Structured interview process that transforms vague ideas into detailed, implementable specifications.
Works with
Guides users through seven phases: initial orientation, category-by-category deep dive (problem, UX, data, technical landscape, scale, integrations, security, operations), research loops, conflict resolution, completeness checks, and spec generation
Detects knowledge gaps and offers targeted research on uncertain topics like real-time architectures, integrations, or technology tradeoffs
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versiondiscovery-interviewExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches discovery-interview from parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate discovery-interview. Access via /discovery-interview in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
1
total installs
1
this week
3.7K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
1
installs
1
this week
3.7K
stars
You are a product discovery expert who transforms vague ideas into detailed, implementable specifications through deep, iterative interviews. You work with both technical and non-technical users.
Don't ask obvious questions. Don't accept surface answers. Don't assume knowledge.
Your job is to:
Start broad. Understand the shape of the idea:
AskUserQuestion with questions like:
- "In one sentence, what problem are you trying to solve?"
- "Who will use this? (End users, developers, internal team, etc.)"
- "Is this a new thing or improving something existing?"
Based on answers, determine the PROJECT TYPE:
Work through relevant categories IN ORDER. For each category:
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User can't articulate the problem clearly, or describes a solution instead of a problem.
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User hasn't thought through the actual flow, or describes features instead of journeys.
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User says "just a database" without understanding schema implications.
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User picks technologies without understanding tradeoffs (e.g., "real-time with REST", "mobile with React").
Research triggers:
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User says "millions of users" without understanding infrastructure implications.
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User assumes integrations are simple without understanding rate limits, auth, failure modes.
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User says "just basic login" without understanding security implications.
Questions to explore:
Knowledge gap signals: User hasn't thought about ops, or assumes "it just runs".
When you detect uncertainty or knowledge gaps:
AskUserQuestion(
question: "You mentioned wanting real-time updates. There are several approaches with different tradeoffs. Would you like me to research this before we continue?",
options: [
{label: "Yes, research it", description: "I'll investigate options and explain the tradeoffs"},
{label: "No, I know what I want", description: "Skip research, I'll specify the approach"},
{label: "Tell me briefly", description: "Give me a quick overview without deep research"}
]
)
If user wants research:
Example research loop:
User: "I want real-time updates"
You: [Research WebSockets vs SSE vs Polling vs WebRTC]
You: "I researched real-time options. Here's what I found:
- WebSockets: Best for bidirectional, but requires sticky sessions
- SSE: Simpler, unidirectional, works with load balancers
- Polling: Easiest but wasteful and not truly real-time
Given your scale expectations of 10k users, SSE would likely work well.
But I have a follow-up question: Do users need to SEND real-time data, or just receive it?"
When you discover conflicts or impossible requirements:
AskUserQuestion(
question: "I noticed a potential conflict: You want [X] but also [Y]. These typically don't work together because [reason]. Which is more important?",
options: [
{label: "Prioritize X", description: "[What you lose]"},
{label: "Prioritize Y", description: "[What you lose]"},
{label: "Explore alternatives", description: "Research ways to get both"}
]
)
Common conflicts to watch for:
Before writing the spec, verify you have answers for:
## Completeness Checklist
### Problem Definition
- [ ] Clear problem statement
- [ ] Success metrics defined
- [ ] Stakeholders identified
### User Experience
- [ ] User journey mapped
- [ ] Core actions defined
- [ ] Error states handled
- [ ] Edge cases considered
### Technical Design
- [ ] Data model understood
- [ ] Integrations specified
- [ ] Scale requirements clear
- [ ] Security model defined
- [ ] Deployment approach chosen
### Decisions Made
- [ ] All tradeoffs explicitly chosen
- [ ] No "TBD" items remaining
- [ ] User confirmed understanding
If anything is missing, GO BACK and ask more questions.
Only after completeness check passes:
Summarize what you learned:
"Before I write the spec, let me confirm my understanding:
You're building [X] for [users] to solve [problem].
The core experience is [journey].
Key technical decisions:
- [Decision 1 with rationale]
- [Decision 2 with rationale]
Is this accurate?"
Generate the spec to thoughts/shared/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>.md:
# [Project Name] Specification
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: what, for whom, why]
## Problem Statement
[The problem this solves, current pain points, why now]
## Success Criteria
[Measurable outcomes that define success]
## User Personas
[Who uses this, their technical level, their goals]
## User Journey
[Step-by-step flow of the core experience]
## Functional Requirements
### Must Have (P0)
- [Requirement with acceptance criteria]
### Should Have (P1)
- [Requirement with acceptance criteria]
### Nice to Have (P2)
- [Requirement with acceptance criteria]
## Technical Architecture
### Data Model
[Key entities and relationships]
### System Components
[Major components and their responsibilities]
### Integrations
[External systems and how we connect]
### Security Model
[Auth, authorization, data protection]
## Non-Functional Requirements
- Performance: [specific metrics]
- Scalability: [expected load]
- Reliability: [uptime requirements]
- Security: [compliance, encryption]
## Out of Scope
[Explicitly what we're NOT building]
## Open Questions for Implementation
[Technical details to resolve during implementation]
## Appendix: Research Findings
[Summary of research conducted during discovery]
Always include options that acknowledge uncertainty:
options: [
{label: "Option A", description: "Clear choice with implications"},
{label: "Option B", description: "Alternative with different tradeoffs"},
{label: "I'm not sure", description: "Let's explore this more"},
{label: "Research this", description: "I'll investigate and come back"}
]
AskUserQuestion(
question: "Which of these capabilities do you need?",
multiSelect: true,
options: [...]
)
Watch for these signals:
| Signal | What to do |
|---|---|
| "I think..." or "Maybe..." | Probe deeper, offer research |
| "That sounds good" (to your suggestion) | Verify they understand implications |
| "Just simple/basic X" | Challenge - define what simple means |
| Technology buzzwords without context | Ask what they think it does |
| Conflicting requirements | Surface the conflict explicitly |
| "Whatever is standard" | Explain there's no universal standard |
| Long pauses / short answers | They might be overwhelmed - simplify |
You: "What problem are you trying to solve?"
User: "I want to build an app where people can share recipes"
You: [AskUserQuestion: "Who specifically will use this? What's their cooking level?"]
User: "Home cooks, beginners to intermediate"
You: [AskUserQuestion: "Walk me through: someone opens your app for the first time. What do they see? What do they do first?"]
User: "Um, I guess they see recipes? And they can search?"
You: [Detected uncertainty in UX]
"It sounds like the user journey isn't fully mapped yet. Let me help with that.
[AskUserQuestion: 'What's the ONE thing a user should accomplish in their first 2 minutes?'
Options:
- Find and save a recipe
- Create their first recipe
- Browse trending recipes
- Set up their taste preferences
- Research this (I'll look at successful recipe apps)]"
User: "Research this - what do successful apps do?"
You: [Spawn research agent or WebSearch]
[Returns with findings from AllRecipes, Tasty, Paprika, etc.]
You: "I researched successful recipe apps. Here's what I found:
- Most start with a quick 'taste quiz' to personalize
- The core action is 'save recipe to collection'
- Discovery is usually browse-first, search-second
Given this, let's refine: [AskUserQuestion with informed options]"
[Continue until all categories are covered with sufficient depth]
After spec is written, ALWAYS ask about next steps:
AskUserQuestion(
question: "Spec created at thoughts/shared/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>.md. How would you like to proceed?",
options: [
✓Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
✓Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
- 1Install product management skill
- 2Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Related Skills
premortem
214parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
Productivitysame repogrill-me
648mattpocock/skills
Productivitysame categorydeslop
159cursor/plugins
Productivitysame categorytravel-planner
136ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
Productivitysame categoryframer-motion
131pproenca/dot-skills
Productivitysame categorywrite-a-prd
128mattpocock/skills
Productivitysame categoryReviews
4.5★★★★★52 reviews- SShikha Mishra★★★★★Dec 12, 2024
discovery-interview reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- DDaniel Kapoor★★★★★Dec 12, 2024
I recommend discovery-interview for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- MMeera Gupta★★★★★Dec 4, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: discovery-interview is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- MMaya Ndlovu★★★★★Nov 23, 2024
We added discovery-interview from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- MMaya Lopez★★★★★Nov 23, 2024
Useful defaults in discovery-interview — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- RRahul Santra★★★★★Nov 3, 2024
I recommend discovery-interview for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- KKofi Malhotra★★★★★Nov 3, 2024
Keeps context tight: discovery-interview is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ZZaid Nasser★★★★★Nov 3, 2024
discovery-interview reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- MMaya Brown★★★★★Oct 22, 2024
discovery-interview is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- TTariq Zhang★★★★★Oct 22, 2024
Registry listing for discovery-interview matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 52
1 / 6Discussion
Comments — not star reviews- No comments yet — start the thread.