gabrielmoreira User Interview Synthesis Skill
Transform raw interview transcripts into a structured synthesis document that surfaces themes, pain points, and actionable insights.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Interview transcripts or notes (even rough notes work)
- Number of participants and their profiles (role, company size, context)
- Research questions (what was the study trying to answer?)
- Date range of research (for context)
Process
- Read all provided transcripts fully before drawing conclusions
- Identify recurring themes (minimum 3 mentions to qualify as a theme)
- Categorize findings into: Pain Points, Workflow Insights, Feature Requests, Delight Moments
- Select 2-3 verbatim quotes per theme that best represent the pattern
- Draft "So What" implications for each theme — what does this mean for the product?
- Validate — Confirm every theme has quotes from at least 3 participants. Flag any insight resting on fewer as low-confidence.
Output Structure
Research Synthesis: [Study Name]
Participants: [n] Date Range: [dates] Research Questions: [list]
Theme 1: [Theme Name]
- Summary (2-3 sentences)
- Supporting quotes (from at least 3 participants)
- Implication for product
[Repeat for each theme]
Low-Confidence Signals (1-2 participants only)
[Findings worth tracking but not acting on yet — note what further research would confirm or deny]
Recommended Next Steps
[Specific, actionable recommendations based on findings]
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence traceability | Themes asserted with no quotes or participant attribution | Most themes carry quotes, but some rest on 1–2 participants or unattributed paraphrase | Every theme carries verbatim quotes from ≥3 distinct participants, with frequency counts ("6 of 9") consistent with the roster |
| Implication actionability | Implications restate the observation ("users find X frustrating") | Implications gesture at direction but name no decision, owner, or change | Every implication enables a specific product decision someone could act on this quarter |
| Contradiction honesty | All findings conveniently support the sponsor's hypothesis; inconvenient data absent | Contradictory evidence present but buried or softened; both-ways quotes trimmed to the helpful half | Findings that contradict the hypothesis are surfaced prominently, and ambiguous quotes are kept whole with the tension flagged |
| Signal separation & question coverage | Single-source anecdotes mixed into main themes; research questions ignored | Low-confidence signals segregated but with no follow-up path, or one research question left unaddressed | Every 1–2-participant signal sits in its own section with the cheap test that would confirm it, and every research question gets an explicit answer — including "inconclusive" |
Quality Checks
- Every theme is supported by quotes from at least 3 participants
- Implications connect to specific product decisions, not just observations
- Researcher bias check: no leading language, findings don't all support one hypothesis
- Single-source signals are flagged separately, not mixed into main themes
- Research questions from the study brief are each addressed (even if the answer is "inconclusive")
Anti-Patterns
- Do not mix single-source signals into main themes — insights cited by only one participant must be flagged separately
- Do not write implications that are observations restated rather than product decisions enabled
- Do not include themes that only support the project hypothesis — contradictory findings must be surfaced, not omitted
- Do not present findings without quotes — every theme requires verbatim evidence from at least 3 participants
- Do not leave research questions unanswered — each question from the study brief must be explicitly addressed, even if the answer is inconclusive