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

product-discovery产品发现

Agent Skill

product-discovery 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

2,097

周安装

84

GitHub Stars

85

下载量

679
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:product-discovery(产品发现)
来源仓库:https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills
仓库路径:skills/product-discovery
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill product-discovery
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/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill product-discovery

简介

产品发现技能用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。

  • 适用于用户需求挖掘、功能机会识别或竞品情报收集。
  • 可在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中作为研究模块运行。
  • 安装前建议审查其是否具备爬取公开网页或访问第三方 API 的能力。
  • product-discovery 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Product Discovery

Build products customers actually want. Apply Marty Cagan's Silicon Valley-tested framework to discover solutions that are valuable, usable, feasible, and viable.

When to Use This Skill

  • New product development when validating what to build
  • Feature prioritization to ensure you're solving real problems
  • Pivot decisions when current direction isn't working
  • Team alignment on what problems to solve
  • Risk reduction before committing development resources
  • Continuous discovery to maintain product-market fit

Methodology Foundation

AspectDetails
SourceMarty Cagan - Inspired (2008, 2018) and Empowered (2020)
Core Principle"Fall in love with the problem, not the solution. The best product teams discover what customers need, not just what they ask for."
Why This MattersMost products fail not because they're built poorly, but because they solve the wrong problem. Discovery ensures you build the right thing before you build the thing right.

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

Claude DoesYou Decide
Structures content frameworksFinal messaging
Suggests persuasion techniquesBrand voice
Creates draft variationsVersion selection
Identifies optimization opportunitiesPublication timing
Analyzes competitor approachesStrategic direction

What This Skill Does

  1. Frames the four risks - Value, usability, feasibility, viability
  2. Distinguishes discovery from delivery - Different mindsets, different processes
  3. Teaches opportunity assessment - Which problems to solve
  4. Develops prototyping skills - Test ideas before building
  5. Guides customer research - Learn what customers need (not want)
  6. Structures continuous discovery - Ongoing learning, not one-time research

How to Use

Assess a Product Opportunity

I'm considering building [feature/product].
Apply product discovery principles to assess this opportunity.
Context: [target customer, current state, hypothesis]

Reduce Risk Before Building

We're about to build [feature].
Help me identify the key risks and design tests to address them.

Set Up Continuous Discovery

I want to implement continuous discovery for my product team.
Help me design a weekly discovery rhythm.

Instructions

Step 1: Understand the Four Risks

## The Four Product Risks

Every product idea has four risks to address BEFORE building:

### 1. Value Risk
"Will customers buy/use this?"

**Questions:**
- Does this solve a real problem?
- Is the problem painful enough to pay/switch for?
- Will users actually adopt this?

**Tests:**
- Customer interviews
- Demand testing
- Fake door tests
- Concierge MVP

### 2. Usability Risk
"Can customers figure out how to use it?"

**Questions:**
- Is it intuitive?
- Can users accomplish their goals?
- What's the learning curve?

**Tests:**
- Prototype testing
- Usability studies
- Wizard of Oz tests
- A/B tests on UX

### 3. Feasibility Risk
"Can we build this?"

**Questions:**
- Do we have the technology?
- Can we do it in reasonable time?
- What are the technical dependencies?

**Tests:**
- Technical spike
- Proof of concept
- Architecture review
- Build vs. buy analysis

### 4. Viability Risk
"Should we build this?"

**Questions:**
- Does it fit our strategy?
- Can we support/maintain it?
- Is it legal/compliant?
- Does the business model work?

**Tests:**
- Business case
- Stakeholder review
- Compliance review
- Financial modeling

Step 2: Discovery vs. Delivery

## Two Tracks: Discovery and Delivery

### Discovery (Figure out WHAT to build)

**Mindset:**
- Embrace uncertainty
- Test assumptions
- Fail fast and cheap
- Learn over deliver

**Activities:**
- Customer interviews
- Prototyping
- Experiments
- Opportunity assessment

**Outcome:**
- Validated problems
- Tested solutions
- Confidence to build
- Clear success metrics

### Delivery (BUILD it right)

**Mindset:**
- Reduce uncertainty
- Execute efficiently
- Ship quality
- Hit timelines

**Activities:**
- Engineering
- QA
- Launch prep
- Documentation

**Outcome:**
- Working software
- Happy customers
- Business impact
- Technical quality

### The Critical Point

Most teams skip discovery and jump to delivery.

**Result:**
- Build features no one wants
- Waste engineering resources
- Miss market opportunities
- Frustrated team, frustrated customers

**The ratio:**
Spend 10-20% of time on discovery to avoid wasting
80-90% of delivery time on wrong things.

Step 3: Opportunity Assessment

## Assessing Product Opportunities

### The Opportunity Assessment Framework

Before committing to solve a problem, answer:

**1. Is this problem worth solving?**
| Factor | Questions |
|--------|-----------|
| **Frequency** | How often does this problem occur? |
| **Intensity** | How painful is it when it happens? |
| **Willingness** | Will people pay/switch to solve it? |
| **Reach** | How many customers have this problem? |

**Scoring:**
- High frequency + High intensity = Strong opportunity
- Low frequency OR Low intensity = Weak opportunity

**2. Can we solve it effectively?**
| Factor | Questions |
|--------|-----------|
| **Capability** | Do we have the skills/tech? |
| **Fit** | Does it align with our strategy? |
| **Uniqueness** | Can we solve it better than alternatives? |
| **Sustainability** | Can we maintain competitive advantage? |

**3. Should we solve it now?**
| Factor | Questions |
|--------|-----------|
| **Urgency** | Is timing critical? |
| **Resources** | Do we have capacity? |
| **Dependencies** | What else needs to happen first? |
| **Opportunity cost** | What are we NOT doing instead? |

### Opportunity Score Card

Opportunity: [Name]

Problem Assessment

  • Frequency: [1-5]
  • Intensity: [1-5]
  • Willingness to pay/switch: [1-5]
  • Market size: [1-5] Problem Score: [Average]

Solution Assessment

  • Technical feasibility: [1-5]
  • Strategic fit: [1-5]
  • Competitive advantage: [1-5] Solution Score: [Average]

Timing Assessment

  • Urgency: [1-5]
  • Resource availability: [1-5] Timing Score: [Average]

Overall: [Problem × Solution × Timing = X]

Recommendation: [Pursue / Park / Pass]


Step 4: Discovery Techniques

## Core Discovery Techniques

### 1. Customer Interviews

**Purpose:** Understand problems, not validate solutions

**Structure:**
1. Context: Understand their current situation
2. Problem: Explore the pain points
3. Impact: How does it affect them?
4. Current solutions: What do they do today?
5. Ideal state: What would "solved" look like?

**Key rules:**
- Ask about past behavior, not future intentions
- Don't pitch, just listen
- Follow the emotion
- Get specific stories

**Questions:**
- "Walk me through the last time this happened..."
- "What did you do? What happened next?"
- "Why was that a problem?"
- "What would have made it better?"

### 2. Prototyping

**Purpose:** Test solutions before building

**Types:**
| Type | Fidelity | Tests | Time |
|------|----------|-------|------|
| **Paper sketch** | Low | Concepts, flow | Hours |
| **Wireframe** | Low-Med | Structure, navigation | Days |
| **Clickable prototype** | Medium | Usability, flow | Days |
| **Wizard of Oz** | High | Full experience | Weeks |

**Principle:**
Use the lowest fidelity that tests your hypothesis.
Higher fidelity = More time = More risk of attachment.

### 3. Experiments

**Purpose:** Test assumptions with real behavior

**Types:**
- **Fake door:** Button for feature that doesn't exist
- **Smoke test:** Landing page before building
- **Concierge:** Manual delivery of automated value
- **A/B test:** Compare variations with real users

**Structure:**
1. Hypothesis: "We believe [X]"
2. Test: "We will test by [Y]"
3. Metric: "We will measure [Z]"
4. Success: "[Number] indicates we should proceed"

### 4. Opportunity Solution Trees

**Purpose:** Map problem space to solution space

**Structure:**
        [Desired Outcome]
               |
┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
|              |              |

[Opportunity 1] [Opportunity 2] [Opportunity 3] | | | ┌─┴─┐ ┌─┴─┐ ┌─┴─┐ | | | | | | [S1] [S2] [S1] [S2] [S1] [S2]

- Start with business outcome
- Break into opportunities (problems to solve)
- Brainstorm solutions for each opportunity
- Test solutions, not opportunities

Step 5: Continuous Discovery

## Weekly Discovery Rhythm

### The Cadence

**Monday: Prep**
- Review last week's learnings
- Prioritize this week's questions
- Schedule interviews/tests

**Tuesday-Thursday: Research**
- Customer interviews (2-3 per week minimum)
- Prototype testing
- Data analysis
- Experiment monitoring

**Friday: Synthesis**
- Consolidate learnings
- Update opportunity assessment
- Share with delivery team
- Plan next week

### The Habits

**1. Weekly customer touchpoint**
- Minimum: 2-3 customer conversations/week
- Mix: Prospects, users, churned customers

**2. Assumption tracking**
- List key assumptions
- Design tests for riskiest ones
- Document learnings

**3. Experiment backlog**
- Always have 2-3 experiments running
- Quick iterations over perfect tests

**4. Cross-functional involvement**
- Engineering in discovery
- Design in customer calls
- PM facilitates, doesn't dictate

### The Anti-Patterns

**Discovery theater:**
- Doing research but not changing decisions
- Fix: Tie discovery directly to roadmap decisions

**Big bang research:**
- Quarterly research sprints instead of continuous
- Fix: Small, frequent over large, infrequent

**Validation bias:**
- Only seeking confirmation
- Fix: Actively try to disprove hypotheses

Examples

Example 1: New Feature Discovery

Input:

"We're thinking of adding a calendar integration to our project management tool. How do I validate this before we build it?"

Output:

Discovery Plan: Calendar Integration

Risk Assessment

RiskLevelReason
ValueHIGHUnclear if this solves a real problem
UsabilityMEDIUMCalendar UI is complex
FeasibilityLOWKnown integrations (Google, Outlook)
ViabilityLOWFits product strategy

Focus discovery on: Value risk (first), then Usability

Discovery Activities

Week 1: Understand the Problem

Customer Interviews (5-8 interviews)

Target: Current users who manage time-sensitive projects

Questions:

  1. "Walk me through how you schedule work for your team right now."
  2. "What happens when deadlines slip? How do you find out?"
  3. "What role does your calendar play in project management?"
  4. "What's frustrating about keeping projects and calendars in sync?"
  5. "Show me the last time you missed something because of calendar/project disconnect."

What you're listening for:

  • Is there a real pain? How intense?
  • What workarounds do they use today?
  • Is this a "nice to have" or "need to have"?

Week 2: Assess Demand

Fake Door Test

  1. Add "Calendar Sync (Coming Soon)" button to settings
  2. When clicked: "Thanks for your interest! Join the waitlist."
  3. Track: Click rate, waitlist conversions

Success criteria:

  • 5% of MAU click the button = Strong signal
  • 2-5% = Moderate signal
  • <2% = Weak signal

Existing data analysis:

  • How many users mention "calendar" in support tickets?
  • What integrations do users currently connect?
  • Are users with calendar tools more or less engaged?

Week 3: Test Solutions

Prototype Test (if Week 1-2 show signal)

Low-fidelity prototype showing:

  1. Calendar sync setup flow
  2. How synced events appear
  3. Conflict resolution

Test with 5 users:

  • Can they set it up without help?
  • Does it match their mental model?
  • What's confusing?

Wizard of Oz Test

For 10 users:

  1. Manually sync their calendar items to projects
  2. Send them a summary email daily
  3. Interview after 1 week: Was this valuable?

Decision Framework

FindingDecision
Strong value signal + usable prototypeBuild it
Strong value signal + usability issuesRedesign, retest
Weak value signalDon't build, park idea
Value for subset onlyConsider scope/segmentation

Timeline

  • Week 1: Interviews → Problem understanding
  • Week 2: Fake door + data → Demand validation
  • Week 3: Prototype → Solution validation
  • Week 4: Synthesize → Build decision

Total discovery investment: 4 weeks, ~40 hours vs. building without discovery: 3-6 months of engineering


Example 2: Continuous Discovery Setup

Input:

"I'm a PM at a B2B SaaS startup. We don't do any formal discovery—we just build what customers ask for or what the CEO wants. How do I start continuous discovery?"

Output:

Continuous Discovery Kickstart

Start Small, Build Habits

Don't try to:

  • Redesign your entire process
  • Stop all current development
  • Hire a research team

Do:

  • Add one discovery habit per week
  • Start with what you control
  • Show value quickly

Week 1: Customer Conversation Habit

Action: Schedule 2 customer calls for next week.

Who to talk to:

  • 1 customer who recently churned or downgraded
  • 1 customer who recently upgraded or is highly engaged

Script: "We're working to make [product] better for people like you. I'd love 20 minutes to understand how you're using it and what we could improve. Not a sales call—just learning."

After each call: Write 3-5 bullet points:

  • What problem were they trying to solve?
  • What's working? What's not?
  • What surprised me?

Week 2: Assumption Tracking

Action: For any feature in development, list the top 3 assumptions.

Example format:

Feature: New onboarding flow
Assumptions:
1. Users don't complete onboarding because it's too long
2. Users who complete onboarding retain better
3. Users want to invite teammates during onboarding

Evidence level:
1. Assumption (no evidence)
2. Validated (we have data)
3. Assumption (no evidence)

Share with team: "Here are our assumptions. Which are we most uncertain about? How could we test them?"

Week 3: Add Interview Question

Action: Add one discovery question to every customer call (support, sales, success).

The question: "What's the biggest challenge you're facing right now that we don't currently help with?"

Collect answers: Shared doc/Slack channel where team posts responses.

Weekly review: "We talked to 8 customers. Here's what we heard about challenges..."

Week 4: Small Experiment

Action: Run one small experiment.

Simple options:

  • Survey in-app about a proposed feature
  • Fake door for feature idea
  • A/B test on onboarding

Share results: "We tested [X]. Here's what we learned: [Y]. This changes our thinking about [Z]."

Building Executive Buy-In

Don't ask for permission. Show value.

After 4 weeks, share:

  • "We talked to 8 customers. Here's what we learned."
  • "We ran one experiment. It told us [X]."
  • "This prevented us from building [feature] that data shows customers don't actually need."

The pitch: "I'm not asking for a big research investment. I'm spending 2-3 hours per week talking to customers and running small tests. It's already helping us prioritize better."

Scaling Up

Once habits are established (4-8 weeks):

  1. Formalize interview cadence: 2-3/week team standard
  2. Create opportunity backlog: Problems we might solve
  3. Link to roadmap: Discovery informs what we build
  4. Involve engineering: Engineers in customer calls

Example 3: Opportunity Assessment

Input:

"We have three potential features to build: (A) AI-powered suggestions, (B) Team collaboration improvements, (C) Mobile app. How do I assess which to prioritize?"

Output:

Opportunity Assessment: Feature Prioritization

Opportunity A: AI-Powered Suggestions

Problem Assessment

FactorScoreReasoning
Frequency3Daily use case
Intensity2Nice to have, not painful without
Willingness to pay2Market expects AI, but is it differential?
Market size4Applies to most users
Problem Score2.75

Solution Assessment

FactorScoreReasoning
Feasibility3ML expertise needed, but doable
Strategic fit4Aligns with "intelligent product" vision
Competitive advantage2Easy for others to copy
Solution Score3.0

Key Risks:

  • Value: Will suggestions be good enough to use?
  • Feasibility: Do we have ML talent?
  • Viability: Training data requirements, cost

Opportunity Score: 8.25


Opportunity B: Team Collaboration

Problem Assessment

FactorScoreReasoning
Frequency5Multiple times daily for teams
Intensity4Current friction causing workarounds
Willingness to pay4Team pricing tier exists
Market size3Only applies to team accounts
Problem Score4.0

Solution Assessment

FactorScoreReasoning
Feasibility4Standard features, known patterns
Strategic fit5Directly supports growth strategy
Competitive advantage3Differentiation possible but not huge
Solution Score4.0

Key Risks:

  • Value: Which specific collaboration features matter?
  • Usability: Team features can get complex quickly

Opportunity Score: 16.0


Opportunity C: Mobile App

Problem Assessment

FactorScoreReasoning
Frequency3Some users want mobile, most desktop
Intensity4Mobile users are very frustrated
Willingness to pay2Expectation, not premium feature
Market size2Only subset of users need mobile
Problem Score2.75

Solution Assessment

FactorScoreReasoning
Feasibility2Major effort (iOS + Android + maintain)
Strategic fit3Not core to current positioning
Competitive advantage2Table stakes, not differential
Solution Score2.33

Key Risks:

  • Viability: Ongoing maintenance cost
  • Feasibility: Native vs. cross-platform decisions

Opportunity Score: 6.4


Summary & Recommendation

OpportunityProblemSolutionScoreRank
Team Collaboration4.04.016.01st
AI Suggestions2.753.08.252nd
Mobile App2.752.336.43rd

Recommendation:

  1. Prioritize Team Collaboration

- Highest problem intensity - Clear strategic fit - Feasible to build

  1. Park AI Suggestions for now

- Validate value risk first - Consider: What specific suggestions would be valuable? - Test with simple rules before ML

  1. Deprioritize Mobile App

- High effort, limited reach - Consider: Progressive web app as interim? - Revisit when team collaboration is strong

Next Steps:

  • Run 5 interviews focused on team collaboration pain points
  • Identify top 3 specific collaboration problems
  • Prototype and test before committing to full build

Checklists & Templates

Discovery Kickoff Checklist

## Before Starting Discovery

### Define the Scope
□ What outcome are we trying to achieve?
□ What problem might we solve?
□ Who is the target customer?
□ What's the timeline for decision?

### Identify Assumptions
□ List top 10 assumptions about problem and solution
□ Rank by risk level (if wrong, how bad?)
□ Identify top 3 to test first

### Plan Activities
□ Customer interviews scheduled (minimum 5)
□ Data/analytics to review identified
□ Prototype or experiment designed
□ Success criteria defined

### Align Team
□ Cross-functional team identified
□ Discovery goals shared
□ Calendar blocked for activities

Discovery Summary Template

## Discovery Summary: [Feature/Opportunity]

### Problem Statement
[What problem are we solving? For whom?]

### Research Conducted
- [X] customer interviews
- [X] data analyses
- [X] prototype tests
- [X] experiments

### Key Findings

**What we learned about the problem:**
1.
2.
3.

**What we learned about solutions:**
1.
2.
3.

### Risk Assessment

| Risk | Level | Mitigation |
|------|-------|------------|
| Value | | |
| Usability | | |
| Feasibility | | |
| Viability | | |

### Recommendation
[Build / Don't Build / Need More Discovery]

### If Building, Success Metrics
- Metric 1:
- Metric 2:
- Metric 3:

Skill Boundaries

What This Skill Does Well

  • Structuring persuasive content
  • Applying copywriting frameworks
  • Creating draft variations
  • Analyzing competitor approaches

What This Skill Cannot Do

  • Guarantee conversion rates
  • Replace brand voice development
  • Know your specific audience
  • Make final approval decisions

References

  • Cagan, Marty. "Inspired: How to Create Tech Products Customers Love" (2018)
  • Cagan, Marty & Jones, Chris. "Empowered" (2020)
  • Torres, Teresa. "Continuous Discovery Habits" (2021)
  • Silicon Valley Product Group (SVPG) resources
  • Intercom on Product Management

Related Skills


Skill Metadata

  • Mode: cyborg
name: product-discovery
category: product
subcategory: methodology
version: 1.0
author: MKTG Skills
source_expert: Marty Cagan
source_work: Inspired, Empowered
difficulty: intermediate
estimated_value: $10,000+ product consulting engagement
tags: [product, discovery, validation, PM, Cagan, SVPG, risk, prototyping]
created: 2026-01-25
updated: 2026-01-25

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238

Claude

30.36%
按下载量换算206

Cursor

18.48%
按下载量换算125

Gemini CLI

8.34%
按下载量换算57

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