ai-product-patterns

name	ai-product-patterns
description	Builds AI-native products using OpenAI's development philosophy and modern AI UX patterns. Use when integrating AI features, designing for model improvements, implementing evals as product specs, or creating AI-first experiences. Based on Kevin Weil (OpenAI CPO) on building for future models, hybrid approaches, and cost optimization.

AI-Native Product Building

When This Skill Activates

Claude uses this skill when:

• Integrating AI features (search, recommendations, generation, etc.)
• Designing product experiences around AI capabilities
• Implementing evals and quality measurement
• Optimizing AI costs and latency
• Building for model improvements over time

Core Frameworks

1. Build for Future Models (Source: Kevin Weil, CPO of OpenAI)

The Exponential Improvement Mindset:

"The AI model you're using today is the worst AI model you will ever use for the rest of your life. What computers can do changes every two months."

Core Principle:

• Don't design around current model limitations
• Build assuming capabilities will 10x in 2 months
• Edge cases today = core use cases tomorrow
• Make room for model to get smarter

How to Apply:

DON'T:
- "AI can't do X, so we won't support it"
- Build fallbacks that limit model capabilities
- Design UI that assumes current limitations

DO:
- Build interfaces that scale with model improvements
- Design for the capability you want, not current reality
- Test with future models in mind
- Make it easy to swap/upgrade models

Example:

Feature: "AI code review"

❌ Current-Model Thinking:
- "Models can't catch logic bugs, only style"
- Limit to linting and formatting
- Don't even try complex reasoning

✅ Future-Model Thinking:
- Design for full logic review capability
- Start with style, but UI supports deeper analysis
- As models improve, feature gets better automatically
- Progressive: Basic → Advanced → Expert review

---

2. Evals as Product Specs (Source: Kevin Weil, OpenAI)

Test Cases = Product Requirements:

"At OpenAI, evals are the product spec. If you can define what good looks like in test cases, you've defined the product."

The Approach:

Traditional PM:

Requirement: "Search should return relevant results"

AI-Native PM:

// Eval as Product Spec
const searchEvals = [
  {
    query: "best PM frameworks",
    expectedResults: ["RICE", "LNO", "Jobs-to-be-Done"],
    quality: "all3InTop5",
  },
  {
    query: "how to prioritize features",
    expectedResults: ["Shreyas Doshi", "Marty Cagan"],
    quality: "relevantInTop3",
  },
  {
    query: "shiip prodcut",  // typo
    correctAs: "ship product",
    quality: "handleTypos",
  },
];

How to Write Evals:

1. Define Success Cases:
   - Input: [specific user query/action]
   - Expected: [what good output looks like]
   - Quality bar: [how to measure success]

2. Define Failure Cases:
   - Input: [edge case, adversarial, error]
   - Expected: [graceful handling]
   - Quality bar: [minimum acceptable]

3. Make Evals Runnable:
   - Automated tests
   - Run on every model change
   - Track quality over time

Example:

// Product Requirement as Eval
describe("AI Recommendations", () => {
  test("cold start: new user gets popular items", async () => {
    const newUser = { signupDate: today, interactions: [] };
    const recs = await getRecommendations(newUser);
    
    expect(recs).toIncludePopularItems();
    expect(recs.length).toBeGreaterThan(5);
  });

  test("personalized: returning user gets relevant items", async () => {
    const user = { interests: ["PM", "AI", "startups"] };
    const recs = await getRecommendations(user);
    
    expect(recs).toMatchInterests(user.interests);
    expect(recs).toHaveDiversity();  // Not all same topic
  });

  test("quality bar: recommendations >70% click rate", async () => {
    const users = await getTestUsers(100);
    const clickRate = await measureClickRate(users);
    
    expect(clickRate).toBeGreaterThan(0.7);
  });
});

---

3. Hybrid Approaches (Source: Kevin Weil)

AI + Traditional Code:

"Don't make everything AI. Use AI where it shines, traditional code where it's reliable."

When to Use AI:

• Pattern matching, recognition
• Natural language understanding
• Creative generation
• Ambiguous inputs
• Improving over time

When to Use Traditional Code:

• Deterministic logic
• Math, calculations
• Data validation
• Access control
• Critical paths

Hybrid Patterns:

Pattern 1: AI for Intent, Code for Execution

// Hybrid: AI understands, code executes
async function processUserQuery(query) {
  // AI: Understand intent
  const intent = await ai.classify(query, {
    types: ["search", "create", "update", "delete"]
  });
  
  // Traditional: Execute deterministically
  switch(intent.type) {
    case "search": return search(intent.params);
    case "create": return create(intent.params);
    // ... reliable code paths
  }
}

Pattern 2: AI with Rule-Based Fallbacks

// Hybrid: AI primary, rules backup
async function moderateContent(content) {
  // Fast rules-based check first
  if (containsProfanity(content)) return "reject";
  if (content.length > 10000) return "reject";
  
  // AI for nuanced cases
  const aiModeration = await ai.moderate(content);
  
  // Hybrid decision
  if (aiModeration.confidence > 0.9) {
    return aiModeration.decision;
  } else {
    return "human_review";  // Uncertain → human
  }
}

Pattern 3: AI + Ranking/Filtering

// Hybrid: AI generates, code filters
async function generateRecommendations(user) {
  // AI: Generate candidates
  const candidates = await ai.recommend(user, { count: 50 });
  
  // Code: Apply business rules
  const filtered = candidates
    .filter(item => item.inStock)
    .filter(item => item.price <= user.budget)
    .filter(item => !user.previouslyPurchased(item));
  
  // Code: Apply ranking logic
  return filtered
    .sort((a, b) => scoringFunction(a, b))
    .slice(0, 10);
}

---

4. AI UX Patterns

Streaming:

// Show results as they arrive
for await (const chunk of ai.stream(prompt)) {
  updateUI(chunk);  // Immediate feedback
}

Progressive Disclosure:

[AI working...]  →  [Preview...]  →  [Full results]

Retry and Refinement:

User: "Find PM articles"
AI: [shows results]
User: "More about prioritization"
AI: [refines results]

Confidence Indicators:

if (result.confidence > 0.9) {
  show(result);  // High confidence
} else if (result.confidence > 0.5) {
  show(result, { disclaimer: "AI-generated, verify" });
} else {
  show("I'm not confident. Try rephrasing?");
}

Cost-Aware Patterns:

// Progressive cost
if (simpleQuery) {
  return await smallModel(query);  // Fast, cheap
} else {
  return await largeModel(query);  // Slow, expensive
}

---

Decision Tree: When to Use AI

FEATURE DECISION
│
├─ Deterministic logic needed? ────YES──→ TRADITIONAL CODE
│  (math, validation, access)
│  NO ↓
│
├─ Pattern matching / NLP? ────────YES──→ AI (with fallbacks)
│  (understanding intent, ambiguity)
│  NO ↓
│
├─ Creative generation? ───────────YES──→ AI (with human oversight)
│  (writing, images, ideas)
│  NO ↓
│
├─ Improves with more data? ───────YES──→ AI + ML
│  (recommendations, personalization)
│  NO ↓
│
└─ Use TRADITIONAL CODE ←──────────────────┘
   (More reliable for this use case)

Action Templates

Template 1: AI Feature Spec with Evals

# AI Feature: [Name]

## What It Does
User goal: [describe job to be done]
AI capability: [what AI makes possible]

## Evals (Product Spec)

### Success Cases
```javascript
test("handles typical user query", async () => {
  const input = "[example]";
  const output = await aiFeature(input);
  expect(output).toMatch("[expected]");
});

test("handles edge case", async () => {
  // Define edge cases as tests
});

Quality Bar

• Accuracy: [X%]
• Latency: [<X ms]
• Cost: [<$X per 1000 calls]

Hybrid Approach

• AI handles: [list]
• Traditional code handles: [list]
• Fallback: [when AI uncertain]

Model Improvement Plan

• Today's capability: [current]
• Expected in 3 months: [future]
• Design accommodates: [how UI scales]

### Template 2: AI Cost Optimization

```markdown
# AI Feature: [Name]

## Cost Structure
- Model: [GPT-4, Claude, etc.]
- Cost per call: [$X]
- Expected volume: [X calls/day]
- Monthly cost: [estimate]

## Optimization Strategies

### 1. Caching
- [ ] Cache common queries
- [ ] Cache user context
- [ ] Expiry: [duration]

### 2. Model Routing
- [ ] Simple queries → small model
- [ ] Complex queries → large model
- [ ] Threshold: [define]

### 3. Batching
- [ ] Group similar requests
- [ ] Process in batches
- [ ] Update frequency: [timing]

### 4. Prompt Optimization
- [ ] Minimize token count
- [ ] Reusable system prompts
- [ ] Structured outputs (JSON)

### 5. Hybrid Approaches
- [ ] Rules-based preprocessing
- [ ] AI only when needed
- [ ] Fallback to deterministic

Template 3: AI UX Implementation

# Feature: [Name]

## UX Patterns

### Streaming Response
```javascript
// Show results as they arrive
for await (const chunk of stream) {
  appendToUI(chunk);
}

Loading States

• Initial: "Thinking..."
• Progress: "Analyzing..." (if possible)
• Complete: [show results]

Error Handling

• Model error: "Something went wrong, try again"
• Timeout: "This is taking longer than expected..."
• Rate limit: "Too many requests, please wait"

Confidence Display

• High (>0.9): Show results directly
• Medium (0.5-0.9): Show with disclaimer
• Low (<0.5): Ask user to clarify

Refinement Loop

• Show initial results
• "Refine" button
• Conversational refinement

## Quick Reference Card

### 🤖 AI Product Checklist

**Before Building:**
- [ ] Evals written (test cases = product spec)
- [ ] Hybrid approach defined (AI + traditional code)
- [ ] Model improvement plan (design for future capabilities)
- [ ] Cost estimate (per call, monthly)
- [ ] Quality bar defined (accuracy, latency, cost)

**During Build:**
- [ ] Implementing streaming (for responsiveness)
- [ ] Adding confidence indicators
- [ ] Building retry/refinement flows
- [ ] Caching common queries
- [ ] Fallbacks for failures

**Before Ship:**
- [ ] Evals passing (quality bar met)
- [ ] Cost within budget
- [ ] Error states handled
- [ ] Model swappable (not locked to one provider)
- [ ] Monitoring in place

---

## Real-World Examples

### Example 1: OpenAI's ChatGPT Memory

**Challenge:** Users want persistent context

**AI-Native Approach:**
- Built for models that would improve memory
- Started simple, designed for sophisticated future
- Evals: "Remembers facts across sessions"
- Hybrid: Explicit memory + AI interpretation

**Result:** Feature improves as models improve

---

### Example 2: AI Search Implementation

**Challenge:** Traditional search missing intent

**Hybrid Approach:**
```javascript
async function search(query) {
  // Traditional: Exact matches (fast, cheap)
  const exactMatches = await traditionalSearch(query);
  if (exactMatches.length > 10) return exactMatches;
  
  // AI: Semantic search (smart, expensive)
  const semanticResults = await aiSearch(query);
  
  // Hybrid: Combine and rank
  return dedupe([...exactMatches, ...semanticResults]);
}

---

Example 3: Cost Optimization

Challenge: AI costs too high

Solution:

• Cached 80% of common queries
• Routed simple queries to small model
• Batched recommendations (not real-time)
• Reduced cost 10x while maintaining quality

---

Common Pitfalls

❌ Mistake 1: AI for Everything

Problem: Using AI where traditional code is better Fix: Use hybrid approach - AI where it shines, code where it's reliable

❌ Mistake 2: Designing for Current Limitations

Problem: "Models can't do X, so we won't support it" Fix: Build for future capabilities, room to grow

❌ Mistake 3: No Evals

Problem: Subjective quality, no measurement Fix: Evals as product specs - define good in test cases

❌ Mistake 4: Ignoring Costs

Problem: Expensive AI calls without optimization Fix: Cache, batch, route to smaller models

---

Related Skills

• zero-to-launch - For AI-first MVP scoping
• quality-speed - For balancing AI quality vs latency
• exp-driven-dev - For A/B testing AI features
• metrics-frameworks - For measuring AI quality

---

Key Quotes

Kevin Weil:

"If you're building and the product is right on the edge of what's possible, keep going. In two months, there's going to be a better model."

On Evals:

"At OpenAI, we write evals as product specs. If you can define good output in test cases, you've defined the product."

On Model Improvements:

"The AI model you're using today is the worst AI model you will ever use for the rest of your life."

---

Further Learning

• references/openai-ai-first-philosophy.md - Full AI-native methodology
• references/evals-examples.md - Sample evals for common features
• references/hybrid-patterns.md - AI + traditional code patterns
• references/ai-cost-optimization.md - Cost reduction strategies