# Product Analysis

> Product Analysis

- Skill: `vikynofebriputra-creator/product-analysis` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 6 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add vikynofebriputra-creator/product-analysis`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/vikynofebriputra-creator/product-analysis/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: vikynofebriputra-creator (https://skillmd.com/u/vikynofebriputra-creator)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/vikynofebriputra-creator/product-analysis

---


# Product Analysis

Use this skill before writing a PRD. Its job is to decide whether a product direction is worth further exploration, what evidence exists, what is still assumed, and what the next validation step should be.

Do not use this skill to write a full PRD, design handoff, acceptance criteria, engineering breakdown, or implementation plan. Hand those stages to the next skill after the product need is clearer.

## Route The Work

Choose the lightest useful path:

| User intent | Read |
|---|---|
| Early idea, startup direction, "worth doing?", problem-solution fit | `references/idea-validation.md` |
| Interview notes, customer calls, usability test records, feedback synthesis | `references/interview-synthesis.md` |
| Competitors, market alternatives, feature matrix, positioning, differentiation | `references/competitive-analysis.md` |
| Need a unified score across problem strength, evidence, PCV, and readiness | `references/opportunity-scoring.md` |
| User asks to challenge assumptions, stress-test the direction, or "grill me" | `references/decision-challenge.md` |

When the request combines multiple inputs, start with a short integrated summary, then expand only the relevant sections.

## Required Boundaries

- Separate **evidence**, **inference**, **assumption**, and **open question**.
- Do not invent users, quotes, competitors, market data, metrics, prices, technical evidence, or business conclusions.
- If the user provides no source material, ask for the minimum missing information or mark the output as low-confidence.
- If competitor facts, pricing, regulations, market news, or current public information matter, verify sources before relying on them.
- Protect participant identity. Do not include PII from interviews unless the user explicitly authorizes it and it is necessary.

## Default Output

Use Markdown. Keep the report compact unless the user asks for a full analysis.

```markdown
# Product Analysis: [Direction / Problem Name]

## Executive Summary
- One-line judgment:
- Recommendation: continue validation / pause / pivot / stop
- Confidence: high / medium / low
- Biggest uncertainty:

## Inputs And Evidence
| Type | Available Material | Reliability | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Users / interviews | | | |
| Competitors / alternatives | | | |
| Problem strength | | | |
| Payment / budget | | | |

## Demand And Opportunity Judgment
- Target user / ICP:
- Core pain:
- Current alternatives:
- Why now:
- Opportunity:

## Key Findings
1. [Finding] - Evidence: [source or material location] - Confidence: [high/medium/low]
2. [Finding] - Evidence: [source or material location] - Confidence: [high/medium/low]

## Risks And Hidden Assumptions
- [Assumption/risk] - How to validate:

## Next Validation Steps
| Priority | Action | Goal | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | | | |

## Handoff To Next Stage
- Recommended next stage:
- Missing before entering next stage:
```

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

- The recommendation is grounded in provided evidence or clearly labeled assumptions.
- User research claims cite participant IDs or source material.
- Competitive claims cite public sources or user-provided evidence.
- PCV/opportunity scores explain why each rating was chosen.
- The output does not drift into PRD, design, or engineering planning.
- The next step is concrete enough for the user to act on.