product-skills

Build a go-to-market plan that's a stage-appropriate system — customers, channels, pricing, timing, and partnerships that fit the company's maturity — not a generic launch checklist. Gates on GTM readiness (validated demand) and company stage, picks the right channel and entry timing, and treats the buyer journey as non-linear. Catches the defaults Claude misses: GTM-as-one-time-launch, stage-skipping, channel/timing blindness, funnel-forcing, partnerships-as-shortcut. Trigger when asked to create a GTM/go-to-market plan, launch plan, channel or distribution strategy, market-entry/timing plan, or launch metrics.

Run a product-analytics analysis that produces a decision, not a dashboard — start from the question, pick actionable over vanity metrics, separate signal from noise, segment (averages lie), pair quant with qual, and end in an insight→impact→action story. Catches the defaults Claude misses: vanity metrics, correlation-as-causation, reacting to small samples/short windows, survivorship/selection bias, unsegmented averages. Trigger when asked to analyze product data/metrics, plan what to measure, build a funnel/cohort/segment/retention analysis, read analytics, or turn data into a recommendation.

Design or critique an A/B test or controlled product experiment with statistical rigor — pre-registered falsifiable hypothesis, sample-size/power up front, a full business cycle, one primary metric plus guardrails, segment + long-term reads, and a pre-set iterate/pivot/persevere decision. Catches the defaults Claude misses: peeking/early stopping, tiny samples, no guardrails, vanity metrics, "it won" with no learning loop. Trigger when asked to set up or review an A/B test, design an experiment, pick experiment metrics, decide sample size/significance/duration, or interpret/act on test results.

Run a structured rigor audit on how a team validated (or plans to validate) its assumptions — for a discovery plan, experiment, test, or any "we validated it" claim. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes — catches testing the comfortable assumption instead of the riskiest, untestable phrasing, method fidelity mismatched to decision risk, stated intent mistaken for behavior, success criteria set after the fact, goalpost-moving, and underpowered evidence. Use when reviewing a validation/discovery approach or as the validation step after generating an assumption-test plan.

Run a structured quality audit on a product decision or its rationale — a build/buy/sunset/re-platform/pricing call, a decision log, a retrospective, or any "we decided X because…". Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes — catches outcome-based reasoning (resulting), deliberation mismatched to reversibility, uncalibrated confidence, confirmation/anchoring/framing/sunk-cost bias, missing pre-mortems, and undocumented reasoning. Use when reviewing a major decision or its write-up, or as a validation step after a decision is made.

Run a structured validity audit on OKRs, KPIs, North Star Metrics, or any success-metric set. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes — catches vanity metrics, unfalsifiable key results, outputs disguised as outcomes, gameable targets without guardrails, and metrics disconnected from business value. Use when reviewing OKRs, goals, KPIs, dashboards, or success metrics, or as a validation step after defining metrics in a spec, roadmap, or strategy doc.

Run a structured rigor audit on prioritization decisions, scored backlogs, RICE/ICE/MoSCoW outputs, or roadmap orderings. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes — catches invented scores with false precision, priorities unmoored from strategy, feature-factory ordering, everything-is-a-must-have inflation, and trade-offs left implicit. Use when reviewing a prioritized backlog, scoring exercise, roadmap order, or "what should we build first" decision, or as a validation step after any prioritization work.

Run a structured quality audit on a product spec, PRD, or requirements document. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes — catches untestable requirements, happy-path-only flows, missing scope exclusions, absent dependencies/constraints/assumptions, implementation details leaking into functional specs, and unvalidated assumptions presented as facts. Use when reviewing a spec, PRD, or requirements doc, or as the validation step after writing one.

Produce or critique a competitive/market analysis that yields a strategic edge — not a flat feature table. Scopes to a research objective and industry context, finds direct/indirect/potential competitors, profiles them from honest public sources, applies the right framework (perceptual map, feature matrix, SWOT, Porter's, TAM/SAM/SOM), and ends with strategic implications and a positioning conclusion. Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (which framework, primary vs. secondary research, competitor depth, positioning stance, expansion, AI's role). Trigger when asked to analyze competitors, do a competitive/market analysis, map a competitive landscape, build a feature-comparison or SWOT, size a market, or decide how to position/differentiate against rivals.

Write OKRs, KPIs, or a North Star Metric derived from product strategy — or review an existing goal set. Enforces outcome-based key results with baselines and targets, one focus objective per team per cycle, leading+lagging balance, and guardrails against gameable targets. Trigger when asked to write OKRs, set quarterly goals, define KPIs or success metrics, choose a North Star Metric, or run goal-setting/planning for a team or product.

Write a product requirements document (PRD) or spec anchored to a validated problem, with measurable requirements and surfaced risks — or review an existing one. Trigger when asked to write a PRD, product spec, user stories, technical requirements, or to review/critique an existing spec document.

Create or critique a product roadmap — outcome-oriented, theme-based, confidence-aware (Now-Next-Later) roadmaps tied to strategy, instead of dated feature lists. Gates format and detail by audience and planning horizon. Trigger when the user asks to build, write, review, or restructure a product roadmap, quarterly/annual plan, Now-Next-Later view, or roadmap presentation.

Produce or critique a product vision and/or product strategy — an aspirational destination and the deliberate, trade-off-driven choices to reach it — not a buzzword poster or a feature list. Distinguishes the vision/strategy/roadmap/mission artifacts, ladders product vision up to company vision, forces a focused segment + differentiation + explicit "won't do", and sets the stability rule (stubborn on vision, flexible on strategy). Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (which strategy framework, vision communication format, single vs. multi-product, B2B vs. B2C, new vs. existing, depth). Trigger when asked to write/define/critique a product vision, vision statement, product strategy, strategic themes, positioning/where-to-play/how-to-win, or to tell vision from strategy from roadmap.

Build or critique an audience-understanding artifact — research-based user personas, a Jobs-to-Be-Done framing, or the choice between them. Grounds the work in real research (never invented demographic fiction), keeps only detail that changes a decision, and picks the lens by research objective, stage, and resources. Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (personas vs. JTBD vs. both, research-based vs. proto, how many personas, which details, segmentation depth, AI's role). Trigger when asked to create user personas, define a target audience/segment, apply Jobs-to-Be-Done, decide who the product is for, or review existing personas.

Write or critique a product problem statement — turning a vague prompt, signal, or feature request into a clear, evidence-grounded, testable statement of the real problem before any solution. Separates the problem from solutions, symptoms, goals, and constraints; applies the always-true core (gap not feature, root cause not symptom, specific and measurable, grounded in evidence, bridges user and business) and gates context-dependent decisions (which definition tool, how much measurability, reasoned vs. validated cause, scope). Trigger when asked to write a problem statement, define or frame a problem, identify the "real/true problem," turn a request or metric into a problem, or sharpen a vague product prompt before solving.

Write or critique a user story — a small unit of user value framed from a real persona's need, not a restated task. Frames stories around who/what/why, keeps them INVEST and testable, maps them across the journey, and resists writing stories that add no clarity. Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (strict formula vs. free-form, whether to write a story at all, acceptance-criteria depth, splitting into a map, communication framing). Trigger when asked to write user stories, turn a persona or need into stories, frame requirements as stories, build a story map, apply INVEST, or review/strengthen existing stories.

Plan how to test the assumptions behind a product idea before building — decompose the idea into its load-bearing beliefs, prioritize the riskiest, phrase them as falsifiable hypotheses, and pick the cheapest method that answers the question. Or critique an existing validation plan. Trigger when asked to validate an idea, de-risk a feature, plan discovery/experiments, test assumptions or a hypothesis, design an MVP test, or decide "how do we know this will work?"

Plan or critique a product discovery process — figuring out what to build before building it. Establishes which risk you're de-risking and how much certainty the decision needs, applies the always-true core (continuous not phased, outcomes over output, problem before solution, ask about past behavior, match evidence to risk, generate solutions from validated problems, research ethically) and gates the context-dependent decisions (problem vs. solution research, qual vs. quant, lightweight vs. deep, how much certainty before committing). Trigger when asked to plan discovery, "figure out what to build," set up continuous discovery, design a research plan, do customer/user research, find problems worth solving, or de-risk a product direction before committing.

Decide what to build first, or critique a prioritization. Derives criteria from strategy, picks the right framework for the context (RICE/ICE/MoSCoW/Kano/Impact-Effort), scores to expose trade-offs rather than manufacture false precision, sequences for flow, and says no with strategic context. Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (which framework, scoring rigor, roadmap horizon, appetite vs. estimate, bets vs. tactical) with trade-offs. Trigger when asked to prioritize features/backlog, rank or sequence work, choose a prioritization framework, decide what to build first or what to cut, run a RICE/ICE/MoSCoW/Kano exercise, or defend a prioritization decision.

Orchestrated, idea-to-plan PM workflow. Establishes context once, then composes the PM generative ladder in order — problem → discovery → users → riskiest-assumption test → prioritization → spec → metrics — gating each step, enforcing evidence before the spec, and handing the result to product-review. Trigger when the user wants to go from a raw idea to a build-ready plan ("take me from problem to plan", "I have an app idea, where do I start", "turn this idea into a product plan", "plan a new product end to end") — but NOT when they ask for one specific PM artifact (let that skill trigger directly), and NOT for the strategy/launch arc (vision, competitive analysis, roadmap, GTM — offer those next).

Orchestrated review of a PM artifact (spec, PRD, OKRs, roadmap, prioritization, strategy). Routes by artifact type to the right audits, auto-runs the always-relevant assumption check, and returns one prioritized report. Trigger when the user asks for a full review of a PM document, "review my spec/roadmap/OKRs", "is this PRD solid", or general PM feedback — but NOT when they name a single specific audit.

Run a structured WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design, screen, component, or page. Produces a prioritized issue list — each finding cites the violated WCAG criterion, a severity rating (Critical/Major/Minor), and a concrete fix. Use when auditing for a11y compliance or as a validation step after generating UI.

Audit the visual quality of a UI against established visual-design principles — hierarchy, emphasis, contrast, spacing, alignment, grouping, consistency, and depth. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes. Specializes in catching overdesign, clutter, and competing focal points. Use when reviewing whether a screen looks professional, or as a validation step after generating UI.

Audit a UI, flow, or copy for dark (deceptive) patterns — design that manipulates users into unintended actions. Produces a prioritized findings list naming each pattern, its intent, severity, and an honest-design fix. Use when reviewing conversion flows, checkouts, paywalls, sign-ups, or cancellation flows for ethical design issues.

Run a structured usability audit of any UI against Nielsen's 10 heuristics. Produces a severity-rated, prioritized issue list — each finding tagged with the violated heuristic and a concrete fix. Use when auditing a screen, flow, or component for usability problems, or as a validation step after generating UI.

Run a structured information architecture audit on a sitemap, navigation tree, category structure, menu labels, or multi-screen product. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes — catches scheme/task mismatches, narrow-and-deep hierarchies, low-information-scent labels, inconsistent labeling systems, single-path findability, and dead-end pages. Use when auditing IA, site structure, categories, taxonomy, or labels, or as a validation step after generating navigation or any multi-screen structure.

Audit interface copy — labels, buttons, errors, empty states, tooltips, notifications, form hints — against UX-writing standards. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete rewrites. Use when reviewing UI copy for clarity, tone, and consistency, or as a validation step on any generated screen.

Run a structured mobile-responsiveness audit on a design, screen, or component — viewport adaptation and reflow, orientation, touch-target size and spacing, thumb reachability, mobile input ergonomics, gesture safety, and mobile readability/content priority. Produces a severity-rated issue list with concrete fixes. Use when reviewing whether a UI works on phones/tablets, or as a validation step after generating mobile or responsive UI.

Design or critique UI buttons — pick the right button type for the action's importance, apply sizing/label/state best practices, and gate stylistic levers like shape, shadows, FABs, and icon-only buttons. Trigger when the user asks to design, choose, style, or review buttons, CTAs, button labels, button hierarchy, or button states.

Design or critique UI cards — one-topic, scannable cards with clear hierarchy, the right container style (elevated, outlined, flat), and restrained shadows. Trigger when the user asks to design or review cards, card layouts, card grids, content tiles, user/profile cards, or a browse view built from cards.

Design or critique forms and input fields — field selection, labels, layout, validation, error states, and submission. Applies the always-true core (minimal fields, one column, labels outside inputs, inline validation) and gates levers like multi-step splitting, floating labels, and smart defaults. Trigger when the user asks to design, build, or review a form, signup/checkout/survey fields, input validation, or error messages.

Design or critique loading states and progress indicators — match the feedback type (spinner, text, determinate bar, skeleton, progress tracker) to the wait duration and task structure, and manage perceived performance. Trigger when the user asks to design or review loaders, spinners, loading states, skeleton screens, progress bars, progress trackers, steppers, or multi-step flow progress.

Design or critique UI menus — pick the right menu type (dropdown, cascading, contextual, single/multi-select, search, inline) for the action set, and apply item ordering, grouping, labeling, and state best practices. Trigger when the user asks to design or review a menu, dropdown, context/right-click menu, overflow (⋮) menu, or asks how to organize actions into a menu.

Design or critique modals, dialogs, alerts, popovers, and bottom sheets — gate WHEN interrupting users is justified, then apply dismissal, title/button, and focus best practices. Trigger when the user asks to design or review a modal, dialog, popup, overlay, confirmation, alert, permission request, lightbox, or bottom sheet — or asks whether something should be a modal at all.

Design or critique navigation systems — match the nav pattern (top bar, sidebar, tabs, hamburger, mega menu, bottom nav) to the information architecture, and apply wayfinding, header, breadcrumb, and pagination best practices. Trigger when the user asks to design or review navigation, menus, navbars, sidebars, tabs, breadcrumbs, headers, pagination, or asks "how should users move around" a site or app.

Design or critique notifications — pick the right type (badge, banner, snackbar, toast, alert, push) for the message's urgency, and respect user attention with timing, frequency, and opt-out controls. Trigger when the user asks to design or review notifications, toasts, snackbars, badges, banners, alerts, push notifications, or a notification strategy.

Design or critique search experiences — search input, auto-suggest, results page, filtering/sorting, and zero-results recovery. Matches search features to how users actually seek (known-item vs. exploratory) and gates levers like rich suggestions, filter layout, and chips. Trigger when the user asks to design or review search, a search bar, autocomplete/auto-suggest, search results, filters, sorting, or a "no results" page.

Design or critique selection controls — pick the right control (checkbox, radio button, toggle switch, dropdown, slider, picker) for the choice being made, and apply labeling, alignment, and state best practices. Trigger when the user asks to design or review checkboxes, radio buttons, toggles/switches, dropdowns, sliders, range filters, or any "which control should I use" question.

Design or critique data tables and lists — scannable structure, alignment rules (left for text, right for numbers), sorting/filtering, row interactions, and the right list type for the content. Trigger when the user asks to design or review a data table, data grid, admin table, list view, email/feed list, or asks how to present tabular or structured data.

Design or critique tooltips and contextual hints — decide when a tooltip clarifies vs. when it's a crutch for unclear design, and apply placement, styling, and brevity rules. Trigger when the user asks to design or review tooltips, hover hints, info icons, contextual help bubbles, or asks whether something needs a tooltip.