discovery-interview-prep — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited discovery-interview-prep (Agent Skill) and scored it 79/100 (yellow). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 5 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 5 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
Guide product managers through preparing for customer discovery interviews by asking adaptive questions about research goals, customer segments, constraints, and methodologies. Use this to design effective interview plans, craft targeted questions, avoid common biases, and maximize learning from limited customer access—ensuring discovery interviews yield actionable insights rather than confirmation bias or surface-level feedback.
This is not a script generator—it's a strategic prep process that outputs a tailored interview plan with methodology, question framework, and success criteria.
An interactive process that:
Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
Other (specify) when useful)This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
This interactive skill asks up to 4 adaptive questions, offering 3-4 enumerated options at each step.
Agent suggests:
Before we design your interview plan, let's gather context:
For Your Own Product (Existing or Planned):
For Investigating an Existing Problem:
If Exploring a New Problem Space:
You can paste this content directly, or we can proceed with a brief description.
Agent asks: "What's the primary goal of these discovery interviews? (What do you need to learn?)"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
Or describe your own research goal (be specific: what question are you trying to answer?).
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent asks: "Who are you interviewing? (Be as specific as possible.)"
Offer 4 enumerated options (adapted based on Q1):
Example (if Q1 = Problem validation):
Or describe your specific target segment (role, company size, behaviors, demographics).
Adaptation tip: Use personas or customer segments from provided materials.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent asks: "What constraints are you working with for these interviews?"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
Or describe your specific constraints (budget, time, access, team capacity).
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent asks: "Based on your goal ([Q1]), target segment ([Q2]), and constraints ([Q3]), here are recommended interview methodologies:"
Offer 3-4 enumerated options (context-aware based on Q1-Q3):
Example (if Q1 = Problem validation, Q2 = People who experience problem regularly, Q3 = Limited access):
Choose a number, combine approaches (e.g., '1 & 2'), or describe your own methodology.
Adaptation examples:
User response: [Selection or custom]
After collecting responses, the agent generates a tailored interview plan:
# Discovery Interview Plan
**Research Goal:** [From Q1]
**Target Segment:** [From Q2]
**Constraints:** [From Q3]
**Methodology:** [From Q4]
---
## Interview Framework
### Opening (5 minutes)
- **Build rapport:** "Thanks for taking the time. I'm [name], and I'm researching [problem space]. This isn't a sales call—I'm here to learn from your experience."
- **Set expectations:** "I'll ask about your experiences with [topic]. There are no right answers. Feel free to be honest—critical feedback is most helpful."
- **Get consent:** "Is it okay if I take notes / record this conversation?"
---
### Core Questions (30-40 minutes)
**Based on your methodology ([Q4]), here are suggested questions:**
#### [Methodology Name] Questions:
1. **[Question 1]** — [Rationale for asking this]
- **Follow-up:** [Dig deeper with...]
- **Avoid:** [Don't ask leading version like...]
2. **[Question 2]** — [Rationale]
- **Follow-up:** [...]
- **Avoid:** [...]
3. **[Question 3]** — [Rationale]
- **Follow-up:** [...]
- **Avoid:** [...]
4. **[Question 4]** — [Rationale]
- **Follow-up:** [...]
- **Avoid:** [...]
5. **[Question 5]** — [Rationale]
- **Follow-up:** [...]
- **Avoid:** [...]
**Example (if Methodology = Problem validation - Mom Test style):**
1. **"Tell me about the last time you [experienced this problem]."** — Gets specific, recent behavior (not hypothetical)
- **Follow-up:** "What were you trying to accomplish? What made it hard? What did you try?"
- **Avoid:** "Would you use a tool that solves this?" (leading, hypothetical)
2. **"How do you currently handle [this problem]?"** — Reveals workarounds, alternatives, pain intensity
- **Follow-up:** "How much time/money does that take? What's frustrating about it?"
- **Avoid:** "Don't you think that's inefficient?" (leading)
3. **"Can you walk me through what you did step-by-step?"** — Uncovers details, edge cases, context
- **Follow-up:** "What happened next? Where did you get stuck?"
- **Avoid:** "Was it hard?" (yes/no question, not useful)
4. **"Have you tried other solutions for this?"** — Reveals competitive landscape, unmet needs
- **Follow-up:** "What did you like/dislike? Why did you stop using it?"
- **Avoid:** "Would you pay for a better solution?" (hypothetical)
5. **"If you had a magic wand, what would change?"** — Opens space for ideal outcomes (but treat with skepticism—focus on past behavior, not wishes)
- **Follow-up:** "Why does that matter to you? What would that enable?"
- **Avoid:** Taking feature requests literally
---
### Closing (5 minutes)
- **Summarize:** "Just to recap, I heard that [key insights]. Did I get that right?"
- **Ask for referrals:** "Do you know anyone else who experiences this problem? Could you introduce me?"
- **Thank them:** "This was incredibly helpful. I really appreciate your time."
---
## Biases to Avoid
1. **Confirmation bias:** Don't ask "Don't you think X is a problem?" → Ask "Tell me about your experience with X."
2. **Leading questions:** Don't ask "Would you use this?" → Ask "What have you tried? Why did it work/fail?"
3. **Hypothetical questions:** Don't ask "If we built Y, would you pay?" → Ask "What do you currently pay for? Why?"
4. **Pitching disguised as research:** Don't say "We're building Z to solve X" → Say "I'm researching X. Tell me about your experience."
5. **Yes/no questions:** Don't ask "Is invoicing hard?" → Ask "Walk me through your invoicing process."
---
## Success Criteria
You'll know these interviews are successful if:
✅ **You hear specific stories, not generic complaints** — "Last Tuesday, I spent 3 hours..." vs. "Invoicing is annoying"
✅ **You uncover past behavior, not hypothetical wishes** — "I tried Zapier but quit after 2 weeks" vs. "I'd probably use automation"
✅ **You identify patterns across 3+ interviews** — Same pain points emerge independently
✅ **You're surprised by something** — If everything confirms your assumptions, you're asking leading questions
✅ **You can quote customers verbatim** — Actual language = authentic insights
---
## Interview Logistics
**Recruiting:**
- [Based on Q3 constraints, suggest recruitment channels]
- **Example (if Q3 = Limited access):** "Reach out to 20-30 people to get 5-10 interviews (33% response rate is typical)"
- **Example (if Q3 = Existing customers):** "Email 50 customers with $50 Amazon gift card incentive"
**Scheduling:**
- 45-60 minutes per interview (30-40 min conversation + buffer)
- Record if possible (with consent), or take detailed notes
- Schedule 2-3 per day max (you need time to synthesize)
**Synthesis:**
- After each interview, write key insights immediately (memory fades fast)
- After 5 interviews, look for patterns (common pains, jobs, workarounds)
- Use `problem-statement.md` to frame findings
---
**Ready to start recruiting and interviewing? Let me know if you'd like to refine any part of this plan.**Step 0 - Context: User shares hypothesis: "Freelancers waste time chasing late payments manually."
Q1 Response: "Problem validation — Confirm that late payment follow-ups are painful enough to solve"
Q2 Response: "People who experience the problem regularly — Freelancers who invoice 5+ clients monthly"
Q3 Response: "Cold outreach required — No existing customers; need to recruit via LinkedIn, Reddit, freelancer communities"
Q4 Response: "Problem validation interviews (Mom Test style) — Focus on past behavior, not hypotheticals"
Generated Plan: Includes 5 Mom Test-style questions (last time you chased a late payment, how do you currently handle it, what have you tried, etc.), biases to avoid (leading questions, hypotheticals), and success criteria (specific stories, past behavior, patterns across 3+ interviews).
Why this works:
Symptom: "What features do you want us to build?"
Consequence: You get feature requests, not problems. Customers don't know solutions.
Fix: Ask about past behavior: "Tell me about the last time you struggled with X."
Symptom: Spending 20 minutes explaining your product idea
Consequence: Customer feels obligated to be nice. No honest feedback.
Fix: Don't mention your solution until the last 5 minutes (if at all). Focus on their problems.
Symptom: Interviewing friends, family, or people who don't experience the problem
Consequence: Polite feedback, not real insights.
Fix: Interview people who experience the problem regularly and recently.
Symptom: "We talked to 2 people, they liked it, let's build!"
Consequence: Small sample = confirmation bias.
Fix: Interview 5-10 people minimum. Look for patterns, not one-off feedback.
Symptom: Relying on memory after interviews
Consequence: Lose details, misremember quotes, can't spot patterns.
Fix: Record (with consent) or take detailed notes. Synthesize immediately after each interview.
problem-statement.md — Use interview insights to frame problem statementproto-persona.md — Define interview target segmentjobs-to-be-done.md — JTBD methodology for interviewsSkill type: Interactive Suggested filename: discovery-interview-prep.md Suggested placement: /skills/interactive/ Dependencies: Uses problem-statement.md, proto-persona.md, jobs-to-be-done.md
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.