Best for
- Use when the user mentions "continuous discovery", "opportunity solution tree", "weekly interviews", "assumption testing", "discovery habits", "product trio", "outcome-based roadmap", "how do I talk to customers regular…
wondelai/skills/continuous-discovery/SKILL.md
Build a weekly cadence of customer touchpoints using Opportunity Solution Trees, assumption mapping, and interview snapshots. Use when the user mentions "continuous discovery", "opportunity solution tree", "weekly interviews", "assumption testing", "discovery habits", "product trio", "outcome-based roadmap", "how do I talk to customers regularly", "we keep building things nobody uses", or "connect research to the roadmap". Also trigger when setting up regular customer feedback loops, prioritizin
Decision brief
Framework for building a sustainable weekly practice of customer discovery that keeps product teams progressing toward desired outcomes. Discovery is not a phase before development — it is embedded in the ongoing rhythm of product work so every decision is informed by fresh evid…
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/wondelai/skills --skill "continuous-discovery"Inspect the Agent Skill "continuous-discovery" from https://github.com/wondelai/skills/blob/dd37ee506ff558e939b3d421557987cced49b866/continuous-discovery/SKILL.md at commit dd37ee506ff558e939b3d421557987cced49b866. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Good product discovery requires a continuous cadence, not a one-time event. Teams that talk to customers every week, map opportunities visually, and test assumptions before building consistently outperform teams that rely on intuition, stakeholder opinions, or quarterly research…
Goal: 10/10. Score a discovery practice by the seven Quick Diagnostic rows below — start at 3, add 1 point per row answered "yes" (max 10). Bands: 9-10 = weekly cadence, a living Opportunity Solution Tree, systematic assumption testing, and every shipped feature traceable to a c…
Core concept: An Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) visually connects a desired outcome (top) to customer opportunities (middle) to potential solutions and experiments (bottom), making implicit product thinking explicit and shared.
Core concept: An Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) visually connects a desired outcome (top) to customer opportunities (middle) to potential solutions and experiments (bottom), making implicit product thinking explicit and shared.
Core concept: Current-state experience maps capture how customers accomplish a goal today, step by step, revealing pain points that become opportunities on the tree.
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 83/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 1,835 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Framework for building a sustainable weekly practice of customer discovery that keeps product teams progressing toward desired outcomes. Discovery is not a phase before development — it is embedded in the ongoing rhythm of product work so every decision is informed by fresh evidence.
Good product discovery requires a continuous cadence, not a one-time event. Teams that talk to customers every week, map opportunities visually, and test assumptions before building consistently outperform teams that rely on intuition, stakeholder opinions, or quarterly research cycles. The benchmark: at least one customer touchpoint per week, every week, by the product trio (product manager, designer, engineer).
Goal: 10/10. Score a discovery practice by the seven Quick Diagnostic rows below — start at 3, add 1 point per row answered "yes" (max 10). Bands: 9-10 = weekly cadence, a living Opportunity Solution Tree, systematic assumption testing, and every shipped feature traceable to a customer opportunity; 5-6 = some discovery happening but ad hoc, PM-only, or disconnected from delivery; ≤3 = intuition- and stakeholder-driven with no regular customer contact. Report the current score, the failing rows, and the specific fix for each.
Core concept: An Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) visually connects a desired outcome (top) to customer opportunities (middle) to potential solutions and experiments (bottom), making implicit product thinking explicit and shared.
Why it works: Most teams jump from business outcome straight to solutions, skipping the customer need entirely; the OST forces understanding of the opportunity space first, preventing features nobody wants.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Quarterly planning | Map the opportunity space before committing to features | "Increase trial-to-paid conversion" → discover why users don't convert |
| Feature prioritization | Compare solutions across opportunities for the highest-leverage bet | Three solutions for "can't find content" vs. two for "confusing onboarding" |
| Stakeholder alignment | Use the tree as the shared strategy visual | Walk leadership through why you chose opportunity X over Y |
Ethical boundary: Never cherry-pick opportunities to justify a predetermined solution — the tree must reflect needs discovered through research.
See references/opportunity-trees.md when building or auditing a tree — adds the 4-layer diagram, good-vs-poor outcome tables, solution-generation techniques, a weekly update rhythm, healthy/dying-tree signals, two worked examples, and four anti-patterns.
Core concept: Current-state experience maps capture how customers accomplish a goal today, step by step, revealing pain points that become opportunities on the tree.
Why it works: Teams assume they understand the customer's current experience; mapping it from interview data exposes gaps, workarounds, and emotions invisible from inside the building.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| New problem space | Map end-to-end before designing | How a small business owner handles invoicing, from creation to chasing payment |
| Churn analysis | Map churned users' experience to find failure points | Users abandon onboarding at step 4 — they lack data they need on hand |
| Cross-functional alignment | Build the map together | A three-hour collaborative session produces one shared reference artifact |
See references/experience-mapping.md when mapping a new problem space or churn flow — adds the current-state map template, the experience-vs-journey-map distinction, and the collaborative mapping exercise.
Core concept: Story-based interviews capture specific past experiences (not opinions or predictions), and each interview is synthesized into a one-page snapshot the whole team can absorb and reference.
Why it works: Customers are poor predictors of their own future behavior; grounding insights in real past events reveals what they actually did and felt, and snapshots turn each interview into a growing library of evidence.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly cadence | Standing 30-minute interview slots | Recruit via in-app prompt; rotate who leads |
| Opportunity discovery | Extract needs from stories onto the OST | A data-export workaround becomes an opportunity node |
| Team alignment | Share snapshots visibly | A board where snapshots accumulate and patterns emerge |
Ethical boundary: Never lead participants toward conclusions — ask open-ended questions about past behavior and let the story reveal what matters.
See references/interview-snapshots.md when running interviews or setting up recruitment — adds story-based interview structure, the one-page snapshot format, synthesis across snapshots, and how to automate weekly recruitment.
Core concept: Before building, identify the assumptions a solution depends on, map them by importance and evidence, then run small fast tests on the riskiest ones first.
Why it works: Every solution sits on a stack of desirability, viability, feasibility, and usability assumptions; most teams test none — or only the easy ones — and invest months in solutions built on false premises.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Before building | Test the riskiest assumption of the top candidates | "Users will share reports with their manager" → painted-door button before building sharing |
| Comparing solutions | Test each candidate's riskiest assumption to eliminate weak options fast | A's riskiest assumption fails, B's passes → pursue B |
| De-risking a roadmap | Find untested assumptions hiding in committed features | Q3 feature assumes users want real-time notifications — no evidence yet |
Ethical boundary: Never deceive participants — painted-door tests should say the feature is coming soon, not fake functionality without disclosure.
See references/assumption-mapping.md when designing a test for a risky assumption — adds the four assumption types in depth, the importance-vs-evidence 2x2, the test-design menu, and how to set success criteria for leap-of-faith assumptions.
Core concept: Compare opportunities against each other — not in isolation — using opportunity size, market, company, and customer factors to find the highest-leverage bets.
Why it works: Teams default to the loudest stakeholder, recency bias, or gut feel; structured head-to-head comparison forces explicit tradeoff discussions and surfaces disagreements before implementation.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Quarterly planning | Rank the top 5-7 OST opportunities | "Can't find content" vs. "no real-time collaboration" via structured criteria |
| Sprint planning | Pick the opportunity with the strongest current evidence | Choose where you have the most interview data and a testable solution |
| Portfolio decisions | Spread effort by risk and impact | 60% high-confidence, 30% medium, 10% exploratory |
See references/prioritization-methods.md when ranking your top opportunities — adds the opportunity-sizing method, the compare-and-contrast technique, how to weigh data, and how to avoid analysis paralysis.
Core concept: Continuous discovery only works as a sustainable weekly habit for the trio — automate recruitment, create lightweight rituals, and embed discovery into the existing workflow rather than treating it as extra work.
Why it works: Discovery that depends on "finding time" loses to delivery pressure every week; structural support (automated recruitment, standing slots, shared artifacts) removes the per-week decision so the habit survives and compounds.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Team kickoff | Establish cadence in week one | Automated recruitment, blocked Thursday slot, snapshot template |
| Scaling discovery | Grow from one to three interviews weekly | Add a churned-user slot and a prospect slot |
| Manager support | Leaders protect time and ask for evidence | "What did you learn from interviews this week?" in every 1:1 |
Ethical boundary: Respect participant time — keep interviews to 30 minutes, compensate fairly, and never disguise a sales pitch as discovery.
See references/case-studies.md when adapting the habit to your context — worked walkthroughs of continuous discovery in B2B SaaS, consumer mobile, platform, and growth teams.
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery as a phase before development | Insights go stale; team builds on old assumptions | Embed discovery into every week alongside delivery |
| Only the PM talks to customers | Designer and engineer lose context in translation | The full trio interviews together |
| Jumping from outcome to solutions | Skips the opportunity space | Build an OST to make it explicit |
| Asking customers what they want | You get feature requests, not needs | Story-based interviewing: "Tell me about the last time..." |
| Testing easy assumptions, not risky ones | False confidence; the fatal assumption goes untested | Map by importance and evidence; test high-risk first |
| Scoring opportunities in isolation | Everything looks important | Compare head-to-head with structured criteria |
| Interview burst, then stopping | No compounding learning | Automate recruitment; block recurring time |
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| One customer conversation per week minimum? | Decisions lack fresh evidence | Automate recruitment; block a weekly slot |
| A living Opportunity Solution Tree? | Strategy is implicit and unshared | Build an OST from your outcome and interview data |
| Full trio in interviews? | Insights filtered through one person | Invite the designer and engineer to the next one |
| Testing assumptions before building? | Betting on untested premises | Map your next feature's assumptions; test the riskiest |
| Can you trace a shipped feature to a customer opportunity? | Delivery disconnected from discovery | Link backlog items to OST opportunities |
| Interview snapshots visible to the whole team? | Knowledge trapped in one head | Shared snapshot board, filled after each interview |
| Comparing opportunities, not just listing them? | Prioritization by opinion | Run a structured comparison on your top 5 |
Based on the continuous discovery framework developed by Teresa Torres:
Teresa Torres is an author, speaker, and coach who has helped hundreds of product teams — from startups to Capital One and Calendly — adopt continuous discovery. She created the Opportunity Solution Tree, writes the widely read Product Talk blog, and distilled her coaching practice into Continuous Discovery Habits.
Alternatives
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist
JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills
Suede-owned experimentation discipline for hypotheses, sample sizing, test duration, significance, and repeatable experiment programs. Use when comparing variants, deciding whether a result is reliable, or building an experiment backlog and cadence. NOT FOR: analytics instrumentation (use suede-analytics), post-click conversion diagnosis (use suede-site-alchemy), or writing the variant copy itself (use suede-copy).
narrative-io/narrative-skills-marketplace
Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "