Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Assumption mapping expert that identifies, categorizes, and prioritizes product assumptions across 4-8 risk categories using devil's advocate analysis.
.claude/skills/borghei-identify-assumptions/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 26% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -48% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 228% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 25% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 8% | 0% |
Systematically identify, categorize, and prioritize the assumptions underlying your product decisions. This skill extends Teresa Torres' four risk categories with four additional categories for new products, and uses a devil's advocate approach from PM, Designer, and Engineer perspectives to surface hidden assumptions.
Risk Score = Impact x (1 - Confidence) ranks what to test first.assumption_tracker.py sorts by priority and suggests next actions.Before mapping assumptions, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
impact (1-10) and confidence (high/med/low) (drives Risk Score = Impact × (1 − Confidence) and quadrant placement)Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
bashpython3 scripts/assumption_tracker.py --demo # built-in sample (8 assumptions) python3 scripts/assumption_tracker.py input.json # score & prioritize your assumptions python3 scripts/assumption_tracker.py input.json --format json
Each assumption needs description, category (value/usability/viability/feasibility/ethics/gtm/strategy/team), confidence (high/medium/low), and impact (1-10). Document with assets/assumption_map_template.md.
Load the reference that matches the task — keep this file lean and pull detail on demand:
assumption_tracker.py usage and flags, output formats, troubleshooting, success criteria, and bibliography. Read when mapping or scripting assumptions.In Scope: systematic assumption identification using PM/Designer/Engineer devil's advocate perspectives; 8-category risk classification; quantitative scoring with Impact x (1 - Confidence); quadrant classification with suggested validation methods; assumption registry with priority sorting and action plans.
Out of Scope: running validation experiments (brainstorm-experiments/); product strategy or roadmap decisions (execution/outcome-roadmap/); technical feasibility deep-dives (engineering/ skills); financial modeling for viability (finance/ skills).
Important Caveats: confidence levels map to fixed numeric values (0.8/0.5/0.2) — a simplification of continuous confidence; the "high impact" threshold is 7/10, adjustable for your risk tolerance; assumption mapping works best collaboratively (Product Trio), not solo.
| Integration | Direction | Description | |------------|-----------|-------------| | brainstorm-ideas/ | Receives from | Ideas generated become the subjects whose assumptions are mapped | | brainstorm-experiments/ | Feeds into | "Test Now" assumptions become hypotheses for experiment design | | pre-mortem/ | Complements | Pre-mortem catches risks that assumption mapping may miss (especially elephants) | | execution/create-prd/ | Feeds into | Validated assumptions populate the PRD Assumptions section (Section 7) | | execution/brainstorm-okrs/ | Feeds into | Viability assumptions inform OKR key result selection and confidence levels | | senior-pm/ | Feeds into | High-impact assumptions feed into portfolio risk registers |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-02 | fail→fail | 25,679 | 36,407 | +42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,012 | 7,319 | +82% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 19,761 | 30,951 | +57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,159 | 6,300 | +99% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 26,968 | 32,858 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,245 | 6,704 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 19,573 | 19,173 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,356 | 4,221 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 27,739 | 11,035 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,608 | 2,920 | -48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 20,755 | 9,059 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,164 | 2,474 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 9,010 | 19,768 | +119% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,344 | 4,414 | +228% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 14,417 | 9,344 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,064 | 2,583 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 18,873 | 12,503 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,883 | 3,109 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 9,357 | 4,762 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,597 | 1,888 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 10,122 | 3,667 | -64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,515 | 1,774 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 9,791 | 3,181 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,446 | 1,631 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 4,936 | 5,440 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 787 | 2,014 | +156% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 6,077 | 5,925 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 888 | 2,066 | +133% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 5,933 | 5,841 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 894 | 1,993 | +123% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 4,999 | 6,486 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 794 | 2,208 | +178% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 9,172 | 1,342 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,436 | 1,378 | -4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 8,270 | 4,956 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,262 | 2,004 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 11,781 | 3,171 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,869 | 1,618 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 10,350 | 3,264 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,627 | 1,700 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 10,019 | 1,959 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,558 | 1,444 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 8,061 | 2,455 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,235 | 1,599 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | 11,993 | 1,921 | -84% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,020 | 1,487 | -26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 5,716 | 6,742 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 811 | 2,129 | +163% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-25 | fail→fail | 9,035 | 3,441 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,320 | 1,551 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 25 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +68 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 25 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.