product-analysis

Product Analysis

Use this skill before writing a PRD. Its job is to decide whether a product direction is worth further exploration, what evidence exists, what is still assumed, and what the next validation step should be.

Do not use this skill to write a full PRD, design handoff, acceptance criteria, engineering breakdown, or implementation plan. Hand those stages to the next skill after the product need is clearer.

Route The Work

Choose the lightest useful path:

| User intent | Read | |---|---| | Early idea, startup direction, "worth doing?", problem-solution fit | references/idea-validation.md | | Interview notes, customer calls, usability test records, feedback synthesis | references/interview-synthesis.md | | Competitors, market alternatives, feature matrix, positioning, differentiation | references/competitive-analysis.md | | Need a unified score across problem strength, evidence, PCV, and readiness | references/opportunity-scoring.md | | User asks to challenge assumptions, stress-test the direction, or "grill me" | references/decision-challenge.md |

When the request combines multiple inputs, start with a short integrated summary, then expand only the relevant sections.

Required Boundaries

• Separate evidence, inference, assumption, and open question.
• Do not invent users, quotes, competitors, market data, metrics, prices, technical evidence, or business conclusions.
• If the user provides no source material, ask for the minimum missing information or mark the output as low-confidence.
• If competitor facts, pricing, regulations, market news, or current public information matter, verify sources before relying on them.
• Protect participant identity. Do not include PII from interviews unless the user explicitly authorizes it and it is necessary.

Default Output

Use Markdown. Keep the report compact unless the user asks for a full analysis.

# Product Analysis: [Direction / Problem Name]

## Executive Summary
- One-line judgment:
- Recommendation: continue validation / pause / pivot / stop
- Confidence: high / medium / low
- Biggest uncertainty:

## Inputs And Evidence
| Type | Available Material | Reliability | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Users / interviews | | | |
| Competitors / alternatives | | | |
| Problem strength | | | |
| Payment / budget | | | |

## Demand And Opportunity Judgment
- Target user / ICP:
- Core pain:
- Current alternatives:
- Why now:
- Opportunity:

## Key Findings
1. [Finding] - Evidence: [source or material location] - Confidence: [high/medium/low]
2. [Finding] - Evidence: [source or material location] - Confidence: [high/medium/low]

## Risks And Hidden Assumptions
- [Assumption/risk] - How to validate:

## Next Validation Steps
| Priority | Action | Goal | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | | | |

## Handoff To Next Stage
- Recommended next stage:
- Missing before entering next stage:

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• The recommendation is grounded in provided evidence or clearly labeled assumptions.
• User research claims cite participant IDs or source material.
• Competitive claims cite public sources or user-provided evidence.
• PCV/opportunity scores explain why each rating was chosen.
• The output does not drift into PRD, design, or engineering planning.
• The next step is concrete enough for the user to act on.