# Synthetic User Interview

> Generate calibrated synthetic personas and run simulated discovery interviews to pressure-test a hypothesis before talking to real users. Use when warming up before real research, sanity-checking a problem statement, exploring low-volume or hard-to-reach segments, or stress-testing assumptions about a buyer. Triggers on phrases like "simulate user interview", "synthetic interview", "fake user research", "pretend to be my target customer", "interview a persona about X", "what would a [role] say about", "проинтервьюируй персону".

- Skill: `euroconic/synthetic-user-interview` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add euroconic/synthetic-user-interview`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/euroconic/synthetic-user-interview/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: euroconic (https://skillmd.com/u/euroconic)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/euroconic/synthetic-user-interview

---


# Synthetic User Interview

## Purpose

This skill simulates discovery interviews with generated personas. It is **calibration**, not research. Use it to sharpen your thinking before talking to real people, to catch bad questions before you ask them in a real call, or to explore segments you cannot reach in time.

The skill is designed to fail loud: every output ends with explicit warnings about what it can and cannot replace.

## When to use

- You have a hypothesis and want to pressure-test it before scheduling real interviews
- Your interview guide needs a rehearsal and you want to catch leading questions
- Target segment is small, busy, or expensive to reach (CTOs, regulated industries)
- Strategic exploration of a buyer you don't yet have access to

## When NOT to use

- For shipping decisions. Never ship based on synthetic interviews alone.
- As a substitute for ongoing customer development
- For sensitive segments where lived experience is the whole point (e.g. medical patients, marginalized groups). The model will produce plausible-sounding nonsense.
- For quantitative claims ("47% of CTOs say..."). The output is qualitative simulation, not a survey.

## Inputs

Required:
- ICP description (industry, role, company stage, key context)
- Hypothesis or question to probe

Optional:
- Geography or regulatory context
- Specific user behaviors you want to explore
- Interview style (open-ended JTBD vs targeted feature feedback)

## Process

### Phase 1: Persona calibration

Generate 3-5 personas, each with:
- Name, role, company context (size, stage, industry)
- Current tools and workflow
- Top 3 pressures and goals this quarter
- Constraints (budget, time, political)
- Sources used to inform the persona (general industry knowledge, prior research, etc.)

Personas should differ meaningfully. Two personas that are basically the same with different names are wasted.

### Phase 2: Build the interview script

- 5-8 open-ended questions following The Mom Test principles
- No leading questions, no pitching, focus on past behavior
- Mix: context, current workflow, pain points, attempted solutions, deal-killers
- Adjustable per persona based on their context

### Phase 3: Run the interviews

For each persona, simulate a transcript:
- 8-12 question-answer pairs
- Realistic voice (interrupted, tangential, sometimes contradictory)
- Include details the persona would naturally bring up
- Mark explicitly where a real human would likely push back or refuse to answer

### Phase 4: Cross-cut analysis

After all transcripts:
- **Patterns**: themes that appeared in 2+ interviews
- **Contradictions**: where personas disagreed and why
- **Surprises**: things you (the PM) probably didn't expect
- **Hypothesis verdict**: weakly supported / mixed / contradicted (with reasoning)
- **Better questions for real interviews**: what should you actually ask

### Phase 5: Calibration warnings

Mandatory closing section:
- What this simulation likely got right (areas where public knowledge is strong)
- What it likely got wrong (anything requiring lived experience, current pricing, internal politics)
- What you should still go ask real users about
- Specific red flags: any persona answer that felt suspiciously articulate or "marketing-ready"

## Output

```
# Synthetic Interview Report: [Hypothesis]

## Personas (3-5)
## Interview script
## Transcripts
## Cross-cut analysis
## Hypothesis verdict
## Calibration warnings - READ BEFORE ACTING
```

## Common failure modes to avoid

- **Persona = mouthpiece**: the persona just agrees with the PM's hypothesis. Force at least one persona to be skeptical or hostile.
- **Articulate user trap**: real users are messy, hesitant, and contradictory. If transcripts sound like a TED talk, they're broken.
- **Treating output as data**: synthetic interviews never count as evidence in a PRD. Use them to sharpen real research, not replace it.
- **Skipping calibration warnings**: the warnings are the most useful part. Never omit them.

## Why this skill exists

Synthetic interviews are controversial. The honest framing: they're useful for thinking, dangerous for deciding. This skill is structured to keep that line visible.