Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use this skill to validate the "why" before building, run product diagnostics, and pressure-test product direction before the request becomes an implementation contract.
.claude/skills/product-lens/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
This lane owns product diagnosis, not implementation-ready specification writing.
If the user needs a durable PRD-to-SRS or capability-contract artifact, hand off to product-capability.
Like YC office hours but automated. Asks the hard questions:
1. Who is this for? (specific person, not "developers")
2. What's the pain? (quantify: how often, how bad, what do they do today?)
3. Why now? (what changed that makes this possible/necessary?)
4. What's the 10-star version? (if money/time were unlimited)
5. What's the MVP? (smallest thing that proves the thesis)
6. What's the anti-goal? (what are you explicitly NOT building?)
7. How do you know it's working? (metric, not vibes)Output: a PRODUCT-BRIEF.md with answers, risks, and a go/no-go recommendation.
If the result is "yes, build this," the next lane is product-capability, not more founder-theater.
Reviews your current project through a founder lens:
1. Read README, CLAUDE.md, package.json, recent commits
2. Infer: what is this trying to be?
3. Score: product-market fit signals (0-10)
- Usage growth trajectory
- Retention indicators (repeat contributors, return users)
- Revenue signals (pricing page, billing code, Stripe integration)
- Competitive moat (what's hard to copy?)
4. Identify: the one thing that would 10x this
5. Flag: things you're building that don't matterMaps the actual user experience:
1. Clone/install the product as a new user
2. Document every friction point (confusing steps, errors, missing docs)
3. Time each step
4. Compare to competitor onboarding
5. Score: time-to-value (how long until the user gets their first win?)
6. Recommend: top 3 fixes for onboardingWhen you have 10 ideas and need to pick 2:
1. List all candidate features
2. Score each on: impact (1-5) × confidence (1-5) ÷ effort (1-5)
3. Rank by ICE score
4. Apply constraints: runway, team size, dependencies
5. Output: prioritized roadmap with rationaleAll modes output actionable docs, not essays. Every recommendation has a specific next step.
Pair with:
/browser-qa to verify the user journey audit findings/design-system audit for visual polish assessment/canary-watch for post-launch monitoringproduct-capability when the product brief needs to become an implementation-ready capability plan| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +36 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.