Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

ai-product-patternsAI 产品模式

Agent Skill

ai-product-patterns 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

504

周安装

21

GitHub Stars

317

下载量

168
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ai-product-patterns(AI 产品模式)
来源仓库:https://github.com/menkesu/awesome-pm-skills
仓库路径:skills/ai-product-patterns
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/menkesu/awesome-pm-skills --skill ai-product-patterns
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/menkesu/awesome-pm-skills --skill ai-product-patterns

简介

AI 原生产品构建模式库聚焦未来模型演进视角,倡导面向指数级改进的设计思维。

  • 适用于搜索推荐、智能生成等 AI 增强功能的全生命周期质量度量与成本控制。
  • 提出 Build for Future Models 原则,要求产品架构预留足够弹性应对模型能力提升。
  • 使用前需建立可量化的 eval 指标体系,区分短期可用性与长期鲁棒性目标。
  • 建议采用渐进式发布策略,通过影子模式验证新模型效果后再全量切换流量。

SKILL.md

AI-Native Product Building

When This Skill Activates

Claude uses this skill when:

  • Integrating AI features (search, recommendations, generation, etc.)
  • Designing product experiences around AI capabilities
  • Implementing evals and quality measurement
  • Optimizing AI costs and latency
  • Building for model improvements over time

Core Frameworks

1. Build for Future Models (Source: Kevin Weil, CPO of OpenAI)

The Exponential Improvement Mindset:

"The AI model you're using today is the worst AI model you will ever use for the rest of your life. What computers can do changes every two months."

Core Principle:

  • Don't design around current model limitations
  • Build assuming capabilities will 10x in 2 months
  • Edge cases today = core use cases tomorrow
  • Make room for model to get smarter

How to Apply:

DON'T:
- "AI can't do X, so we won't support it"
- Build fallbacks that limit model capabilities
- Design UI that assumes current limitations

DO:
- Build interfaces that scale with model improvements
- Design for the capability you want, not current reality
- Test with future models in mind
- Make it easy to swap/upgrade models

Example:

Feature: "AI code review"

❌ Current-Model Thinking:
- "Models can't catch logic bugs, only style"
- Limit to linting and formatting
- Don't even try complex reasoning

✅ Future-Model Thinking:
- Design for full logic review capability
- Start with style, but UI supports deeper analysis
- As models improve, feature gets better automatically
- Progressive: Basic → Advanced → Expert review

2. Evals as Product Specs (Source: Kevin Weil, OpenAI)

Test Cases = Product Requirements:

"At OpenAI, evals are the product spec. If you can define what good looks like in test cases, you've defined the product."

The Approach:

Traditional PM:

Requirement: "Search should return relevant results"

AI-Native PM:

// Eval as Product Spec
const searchEvals = [
  {
    query: "best PM frameworks",
    expectedResults: ["RICE", "LNO", "Jobs-to-be-Done"],
    quality: "all3InTop5",
  },
  {
    query: "how to prioritize features",
    expectedResults: ["Shreyas Doshi", "Marty Cagan"],
    quality: "relevantInTop3",
  },
  {
    query: "shiip prodcut",  // typo
    correctAs: "ship product",
    quality: "handleTypos",
  },
];

How to Write Evals:

1. Define Success Cases:
   - Input: [specific user query/action]
   - Expected: [what good output looks like]
   - Quality bar: [how to measure success]

2. Define Failure Cases:
   - Input: [edge case, adversarial, error]
   - Expected: [graceful handling]
   - Quality bar: [minimum acceptable]

3. Make Evals Runnable:
   - Automated tests
   - Run on every model change
   - Track quality over time

Example:

// Product Requirement as Eval
describe("AI Recommendations", () => {
  test("cold start: new user gets popular items", async () => {
    const newUser = { signupDate: today, interactions: [] };
    const recs = await getRecommendations(newUser);

    expect(recs).toIncludePopularItems();
    expect(recs.length).toBeGreaterThan(5);
  });

  test("personalized: returning user gets relevant items", async () => {
    const user = { interests: ["PM", "AI", "startups"] };
    const recs = await getRecommendations(user);

    expect(recs).toMatchInterests(user.interests);
    expect(recs).toHaveDiversity();  // Not all same topic
  });

  test("quality bar: recommendations >70% click rate", async () => {
    const users = await getTestUsers(100);
    const clickRate = await measureClickRate(users);

    expect(clickRate).toBeGreaterThan(0.7);
  });
});

3. Hybrid Approaches (Source: Kevin Weil)

AI + Traditional Code:

"Don't make everything AI. Use AI where it shines, traditional code where it's reliable."

When to Use AI:

  • Pattern matching, recognition
  • Natural language understanding
  • Creative generation
  • Ambiguous inputs
  • Improving over time

When to Use Traditional Code:

  • Deterministic logic
  • Math, calculations
  • Data validation
  • Access control
  • Critical paths

Hybrid Patterns:

Pattern 1: AI for Intent, Code for Execution

// Hybrid: AI understands, code executes
async function processUserQuery(query) {
  // AI: Understand intent
  const intent = await ai.classify(query, {
    types: ["search", "create", "update", "delete"]
  });

  // Traditional: Execute deterministically
  switch(intent.type) {
    case "search": return search(intent.params);
    case "create": return create(intent.params);
    // ... reliable code paths
  }
}

Pattern 2: AI with Rule-Based Fallbacks

// Hybrid: AI primary, rules backup
async function moderateContent(content) {
  // Fast rules-based check first
  if (containsProfanity(content)) return "reject";
  if (content.length > 10000) return "reject";

  // AI for nuanced cases
  const aiModeration = await ai.moderate(content);

  // Hybrid decision
  if (aiModeration.confidence > 0.9) {
    return aiModeration.decision;
  } else {
    return "human_review";  // Uncertain → human
  }
}

Pattern 3: AI + Ranking/Filtering

// Hybrid: AI generates, code filters
async function generateRecommendations(user) {
  // AI: Generate candidates
  const candidates = await ai.recommend(user, { count: 50 });

  // Code: Apply business rules
  const filtered = candidates
    .filter(item => item.inStock)
    .filter(item => item.price <= user.budget)
    .filter(item => !user.previouslyPurchased(item));

  // Code: Apply ranking logic
  return filtered
    .sort((a, b) => scoringFunction(a, b))
    .slice(0, 10);
}

4. AI UX Patterns

Streaming:

// Show results as they arrive
for await (const chunk of ai.stream(prompt)) {
  updateUI(chunk);  // Immediate feedback
}

Progressive Disclosure:

[AI working...]  →  [Preview...]  →  [Full results]

Retry and Refinement:

User: "Find PM articles"
AI: [shows results]
User: "More about prioritization"
AI: [refines results]

Confidence Indicators:

if (result.confidence > 0.9) {
  show(result);  // High confidence
} else if (result.confidence > 0.5) {
  show(result, { disclaimer: "AI-generated, verify" });
} else {
  show("I'm not confident. Try rephrasing?");
}

Cost-Aware Patterns:

// Progressive cost
if (simpleQuery) {
  return await smallModel(query);  // Fast, cheap
} else {
  return await largeModel(query);  // Slow, expensive
}

Decision Tree: When to Use AI

FEATURE DECISION
│
├─ Deterministic logic needed? ────YES──→ TRADITIONAL CODE
│  (math, validation, access)
│  NO ↓
│
├─ Pattern matching / NLP? ────────YES──→ AI (with fallbacks)
│  (understanding intent, ambiguity)
│  NO ↓
│
├─ Creative generation? ───────────YES──→ AI (with human oversight)
│  (writing, images, ideas)
│  NO ↓
│
├─ Improves with more data? ───────YES──→ AI + ML
│  (recommendations, personalization)
│  NO ↓
│
└─ Use TRADITIONAL CODE ←──────────────────┘
   (More reliable for this use case)

Action Templates

Template 1: AI Feature Spec with Evals

# AI Feature: [Name]

## What It Does
User goal: [describe job to be done]
AI capability: [what AI makes possible]

## Evals (Product Spec)

### Success Cases

test("handles typical user query", async () => { const input = "[example]"; const output = await aiFeature(input); expect(output).toMatch("[expected]"); });

test("handles edge case", async () => { // Define edge cases as tests });


### Quality Bar

- Accuracy: [X%]
- Latency: [<X ms]
- Cost: [<$X per 1000 calls]

## Hybrid Approach

- AI handles: [list]
- Traditional code handles: [list]
- Fallback: [when AI uncertain]

## Model Improvement Plan

- Today's capability: [current]
- Expected in 3 months: [future]
- Design accommodates: [how UI scales]

Template 2: AI Cost Optimization

# AI Feature: [Name]

## Cost Structure
- Model: [GPT-4, Claude, etc.]
- Cost per call: [$X]
- Expected volume: [X calls/day]
- Monthly cost: [estimate]

## Optimization Strategies

### 1. Caching
- [ ] Cache common queries
- [ ] Cache user context
- [ ] Expiry: [duration]

### 2. Model Routing
- [ ] Simple queries → small model
- [ ] Complex queries → large model
- [ ] Threshold: [define]

### 3. Batching
- [ ] Group similar requests
- [ ] Process in batches
- [ ] Update frequency: [timing]

### 4. Prompt Optimization
- [ ] Minimize token count
- [ ] Reusable system prompts
- [ ] Structured outputs (JSON)

### 5. Hybrid Approaches
- [ ] Rules-based preprocessing
- [ ] AI only when needed
- [ ] Fallback to deterministic

Template 3: AI UX Implementation

# Feature: [Name]

## UX Patterns

### Streaming Response

// Show results as they arrive for await (const chunk of stream) { appendToUI(chunk); }


### Loading States

- Initial: "Thinking..."
- Progress: "Analyzing..." (if possible)
- Complete: [show results]

### Error Handling

- Model error: "Something went wrong, try again"
- Timeout: "This is taking longer than expected..."
- Rate limit: "Too many requests, please wait"

### Confidence Display

- High (>0.9): Show results directly
- Medium (0.5-0.9): Show with disclaimer
- Low (<0.5): Ask user to clarify

### Refinement Loop

- Show initial results
- "Refine" button
- Conversational refinement

Quick Reference Card

🤖 AI Product Checklist

Before Building:

  • [ ] Evals written (test cases = product spec)
  • [ ] Hybrid approach defined (AI + traditional code)
  • [ ] Model improvement plan (design for future capabilities)
  • [ ] Cost estimate (per call, monthly)
  • [ ] Quality bar defined (accuracy, latency, cost)

During Build:

  • [ ] Implementing streaming (for responsiveness)
  • [ ] Adding confidence indicators
  • [ ] Building retry/refinement flows
  • [ ] Caching common queries
  • [ ] Fallbacks for failures

Before Ship:

  • [ ] Evals passing (quality bar met)
  • [ ] Cost within budget
  • [ ] Error states handled
  • [ ] Model swappable (not locked to one provider)
  • [ ] Monitoring in place

Real-World Examples

Example 1: OpenAI's ChatGPT Memory

Challenge: Users want persistent context

AI-Native Approach:

  • Built for models that would improve memory
  • Started simple, designed for sophisticated future
  • Evals: "Remembers facts across sessions"
  • Hybrid: Explicit memory + AI interpretation

Result: Feature improves as models improve


Example 2: AI Search Implementation

Challenge: Traditional search missing intent

Hybrid Approach:

async function search(query) {
  // Traditional: Exact matches (fast, cheap)
  const exactMatches = await traditionalSearch(query);
  if (exactMatches.length > 10) return exactMatches;

  // AI: Semantic search (smart, expensive)
  const semanticResults = await aiSearch(query);

  // Hybrid: Combine and rank
  return dedupe([...exactMatches, ...semanticResults]);
}

Example 3: Cost Optimization

Challenge: AI costs too high

Solution:

  • Cached 80% of common queries
  • Routed simple queries to small model
  • Batched recommendations (not real-time)
  • Reduced cost 10x while maintaining quality

Common Pitfalls

❌ Mistake 1: AI for Everything

Problem: Using AI where traditional code is better Fix: Use hybrid approach - AI where it shines, code where it's reliable

❌ Mistake 2: Designing for Current Limitations

Problem: "Models can't do X, so we won't support it" Fix: Build for future capabilities, room to grow

❌ Mistake 3: No Evals

Problem: Subjective quality, no measurement Fix: Evals as product specs - define good in test cases

❌ Mistake 4: Ignoring Costs

Problem: Expensive AI calls without optimization Fix: Cache, batch, route to smaller models


Related Skills

  • zero-to-launch - For AI-first MVP scoping
  • quality-speed - For balancing AI quality vs latency
  • exp-driven-dev - For A/B testing AI features
  • metrics-frameworks - For measuring AI quality

Key Quotes

Kevin Weil:

"If you're building and the product is right on the edge of what's possible, keep going. In two months, there's going to be a better model."

On Evals:

"At OpenAI, we write evals as product specs. If you can define good output in test cases, you've defined the product."

On Model Improvements:

"The AI model you're using today is the worst AI model you will ever use for the rest of your life."

Further Learning

  • references/openai-ai-first-philosophy.md - Full AI-native methodology
  • references/evals-examples.md - Sample evals for common features
  • references/hybrid-patterns.md - AI + traditional code patterns
  • references/ai-cost-optimization.md - Cost reduction strategies

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.98%
按下载量换算59

Claude

27.74%
按下载量换算47

Cursor

18.56%
按下载量换算31

Gemini CLI

10.06%
按下载量换算17

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills