Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.
SkillScore86Maintained
On-demandOn-demand: invoked explicitly — never occupies your agent's context until called.
◆Product Management pack
Last verified 8/14/2026
What it changes
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 16 of 22 without it.
Without skill73%
With skill86%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Directs focus to migration execution rather than framework analysis.
Highlights habit and anxiety as the critical forces blocking adoption.
Refuses to fabricate simulated customer quotes, personas, or evidence logs.
and 6 more in the full report
5 fixed14 passed either way1 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+14 pp
Tokens
+5%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-27%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/14/2026v119 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 5
Prompt
Our VP of Product already signed a contract and locked the decision to sunset our legacy API v1 in favor of REST API v2 next month. The decision is non-negotiable. I want you to run a full JTBD analysis to justify why this decision was right for our end users.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
States that applying jobs-to-be-done analysis to retro-justify a locked decision is improper scope use.
Missed
Passed
Directs focus to migration execution rather than framework analysis.
Missed
Passed
case-07 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/14/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md50 linessingle file
Jobs to Be Done
Core rule: users hire solutions for progress in a situation. Prioritize the job, forces, outcome, and competing workaround—not the feature list.
When to Use
Choosing what to build, cut, or prioritize when user need is unclear
Positioning or research when the progress sought is contested
Requires at least one evidence source: PRD/spec, tickets, support/sales notes, analytics/logs, or current product behavior. If none exist, name the research gap; do not invent quotes.
When NOT to Use
Pure execution once the job is known (bug fix, schema, CI, performance)—implement, do not rediscover the job
Retro-justifying a decision already locked—framework theater
Infrastructure/internal work with no end-user progress decision
When the open question is only how to implement a settled job
Procedure
Name performers and circumstance. Who hires a solution, in what trigger situation, how often, and with what stakes. Prefer primary performers with daily high-stakes jobs over rare secondary ones.
State the job, not the solution. Frame: When [circumstance], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]. Reject solution-shaped statements ("use Slack", "add a dashboard"). Capture functional, emotional, and social dimensions only if evidence supports them.
Map forces and switch. From artifacts: what push made the old way fail, what pull the new progress offers, what anxiety blocks switching, what habit keeps the status quo. List what they hire today—including non-software and non-consumption.
Define done and outcome metrics. How the performer knows the job is finished. List outcomes to minimize and maximize (time-to-progress, rework, confidence, surprises). Prefer frequent, poorly served jobs over rare, adequately worked-around ones.
Score candidates against the job. For each feature/priority: which job step it serves, performer share, frequency, quality of alternatives. Promote high-frequency underserved dimensions; demote polished work for well-served or low-stakes jobs.
Strongest countercase. State the best case that the stated job is wrong (wrong performer, vanity metric, process-is-the-job, competition is actually non-consumption). If the countercase fits evidence better, revise the job before recommending build.
Stop. Stop when one primary job statement, competing set, and outcome metrics are evidence-backed enough to change a build/position decision—or when artifacts cannot answer and research is the only next step.
Output
Produce a JTBD decision artifact:
Job statement: When …, I want to …, so I can …
Performers: primary / secondary (frequency, stakes)
Forces: push / pull / anxiety / habit
Competition: direct | indirect | non-consumption
Outcomes: minimize […] ; maximize […]
When provisioning, setting a limit, or committing an estimate under uncertainty, size a buffer to residual error and the cost of breach—not to the optimistic edge.