product-management — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited product-management (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
This skill turns the assistant into an operator, not a lecturer.
Everything here is:
Modern Best Practices (Jan 2026):
Use this skill when the user asks to do real product work, such as:
Do not use this skill for:
| Task | Template | Domain | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery interview | customer-interview-template.md | Discovery | Interview script with Mom Test patterns |
| Opportunity mapping | opportunity-solution-tree.md | Discovery | OST with outcomes, problems, solutions |
| PMF survey | pmf-survey-template.md | Discovery | Sean Ellis + NPS + usage survey |
| Outcome roadmap | outcome-roadmap.md | Roadmap | Now/Next/Later with outcomes and themes |
| OKR definition | okr-template.md | Metrics | 1-3 objectives with 2-4 key results each |
| Product positioning | positioning-template.md | Strategy | Competitive alternatives -> value -> segment |
| Product vision | product-vision-template.md | Strategy | From→To narrative with 3-5 year horizon |
| Quarterly review | quarterly-product-review.md | Strategy | Keep / cut / double-down product audit |
| Prioritization | prioritization-scorecard.md | Prioritization | RICE/ICE scoring with kill criteria |
| Kill criteria | kill-criteria-template.md | Prioritization | Pre-defined stop conditions per initiative |
| 1:1 meeting | 1-1-template.md | Leadership | Check-in, progress, blockers, growth |
| Post-incident debrief | a3-debrief.md | Leadership | Intent vs actual, root cause, action items |
User needs: [Product Work Type]
├─ Discovery / Validation?
│ ├─ Customer insights? → Customer interview template
│ ├─ Hypothesis testing? → Assumption test template
│ └─ Opportunity mapping? → Opportunity Solution Tree
│
├─ Strategy / Vision?
│ ├─ Long-term direction? → Product vision template
│ ├─ Market positioning? → Positioning template (Dunford)
│ ├─ Big opportunity? → Opportunity assessment
│ └─ Amazon-style spec? → PR/FAQ template
│
├─ Planning / Roadmap?
│ ├─ Outcome-driven? → Outcome roadmap (Now/Next/Later)
│ ├─ Theme-based? → Theme roadmap
│ └─ Metrics / OKRs? → Metric tree + OKR template
│
├─ Prioritization / Focus?
│ ├─ What to build next? → Prioritization scorecard (RICE/ICE)
│ ├─ What to stop? → Kill criteria template + quarterly review
│ ├─ Scope too large? → Scope negotiation patterns
│ └─ PMF check? → PMF survey + retention curve analysis
│
└─ Leadership / Team Ops?
├─ 1:1 meeting? → 1-1 template
├─ Giving feedback? → Feedback template (SBI model)
├─ Post-incident? → A3 debrief
├─ Stakeholder pushback? → Stakeholder management patterns
└─ Negotiation? → Negotiation one-sheet (Voss)The most common founder-PM failure: building everything, killing nothing, and running out of time before impact.
| Framework | Formula / Method | Best For | Watch For |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICE | (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort | Comparing features with data | Gaming confidence scores |
| ICE | Impact x Confidence x Ease | Quick gut-check prioritization | Over-simplification |
| Opportunity Scoring | Importance x (Importance - Satisfaction) | Discovery-driven, JTBD-aligned | Requires user research data |
| Cost of Delay | Value per unit time / Duration | Time-sensitive decisions | Harder to estimate accurately |
| Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) | Cost of Delay / Job Size | SAFe/Lean, flow optimization | Requires calibrated estimates |
Pick one. Use it consistently. The framework matters less than the discipline of scoring everything the same way.
Every initiative should have pre-defined conditions for stopping:
Use assets/prioritization/kill-criteria-template.md to define these before starting.
When replacing an existing feature with a new one, don't hard-kill the old feature. Use a bridge migration pattern to prevent user loss.
Bridge mode: Run both old and new features simultaneously. Route users to the new experience by default but keep the old path accessible (via link, fallback, or settings toggle).
Substitution-based kill rule:
BRIDGE MIGRATION SEQUENCE:
1. Ship new feature alongside old feature
2. Default new users to new experience
3. Migrate existing users gradually (progressive rollout)
4. Monitor: absorption rate, retention by cohort, support tickets
5. Old feature absorbs ≥80% for 14 days + no retention drop?
├─ Yes → Kill old feature, remove code
└─ No → Investigate gaps, iterate new feature, extend bridgeWhen NOT to bridge: Security vulnerabilities, compliance requirements, or features with near-zero usage (<1% MAU). These can be killed directly with notice.
When stakeholders push for more scope:
Every quarter, review the product with assets/strategy/quarterly-product-review.md:
For detailed prioritization patterns and worked examples: see references/prioritization-frameworks.md.
PMF is not a binary event. It's a signal you measure across multiple dimensions.
Survey users: "How would you feel if you could no longer use [product]?"
Use assets/discovery/pmf-survey-template.md for the full survey (combines Sean Ellis + NPS + usage questions).
Define activation precisely (formula + timeframe + data source):
Periodically audit feature usage to identify what to keep, improve, or remove:
PMF varies by segment. Measure separately for:
For detailed PMF measurement methodology: see references/pmf-measurement.md.
Founders manage board members, investors, early customers, co-founders, and (eventually) team leads — often without formal PM training.
Key patterns:
For detailed stakeholder management patterns: see references/stakeholder-management.md.
For PRDs/specs and writing-quality requirements, use the templates in ../docs-ai-prd/:
Use only when explicitly requested and policy-compliant.
Resources
Templates
Related Skills
See references/operational-guide.md for detailed patterns, template walkthroughs, example flows, and execution checklists. Keep SKILL.md as the navigation hub; use assets/ when producing artifacts.
See data/sources.json for official frameworks (Lean Startup, OST, PR/FAQ, OKRs) and AI/LLM safety references.
Use the quick reference and decision tree above to choose a template, then follow the operational guide for depth.
IMPORTANT: When users ask recommendation questions about product management tools, frameworks, or practices, use a web search tool to check current trends before answering. If web search is unavailable, use data/sources.json and state clearly what you verified vs assumed.
"product management best practices 2026""[specific tool] vs alternatives 2026""product management trends January 2026""[discovery/roadmap/OKR] frameworks 2026"After searching, provide:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.