Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› assumption-mapper
assumption-mapper
GitHub从产品简报或PRD中提取并评估隐藏假设，按可用性、可行性等四类分类。通过置信度和影响评分计算优先级，生成包含验证方法的优先假设地图，帮助在开发前识别关键风险。
Trigger Scenarios
审查产品简报中的假设
审计PRD以发现风险
寻找隐藏假设
验证产品计划
运行假设分析
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill assumption-mapper -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "assumption-mapper",
"homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/assumption-mapper.html",
"metadata": {
"openclaw": {
"emoji": "🔍"
}
},
"description": "Extract and risk-rate hidden assumptions in a product brief or PRD. Use when asked to review a product brief for assumptions, audit a PRD for risks, find hidden assumptions, validate product plans, or run an assumption analysis. Produces a prioritised assumption map with confidence and impact scores, recommended validation methods, and critical assumption flags."
}
Assumption Mapper Skill
Surface and prioritize the untested assumptions embedded in any product plan before development begins.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Product brief, PRD, or concept description (even rough notes work)
- Stage (concept / discovery / pre-build / post-launch — affects which assumptions matter most)
Process
- Read the provided brief, PRD, or concept description
- Extract assumptions across four categories:
- Desirability (do users want this?)
- Feasibility (can we build it?)
- Viability (will it sustain the business?)
- Usability (can users actually use it?)
- Score each assumption:
- Confidence (1-5): How sure are we this is true?
- Impact (1-5): How badly does the plan fail if this assumption is wrong?
- Priority = Impact − Confidence (higher = test first)
- Validate completeness — Ensure at least one assumption per category. If a category is empty, re-read the brief looking specifically for that type.
- Output a ranked list with recommended validation methods
Output Structure
Assumption Map: [Feature/Product Name]
| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority | Validation Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [assumption] | [type] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [score] | [method] |
Critical Assumptions (Impact 4+ and Confidence 2 or below)
[Flagged items with detailed validation recommendations]
Top 3 Assumptions to Validate First
[Detailed recommendations including specific research method, estimated effort, and what the result would change]
Example (Partial)
Input: "We're building a self-serve onboarding flow to reduce time-to-value for SMB customers."
| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority | Validation Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMB users can complete onboarding without human help | Usability | 2 | 5 | 3 | Unmoderated usability test (n=8) |
| Faster onboarding correlates with higher retention | Viability | 3 | 4 | 1 | Cohort analysis of current onboarding times vs. 90-day retention |
| The current onboarding is the primary reason for slow time-to-value | Desirability | 2 | 4 | 2 | User interviews with recent churned SMB accounts |
Anti-Patterns
- Do not only surface desirability assumptions — feasibility and viability assumptions are equally likely to kill a product and are often overlooked
- Do not assign high confidence to an assumption just because it hasn't been challenged yet — absence of evidence is not evidence
- Do not recommend "user interviews" as the validation method for every assumption — some assumptions require quantitative data, competitive analysis, or technical spikes
- Do not list assumptions that cannot be tested — every assumption in the map must have a plausible validation method, or it should be flagged as unknowable and treated as a risk
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category coverage | Desirability-only — the feasibility and viability assumptions most likely to kill the plan are absent | Three categories populated, but the empty one wasn't re-mined from the brief; coverage is token (one throwaway row) | All four categories populated with substantive rows, with visible digging into whichever category the brief itself neglected |
| Scoring discipline | Confidence/impact numbers arbitrary or missing; priority arithmetic inconsistent; no critical flags | Scores present and Priority = Impact − Confidence holds, but confidence is inflated for unchallenged assumptions and critical flags applied selectively | Scores defensible (unchallenged ≠ high confidence), arithmetic consistent including negative priorities left visible, and the CRITICAL flag applied mechanically at Impact 4+ / Confidence ≤2 — even to assumptions the team likes |
| Validation method fit | "User interviews" (or "do research") pasted into every row | Methods vary but several are mismatched to the assumption type, missing sample sizes, or unpriced | Each method matched to the assumption (data audit, backtest, fake door, desk check, spike…) with sample size and effort; untestable assumptions flagged unknowable and converted to owned risks, not given fake tests |
| Decision leverage | Top-3 list missing, or tests whose outcome would change nothing | Top 3 named with effort, but "what the result changes" is vague or the tests validate comfortable assumptions over dangerous ones | Top 3 are the highest-priority testable assumptions, each with effort, a pre-committed threshold where relevant, and a concrete decision the result would change |
Quality Checks
- At least one assumption per category (Desirability, Feasibility, Viability, Usability)
- All Impact 4+ / Confidence 2− assumptions flagged as CRITICAL
- Each validation method is specific (not just "do research" — name the method and sample size)
- Priority scores are consistent (Impact − Confidence, higher = more urgent)
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 12:10
