| name | customer-research |
| description | Customer research and problem framing using the research-design discipline: hypothesis, null hypothesis, MECE questions, methods, findings. Produces Pyramid-base-shaped output ready for downstream composition into PR/FAQs, long-form narratives, or PRDs. Use when the user asks to design user research, run customer interviews, synthesize research findings, frame a problem statement, build a customer journey map, plan a VoC study, or mentions pain-point analysis, research plan, hypothesis testing, customer insights, jobs-to-be-done, or voice of customer.
|
Contents
| File | Path | When to load |
|---|
| Research design method | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/product-design-shared/references/research-design.md | Hypothesis + null + MECE + findings |
| Pyramid composition | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/product-design-shared/references/pyramid-principle.md | Where findings get composed into arguments |
| Canonical Working Backwards reference | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/product-design-shared/references/working-backwards.md | Listen + Define stage context |
| Research methods | references/research-methods.md | Interview protocols, affinity clustering, qual/quant taxonomy |
| Customer-insights role | ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/working-backwards/references/roles/customer-insights.md | Researcher agent for Listen-stage execution |
| Research plan template | templates/research-plan.md | Hypothesis, null, MECE questions, methods, findings (fill-in) |
| Problem statement template | templates/problem-statement.md | "Today [customers] have to..." |
| Customer journey map template | templates/customer-journey-map.md | Phase / action / touchpoint / thought / feeling / opportunity |
Customer Research
The discipline of framing a testable hypothesis, gathering evidence via MECE sub-questions, and synthesizing findings into a shape the Pyramid Principle can compose. This is the research bottom-up half of Minto's core instruction — the upstream of working-backwards and any narrative composition.
When to Use
- You have a vague customer pain and need to know if it's real, at scale, and root-caused correctly.
- You need to produce a problem statement for a PR/FAQ or long-form narrative.
- You need to build a customer journey map for a design review.
- You have interview transcripts or survey data and need to synthesize them into decision-ready findings.
- You need to design a research plan before committing to a study (interviews, A/B test, survey).
When NOT to use:
- The customer problem is already well-framed and data-backed → go straight to
skills/working-backwards/ or skills/product-discovery/.
- You need writing critique for an existing prompt or document →
skills/meta-prompt-optimizer/.
Core Concepts
The method: research-design
The load-bearing reference is ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/product-design-shared/references/research-design.md. Five steps:
- Hypothesis — one testable claim in one sentence.
- Null hypothesis — the outcome that would disprove it. Pre-commit before gathering.
- MECE sub-questions — 3–5 questions that collectively test the hypothesis without overlap.
- Methods per question — behavioral, attitudinal, pain-point texture, segmentation, scale, causal.
- Findings in Pyramid-base shape — per sub-question: Finding + Evidence + So what + Confidence.
The shape of your output is not optional. Pyramid-base-shaped findings feed pyramid-principle.md Phase 1 by construction.
Pyramid connection
This skill produces the Pyramid base. Downstream skills compose it:
working-backwards uses the findings for the 5CQ's Q1, Q2, Q4 and the PR's Situation + Complication.
product-discovery uses the findings for its research-scout role.
- A narrative-writing workflow of your choice composes a long-form document or one-pager from the findings.
Keeping findings in a structured shape means downstream composition becomes mechanical translation, not improvisation.
Three artifacts ship from this skill
| Artifact | Template | When |
|---|
| Research plan | templates/research-plan.md | Before gathering — pre-commit the hypothesis and null |
| Problem statement | templates/problem-statement.md | After Define — the Listen output used by WB Stage 2 |
| Customer journey map | templates/customer-journey-map.md | When you need to visualize current-state pain points across a flow |
Quick Reference
A typical customer-research run:
- Capture intent. What is the fuzzy question? Who is the primary customer segment?
- Frame the hypothesis + null. Use
templates/research-plan.md. Pre-commit in writing.
- Decompose MECE. 3–5 sub-questions. Test: "Can I answer Q1 without answering Q2?"
- Pick methods per question (see
references/research-methods.md for the taxonomy).
- Execute — either yourself for small corpora (synthesize from support tickets, survey data, past research) or via the
customer-insights role of the researcher agent.
- Synthesize per
research-design.md step 7 — one finding per sub-question, each with Evidence + So what + Confidence.
- Evaluate the hypothesis — Supported / Refuted / Inconclusive. Report honestly.
- Produce the downstream artifact — problem statement, journey map, or hand off to working-backwards.
Composition with other skills
| Upstream | Downstream |
|---|
| Raw customer data (tickets, interviews, surveys, analytics) | skills/working-backwards/ (Listen + Define + Invent) |
| User-research transcripts | skills/product-discovery/ (PRD personas + user stories) |
Anti-Patterns
- Skipping the null hypothesis. Research becomes confirmation-gathering without it. Write it down before you gather.
- Non-MECE sub-questions. Overlapping questions muddle the findings. Re-decompose before executing.
- Using interviews to prove causation. Pick methods by question type — causal claims need experiments, not stories.
- Synthesizing during gathering. Forces confirmation bias into the evidence. Separate execution and synthesis in time.
- Reporting only supporting evidence. The antagonist test downstream depends on you seeing the counter-evidence.
- Moving goalposts when the null fires. When the null fires, document it — don't redefine the hypothesis to rescue the conclusion.
References
references/research-methods.md — interview protocols, affinity clustering, qual/quant/subjective metric taxonomy, common VoC resource categories
- Shared methodology refs in
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/product-design-shared/references/:
research-design.md — the method
pyramid-principle.md — the downstream composition discipline
working-backwards.md — the end-to-end product-discovery process this skill plugs into
methodology-selection.md — when to use this skill vs. others