product-discovery — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited product-discovery (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 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.
Build products customers actually want. Apply Marty Cagan's Silicon Valley-tested framework to discover solutions that are valuable, usable, feasible, and viable.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Source | Marty Cagan - Inspired (2008, 2018) and Empowered (2020) |
| Core Principle | "Fall in love with the problem, not the solution. The best product teams discover what customers need, not just what they ask for." |
| Why This Matters | Most products fail not because they're built poorly, but because they solve the wrong problem. Discovery ensures you build the right thing before you build the thing right. |
| Claude Does | You Decide |
|---|---|
| Structures content frameworks | Final messaging |
| Suggests persuasion techniques | Brand voice |
| Creates draft variations | Version selection |
| Identifies optimization opportunities | Publication timing |
| Analyzes competitor approaches | Strategic direction |
I'm considering building [feature/product].
Apply product discovery principles to assess this opportunity.
Context: [target customer, current state, hypothesis]We're about to build [feature].
Help me identify the key risks and design tests to address them.I want to implement continuous discovery for my product team.
Help me design a weekly discovery rhythm.## The Four Product Risks
Every product idea has four risks to address BEFORE building:
### 1. Value Risk
"Will customers buy/use this?"
**Questions:**
- Does this solve a real problem?
- Is the problem painful enough to pay/switch for?
- Will users actually adopt this?
**Tests:**
- Customer interviews
- Demand testing
- Fake door tests
- Concierge MVP
### 2. Usability Risk
"Can customers figure out how to use it?"
**Questions:**
- Is it intuitive?
- Can users accomplish their goals?
- What's the learning curve?
**Tests:**
- Prototype testing
- Usability studies
- Wizard of Oz tests
- A/B tests on UX
### 3. Feasibility Risk
"Can we build this?"
**Questions:**
- Do we have the technology?
- Can we do it in reasonable time?
- What are the technical dependencies?
**Tests:**
- Technical spike
- Proof of concept
- Architecture review
- Build vs. buy analysis
### 4. Viability Risk
"Should we build this?"
**Questions:**
- Does it fit our strategy?
- Can we support/maintain it?
- Is it legal/compliant?
- Does the business model work?
**Tests:**
- Business case
- Stakeholder review
- Compliance review
- Financial modeling## Two Tracks: Discovery and Delivery
### Discovery (Figure out WHAT to build)
**Mindset:**
- Embrace uncertainty
- Test assumptions
- Fail fast and cheap
- Learn over deliver
**Activities:**
- Customer interviews
- Prototyping
- Experiments
- Opportunity assessment
**Outcome:**
- Validated problems
- Tested solutions
- Confidence to build
- Clear success metrics
### Delivery (BUILD it right)
**Mindset:**
- Reduce uncertainty
- Execute efficiently
- Ship quality
- Hit timelines
**Activities:**
- Engineering
- QA
- Launch prep
- Documentation
**Outcome:**
- Working software
- Happy customers
- Business impact
- Technical quality
### The Critical Point
Most teams skip discovery and jump to delivery.
**Result:**
- Build features no one wants
- Waste engineering resources
- Miss market opportunities
- Frustrated team, frustrated customers
**The ratio:**
Spend 10-20% of time on discovery to avoid wasting
80-90% of delivery time on wrong things.## Assessing Product Opportunities
### The Opportunity Assessment Framework
Before committing to solve a problem, answer:
**1. Is this problem worth solving?**
| Factor | Questions |
|--------|-----------|
| **Frequency** | How often does this problem occur? |
| **Intensity** | How painful is it when it happens? |
| **Willingness** | Will people pay/switch to solve it? |
| **Reach** | How many customers have this problem? |
**Scoring:**
- High frequency + High intensity = Strong opportunity
- Low frequency OR Low intensity = Weak opportunity
**2. Can we solve it effectively?**
| Factor | Questions |
|--------|-----------|
| **Capability** | Do we have the skills/tech? |
| **Fit** | Does it align with our strategy? |
| **Uniqueness** | Can we solve it better than alternatives? |
| **Sustainability** | Can we maintain competitive advantage? |
**3. Should we solve it now?**
| Factor | Questions |
|--------|-----------|
| **Urgency** | Is timing critical? |
| **Resources** | Do we have capacity? |
| **Dependencies** | What else needs to happen first? |
| **Opportunity cost** | What are we NOT doing instead? |
### Opportunity Score Card
Problem Score: [Average]
Solution Score: [Average]
Timing Score: [Average]
Recommendation: [Pursue / Park / Pass]
## Core Discovery Techniques
### 1. Customer Interviews
**Purpose:** Understand problems, not validate solutions
**Structure:**
1. Context: Understand their current situation
2. Problem: Explore the pain points
3. Impact: How does it affect them?
4. Current solutions: What do they do today?
5. Ideal state: What would "solved" look like?
**Key rules:**
- Ask about past behavior, not future intentions
- Don't pitch, just listen
- Follow the emotion
- Get specific stories
**Questions:**
- "Walk me through the last time this happened..."
- "What did you do? What happened next?"
- "Why was that a problem?"
- "What would have made it better?"
### 2. Prototyping
**Purpose:** Test solutions before building
**Types:**
| Type | Fidelity | Tests | Time |
|------|----------|-------|------|
| **Paper sketch** | Low | Concepts, flow | Hours |
| **Wireframe** | Low-Med | Structure, navigation | Days |
| **Clickable prototype** | Medium | Usability, flow | Days |
| **Wizard of Oz** | High | Full experience | Weeks |
**Principle:**
Use the lowest fidelity that tests your hypothesis.
Higher fidelity = More time = More risk of attachment.
### 3. Experiments
**Purpose:** Test assumptions with real behavior
**Types:**
- **Fake door:** Button for feature that doesn't exist
- **Smoke test:** Landing page before building
- **Concierge:** Manual delivery of automated value
- **A/B test:** Compare variations with real users
**Structure:**
1. Hypothesis: "We believe [X]"
2. Test: "We will test by [Y]"
3. Metric: "We will measure [Z]"
4. Success: "[Number] indicates we should proceed"
### 4. Opportunity Solution Trees
**Purpose:** Map problem space to solution space
**Structure:**[Desired Outcome] | ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐ | | | [Opportunity 1] [Opportunity 2] [Opportunity 3] | | | ┌─┴─┐ ┌─┴─┐ ┌─┴─┐ | | | | | | [S1] [S2] [S1] [S2] [S1] [S2]
- Start with business outcome
- Break into opportunities (problems to solve)
- Brainstorm solutions for each opportunity
- Test solutions, not opportunities## Weekly Discovery Rhythm
### The Cadence
**Monday: Prep**
- Review last week's learnings
- Prioritize this week's questions
- Schedule interviews/tests
**Tuesday-Thursday: Research**
- Customer interviews (2-3 per week minimum)
- Prototype testing
- Data analysis
- Experiment monitoring
**Friday: Synthesis**
- Consolidate learnings
- Update opportunity assessment
- Share with delivery team
- Plan next week
### The Habits
**1. Weekly customer touchpoint**
- Minimum: 2-3 customer conversations/week
- Mix: Prospects, users, churned customers
**2. Assumption tracking**
- List key assumptions
- Design tests for riskiest ones
- Document learnings
**3. Experiment backlog**
- Always have 2-3 experiments running
- Quick iterations over perfect tests
**4. Cross-functional involvement**
- Engineering in discovery
- Design in customer calls
- PM facilitates, doesn't dictate
### The Anti-Patterns
**Discovery theater:**
- Doing research but not changing decisions
- Fix: Tie discovery directly to roadmap decisions
**Big bang research:**
- Quarterly research sprints instead of continuous
- Fix: Small, frequent over large, infrequent
**Validation bias:**
- Only seeking confirmation
- Fix: Actively try to disprove hypothesesInput:
"We're thinking of adding a calendar integration to our project management tool. How do I validate this before we build it?"
Output:
| Risk | Level | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Value | HIGH | Unclear if this solves a real problem |
| Usability | MEDIUM | Calendar UI is complex |
| Feasibility | LOW | Known integrations (Google, Outlook) |
| Viability | LOW | Fits product strategy |
Focus discovery on: Value risk (first), then Usability
#### Week 1: Understand the Problem
Customer Interviews (5-8 interviews)
Target: Current users who manage time-sensitive projects
Questions:
What you're listening for:
#### Week 2: Assess Demand
Fake Door Test
Success criteria:
Existing data analysis:
#### Week 3: Test Solutions
Prototype Test (if Week 1-2 show signal)
Low-fidelity prototype showing:
Test with 5 users:
Wizard of Oz Test
For 10 users:
| Finding | Decision |
|---|---|
| Strong value signal + usable prototype | Build it |
| Strong value signal + usability issues | Redesign, retest |
| Weak value signal | Don't build, park idea |
| Value for subset only | Consider scope/segmentation |
Total discovery investment: 4 weeks, ~40 hours vs. building without discovery: 3-6 months of engineering
Input:
"I'm a PM at a B2B SaaS startup. We don't do any formal discovery—we just build what customers ask for or what the CEO wants. How do I start continuous discovery?"
Output:
Don't try to:
Do:
Action: Schedule 2 customer calls for next week.
Who to talk to:
Script: "We're working to make [product] better for people like you. I'd love 20 minutes to understand how you're using it and what we could improve. Not a sales call—just learning."
After each call: Write 3-5 bullet points:
Action: For any feature in development, list the top 3 assumptions.
Example format:
Feature: New onboarding flow
Assumptions:
1. Users don't complete onboarding because it's too long
2. Users who complete onboarding retain better
3. Users want to invite teammates during onboarding
Evidence level:
1. Assumption (no evidence)
2. Validated (we have data)
3. Assumption (no evidence)Share with team: "Here are our assumptions. Which are we most uncertain about? How could we test them?"
Action: Add one discovery question to every customer call (support, sales, success).
The question: "What's the biggest challenge you're facing right now that we don't currently help with?"
Collect answers: Shared doc/Slack channel where team posts responses.
Weekly review: "We talked to 8 customers. Here's what we heard about challenges..."
Action: Run one small experiment.
Simple options:
Share results: "We tested [X]. Here's what we learned: [Y]. This changes our thinking about [Z]."
Don't ask for permission. Show value.
After 4 weeks, share:
customers don't actually need."
The pitch: "I'm not asking for a big research investment. I'm spending 2-3 hours per week talking to customers and running small tests. It's already helping us prioritize better."
Once habits are established (4-8 weeks):
Input:
"We have three potential features to build: (A) AI-powered suggestions, (B) Team collaboration improvements, (C) Mobile app. How do I assess which to prioritize?"
Output:
Problem Assessment
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 3 | Daily use case |
| Intensity | 2 | Nice to have, not painful without |
| Willingness to pay | 2 | Market expects AI, but is it differential? |
| Market size | 4 | Applies to most users |
| Problem Score | 2.75 |
Solution Assessment
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | 3 | ML expertise needed, but doable |
| Strategic fit | 4 | Aligns with "intelligent product" vision |
| Competitive advantage | 2 | Easy for others to copy |
| Solution Score | 3.0 |
Key Risks:
Opportunity Score: 8.25
Problem Assessment
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 5 | Multiple times daily for teams |
| Intensity | 4 | Current friction causing workarounds |
| Willingness to pay | 4 | Team pricing tier exists |
| Market size | 3 | Only applies to team accounts |
| Problem Score | 4.0 |
Solution Assessment
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | 4 | Standard features, known patterns |
| Strategic fit | 5 | Directly supports growth strategy |
| Competitive advantage | 3 | Differentiation possible but not huge |
| Solution Score | 4.0 |
Key Risks:
Opportunity Score: 16.0
Problem Assessment
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 3 | Some users want mobile, most desktop |
| Intensity | 4 | Mobile users are very frustrated |
| Willingness to pay | 2 | Expectation, not premium feature |
| Market size | 2 | Only subset of users need mobile |
| Problem Score | 2.75 |
Solution Assessment
| Factor | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | 2 | Major effort (iOS + Android + maintain) |
| Strategic fit | 3 | Not core to current positioning |
| Competitive advantage | 2 | Table stakes, not differential |
| Solution Score | 2.33 |
Key Risks:
Opportunity Score: 6.4
| Opportunity | Problem | Solution | Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team Collaboration | 4.0 | 4.0 | 16.0 | 1st |
| AI Suggestions | 2.75 | 3.0 | 8.25 | 2nd |
| Mobile App | 2.75 | 2.33 | 6.4 | 3rd |
Recommendation:
Next Steps:
## Before Starting Discovery
### Define the Scope
□ What outcome are we trying to achieve?
□ What problem might we solve?
□ Who is the target customer?
□ What's the timeline for decision?
### Identify Assumptions
□ List top 10 assumptions about problem and solution
□ Rank by risk level (if wrong, how bad?)
□ Identify top 3 to test first
### Plan Activities
□ Customer interviews scheduled (minimum 5)
□ Data/analytics to review identified
□ Prototype or experiment designed
□ Success criteria defined
### Align Team
□ Cross-functional team identified
□ Discovery goals shared
□ Calendar blocked for activities## Discovery Summary: [Feature/Opportunity]
### Problem Statement
[What problem are we solving? For whom?]
### Research Conducted
- [X] customer interviews
- [X] data analyses
- [X] prototype tests
- [X] experiments
### Key Findings
**What we learned about the problem:**
1.
2.
3.
**What we learned about solutions:**
1.
2.
3.
### Risk Assessment
| Risk | Level | Mitigation |
|------|-------|------------|
| Value | | |
| Usability | | |
| Feasibility | | |
| Viability | | |
### Recommendation
[Build / Don't Build / Need More Discovery]
### If Building, Success Metrics
- Metric 1:
- Metric 2:
- Metric 3:name: product-discovery
category: product
subcategory: methodology
version: 1.0
author: MKTG Skills
source_expert: Marty Cagan
source_work: Inspired, Empowered
difficulty: intermediate
estimated_value: $10,000+ product consulting engagement
tags: [product, discovery, validation, PM, Cagan, SVPG, risk, prototyping]
created: 2026-01-25
updated: 2026-01-25~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.