse?"**
Recommended: tag to the atomic schema at synthesis time, not later.
Canon: Tomer Sharon, *Polaris* / ResearchOps repository practice.
Walk depth-first. Lock 1-2 before opening 3-5. After all are answered, invoke `study_designer.py` → `saturation_planner.py` → (after fielding) `insight_synthesizer.py`.
Choose research methods and organize evidence into an insight repository. Use UX Research and Journey Design for persona/journey artifacts.
The complete original guidance with attributed source and declared limitations.
Clarify the task and evidence, then apply relevant source instructions within authorized scope.
Research question, participants, methods, consented observations and evidence quality.
Brief source danger screening: full-text pattern triage and review of flagged passages, not a comprehensive audit or functional test. Participant recurrence is not a universal confidence guarantee. Respect research consent and data minimization; no global configuration or insight repository is written on load. Referenced scripts, templates, integrations and sibling skills are not supplied or installed unless explicitly listed as included. External calls, account changes, messages and file writes require the actual user task and authorization.
Use Product Research Methods for [TASK]. Ask for missing inputs: Research question, participants, methods, consented observations and evidence quality. Identify assumptions and missing tools before execution; do not claim results or approvals without evidence.
Claiming runtime installation, certified safety, verified numerical outputs or permission for external actions merely from loading this source.
German routing, task scope and source limitations. Original author attribution: claude-code-skills. Brief source danger screening: full-text pattern triage and review of flagged passages, not a comprehensive audit or functional test. Participant recurrence is not a universal confidence guarantee. Respect research consent and data minimization; no global configuration or insight repository is written on load. Referenced scripts, templates, integrations and sibling skills are not supplied or installed unless explicitly listed as included. External calls, account changes, messages and file writes require the actual user task and authorization.
MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Copy the text below, then paste it into your chat.