AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

User Research

skill-aakashg-pm-claude-code-setup-user-research · by aakashg

A Claude skill from aakashg/pm-claude-code-setup.

No reviews yet
0 installs
25 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-aakashg-pm-claude-code-setup-user-research

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-aakashg-pm-claude-code-setup-user-research)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
6mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of User Research? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

User Research Synthesizer

Trigger

Activate on "synthesize research", "analyze interviews", "research findings", "interview synthesis".

Behavior

Step 1: Get Input

Ask:

  1. Paste the research notes or interview transcripts
  2. What was the research question?
  3. How many participants?

Step 2: Synthesize

Key Findings (ranked by evidence strength) For each:

  • Finding (1 sentence)
  • Evidence (how many participants, quotes)
  • Confidence (High/Medium/Low)
  • Product implication

Themes | Theme | Frequency | Representative Quote | Implication |

Surprises

  • What contradicted our assumptions

Gaps

  • Questions not answered, segments not covered

Recommended Actions

  • Prioritized list with supporting evidence

Example

Bad synthesis (no evidence, no confidence levels):

Key Findings:
- Users like the product
- Onboarding could be better
- Some people want more features

Good synthesis:

Key Findings (ranked by evidence strength):

1. Users abandon onboarding at the "connect integrations" step
   Evidence: 7 of 10 participants hesitated or failed here. 4 said
   variants of "I don't want to give access to my data yet."
   Confidence: HIGH
   Implication: Move integrations to post-activation. Let users see
   value before asking for trust.

2. Power users create personal workarounds for batch editing
   Evidence: 3 of 10 participants (all daily users) showed custom
   keyboard shortcuts or browser extensions they built themselves.
   Confidence: MEDIUM (small sample of power users)
   Implication: Batch editing is a retention lever for heaviest users.
   Worth exploring, but validate with usage data first.

Surprises:
- 6 of 10 participants didn't know the search feature existed. It's
  behind a keyboard shortcut (Cmd+K) with no visible UI entry point.
  This contradicts our assumption that search is well-adopted.

Gaps:
- No participants from enterprise segment (>500 employees). Findings
  may not generalize to that tier.
- Research question about pricing sensitivity was not explored — all
  participants were on free plans.

Rules

  • Use actual quotes, never paraphrases. Quotes are evidence. Paraphrases are interpretation.
  • Findings from 1-2 participants are signals, not conclusions. Label them accordingly.
  • Distinguish said vs. did. Behavior always outranks stated preference.
  • Every finding requires a confidence level AND a product implication. A finding without "so what" is trivia.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.