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

pol-probe聚合探针

Agent Skill

pol-probe 用于记录任务执行中的错误、用户纠正、经验和能力缺口,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中希望让 Agent 持续沉淀问题、修正和最佳实践时使用。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

18,565

周安装

751

GitHub Stars

3,917

下载量

5,828
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:pol-probe(聚合探针)
来源仓库:https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills
仓库路径:skills/pol-probe
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill pol-probe
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/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill pol-probe

简介

用于在昂贵的产品开发之前测试风险假设的轻量级验证框架。

  • 定义与特定学习目标而不是工具偏好相匹配的五种原型风格(可行性检查、以任务为中心的测试、叙述原型、合成数据模拟、振动编码探针)
  • 强调可处置性和狭窄范围:PoL 探测器是侦察任务,旨在揭露严酷的事实并被删除,而不是扩展为 MVP
  • 包括带有假设、成功标准、时间表和明确处置计划的填写模板,以防止沉没成本谬误和原型剧院
  • 质量检查表确保探针保持轻量级(1-3 天)、可证伪,并在投入工程资源之前专注于一种特定风险或未知风险

SKILL.md

Purpose

Define and document a Proof of Life (PoL) probe—a lightweight, disposable validation artifact designed to surface harsh truths before expensive development. Use this when you need to eliminate a specific risk or test a narrow hypothesis without building production-quality software. PoL probes are reconnaissance missions, not MVPs—they're meant to be deleted, not scaled.

This framework prevents prototype theater (expensive demos that impress stakeholders but teach nothing) and forces you to match validation method to actual learning goal.

Key Concepts

What is a PoL Probe?

A Proof of Life (PoL) probe is a deliberate, disposable validation experiment designed to answer one specific question as cheaply and quickly as possible. It's not a product, not an MVP, not a pilot—it's a targeted truth-seeking mission.

Origin: Coined by Dean Peters (Productside), building on Marty Cagan's 2014 work on prototype flavors and Jeff Patton's principle: *"The most expensive way to test your idea is to build production-quality software."*


The 5 Essential Characteristics

Every PoL probe must satisfy these criteria:

CharacteristicWhat It MeansWhy It Matters
LightweightMinimal resource investment (hours/days, not weeks)If it's expensive, you'll avoid killing it when the data says to
DisposableExplicitly planned for deletion, not scalingPrevents sunk-cost fallacy and scope creep
Narrow ScopeTests one specific hypothesis or riskBroad experiments yield ambiguous results
Brutally HonestSurfaces harsh truths, not vanity metricsPolite data is useless data
Tiny & FocusedReconnaissance missions, never MVPsSmall surface area = faster learning cycles

Anti-Pattern: If your "prototype" feels too polished to delete, it's not a PoL probe—it's prototype theater.


PoL Probe vs. MVP

DimensionPoL ProbeMVP
PurposeDe-risk decisions through narrow hypothesis testingJustify ideas or defend roadmap direction
ScopeSingle question, single riskSmallest shippable product increment
LifespanHours to days, then deletedWeeks to months, then iterated
AudienceInternal team + narrow user sampleReal customers in production
FidelityJust enough illusion to catch signalsProduction-quality (or close)
OutcomeLearn what *doesn't* workLearn what *does* work (and ship it)

Key Distinction: PoL probes are pre-MVP reconnaissance. You run probes to decide *if* you should build an MVP, not to launch something.


The 5 Prototype Flavors

Match the probe type to your hypothesis, not your tooling comfort.

TypeCore QuestionTimelineTools/MethodsWhen to Use
1. Feasibility Checks"Can we build this?"1-2 daysGenAI prompt chains, API tests, data integrity sweeps, spike-and-delete codeTechnical risk is unknown; third-party dependencies unclear
2. Task-Focused Tests"Can users complete this job without friction?"2-5 daysOptimal Workshop, UsabilityHub, task flowsCritical moments (field labels, decision points, drop-off zones) need validation
3. Narrative Prototypes"Does this workflow earn stakeholder buy-in?"1-3 daysLoom walkthroughs, Sora/Synthesia videos, slideware storyboardsYou need to "tell vs. test"—share the story, measure interest
4. Synthetic Data Simulations"Can we model this without production risk?"2-4 daysSynthea (user simulation), DataStax LangFlow (prompt logic testing)Edge case exploration; unknown-unknown surfacing
5. Vibe-Coded PoL Probes"Will this solution survive real user contact?"2-3 daysChatGPT Canvas + Replit + Airtable = "Frankensoft"You need user feedback on workflow/UX, but not production-grade code

Golden Rule: *"Use the cheapest prototype that tells the harshest truth. If it doesn't sting, it's probably just theater."*


When to Use a PoL Probe

Use a PoL probe when:

  • You have a specific, falsifiable hypothesis to test
  • A particular risk blocks your next decision (technical feasibility, user task completion, stakeholder support)
  • You need harsh truth fast (within days, not weeks)
  • Building production software would be premature or wasteful
  • You can articulate what "failure" looks like before you start

Don't use a PoL probe when:

  • You're trying to impress executives (that's prototype theater)
  • You already know the answer and just want validation (that's confirmation bias)
  • You can't articulate a clear hypothesis or disposal plan
  • The learning goal is too broad ("Will customers like this?")
  • You're using it to avoid making a hard decision

Application

Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.

PoL Probe Template

Use this structure to document your probe:

# PoL Probe: [Descriptive Name]

## Hypothesis
[One-sentence statement of what you believe to be true]
Example: "If we reduce the onboarding form to 3 fields, completion rate will exceed 80%."

## Risk Being Eliminated
[What specific risk or unknown are you addressing?]
Example: "We don't know if users will abandon signup due to form length."

## Prototype Type
[Select one of the 5 flavors]
- [ ] Feasibility Check
- [ ] Task-Focused Test
- [ ] Narrative Prototype
- [ ] Synthetic Data Simulation
- [x] Vibe-Coded PoL Probe

## Target Users / Audience
[Who will interact with this probe?]
Example: "10 users from our early access waitlist, non-technical SMB owners."

## Success Criteria (Harsh Truth)
[What truth are you seeking? What would prove you wrong?]
- **Pass:** 8+ users complete signup in under 2 minutes
- **Fail:** <6 users complete, or average time exceeds 5 minutes
- **Learn:** Identify specific drop-off fields

## Tools / Stack
[What will you use to build this?]
Example: "ChatGPT Canvas for form UI, Airtable for data capture, Loom for post-session interviews."

## Timeline
- **Build:** 2 days
- **Test:** 1 day (10 user sessions)
- **Analyze:** 1 day
- **Disposal:** Day 5 (delete all code, keep learnings doc)

## Disposal Plan
[When and how will you delete this?]
Example: "After user sessions complete, archive recordings, delete Frankensoft code, document learnings in Notion."

## Owner
[Who is accountable for running and disposing of this probe?]

## Status
- [ ] Hypothesis defined
- [ ] Probe built
- [ ] Users recruited
- [ ] Testing complete
- [ ] Learnings documented
- [ ] Probe disposed

Quality Checklist

Before launching your PoL probe, verify:

  • Lightweight: Can you build this in 1-3 days?
  • Disposable: Have you committed to a disposal date?
  • Narrow Scope: Does it test ONE hypothesis?
  • Brutally Honest: Will the data hurt if you're wrong?
  • Tiny & Focused: Is this smaller than an MVP?
  • Falsifiable: Can you describe what "failure" looks like?
  • Clear Owner: Is one person accountable for executing and disposing of this?

If any answer is "no," revise your probe or reconsider whether you need one.


Examples

See examples/sample.md for full PoL probe examples.

Mini example excerpt:

**Hypothesis:** Users can distinguish "archive" vs "delete"
**Probe Type:** Task-Focused Test
**Pass:** 80%+ correct interpretation

Common Pitfalls

  • Running a broad "will users like this?" experiment instead of testing one falsifiable hypothesis
  • Treating a PoL probe as a proto-MVP and refusing to dispose of it
  • Using vanity metrics that avoid uncomfortable truth
  • Skipping a pre-defined failure threshold before testing begins
  • Choosing tools first and hypothesis second

References

Related Skills

External Frameworks

  • Jeff Patton — *User Story Mapping* (lean validation principles)
  • Marty Cagan — *Inspired* (2014 prototype flavors framework)
  • Dean Peters*Vibe First, Validate Fast, Verify Fit* (Dean Peters' Substack, 2025)

Tools Mentioned

  • Feasibility: GenAI (ChatGPT, Claude), API testing tools
  • Task-Focused: Optimal Workshop, UsabilityHub
  • Narrative: Loom, Sora, Synthesia, Veo3 (text-to-video)
  • Synthetic Data: Synthea (patient simulation), DataStax LangFlow
  • Vibe-Coded: ChatGPT Canvas, Replit, Airtable, Carrd

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

36.23%
按下载量换算2,111

Claude

31.88%
按下载量换算1,858

Cursor

18.7%
按下载量换算1,090

Gemini CLI

9.89%
按下载量换算576

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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