[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6R8YFCWJ14SCDCSTB8A7415":3,"skill-same:01M6R8YFCWJ14SCDCSTB8A7415":86},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":26,"publishedAt":47,"linkOnly":48,"markdownContent":49,"markdownBody":50,"frontMatter":51,"refName":52,"commitSha":53,"skillDirectory":54,"forksCount":55,"repositoryHtmlUrl":56,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":57,"ownerBlogUrl":58,"ownerDescription":59,"updatedAt":60,"install":61,"resources":74},"01M6R8YFCWJ14SCDCSTB8A7415","asb-interview-report",null,"Facilitates the final step of a proven customer-interview method: distilling everything a round of interviews produced (GOALS.md, HYPOTHESES.md, QUESTIONS.md, and a directory of per-interview debriefs) into a single FINAL-REPORT.md the whole company can use. Top: a summary as brief as possible without losing salient information. Below: numbered findings (F1, F2, …) tagged validated \u002F disproved \u002F directional \u002F watch \u002F untested, every one citing debriefs and quoting customers verbatim, plus per-area briefs that marshal the evidence for ideal-customer definition, positioning, pricing, marketing & sales, and product priorities. Load when the user says 'write up what we found from the interviews,' 'summarize the interview results for the team,' or 'turn the interviews into a report.' Do NOT load for updating hypotheses from interviews (the synthesis step), for recording one conversation (the debrief step), or for actually doing the positioning, ideal-customer, or pricing work the report feeds.","Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack","Nairon-AI","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F260662138?v=4","01M6R8PZ1Y8CSQGFN61VACZGTH","Nairon AI","01M6R8PZ6184VR3BA88YZFBC3N",4,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fbusiness\u002Fasb-interview-report\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000034","行政与办公人员","PROFESSION","适用职业",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000038","人力资源",[27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46],"report","asb interview report","interview","f2","customer","when","company","definition","top","recording","information","debrief","brief","positioning","conversation","up","product","work","team","feeds","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: asb-interview-report\ndescription: \"Facilitates the final step of a proven customer-interview method: distilling everything a round of interviews produced (GOALS.md, HYPOTHESES.md, QUESTIONS.md, and a directory of per-interview debriefs) into a single FINAL-REPORT.md the whole company can use. Top: a summary as brief as possible without losing salient information. Below: numbered findings (F1, F2, …) tagged validated \u002F disproved \u002F directional \u002F watch \u002F untested, every one citing debriefs and quoting customers verbatim, plus per-area briefs that marshal the evidence for ideal-customer definition, positioning, pricing, marketing & sales, and product priorities. Load when the user says 'write up what we found from the interviews,' 'summarize the interview results for the team,' or 'turn the interviews into a report.' Do NOT load for updating hypotheses from interviews (the synthesis step), for recording one conversation (the debrief step), or for actually doing the positioning, ideal-customer, or pricing work the report feeds.\"\n---\n\n# Interview Report: What You Know, What You Think\n\nA round of interviews ends and the learning scatters: a hypothesis file\nonly its author can decode, debriefs nobody rereads, teammates asking\n\"so what did we actually find?\" This skill closes the method by\ndistilling all of it into one report — what is now *known* (including\nwhat got disproved), what is merely *thought*, and what remains\nuntested — every claim carrying its evidence, in the customers' own\nwords, organized so the people doing positioning, ideal-customer,\npricing, marketing, and product work can act on it.\n\n## The mental model\n\n### The report is the bridge from evidence to action\n\nThe interview method runs goals → hypotheses → questions → interviews →\nlearning. Its output is validated facts: hypotheses confirmed,\noverturned, or tuned by real customer voices. Those facts are the raw\nmaterial of strategy — but there is no mechanical procedure that turns\n\"what customers said\" into \"what to do next.\" Humans do that combining,\nand they can only do it if the facts arrive organized, honest about\ntheir strength, and traceable to their sources. That package is this\nreport. It is deliberately NOT the strategy itself: it delivers the\nevidence and names the decisions the evidence raises, and stops there.\n\n### Two readers, one document\n\nThe report serves both at once:\n\n- **The human skimmer** reads only the top. So the report opens with a\n  summary that is as brief as possible without losing anything salient\n  — and each line is exactly three things: the status mark, the crisp\n  claim, the F-number. Nothing else. No citations or quotes; no\n  commentary or interpretation; no history of the finding — no \"which\n  cuts against what we assumed,\" no \"unlike our original hypothesis,\"\n  no \"ambiguous between X and Y.\" The status mark IS the entire\n  confidence-and-history a summary line gets; how the finding evolved,\n  what it contradicts, and what it might mean all live in the body.\n  Numbers may be part of the claim (\"…one lost job ($300–800)\");\n  explanations may not. If a summary line grows a \"which…\" clause or\n  an em-dash explanation, cut the clause and put it in the finding.\n- **The deep reader** — a teammate doing the positioning work, or an\n  LLM assisting any downstream exercise, which reads everything\n  regardless of length — gets the reference sections below: every\n  finding with its voice-count, its debrief citations, and verbatim\n  quotes. In the body, ALWAYS quote and ALWAYS cite, with multiple\n  examples when multiple exist: the citations are simultaneously the\n  proof that a claim is correct and the trail for finding out more.\n\nThe finding-numbers (F1, F2, …) are the hinge between the two: a\nsummary line ends with its F-number, and the F-entry below carries the\nevidence. The rule of thumb: when brevity is the goal, examples are\nbloat; everywhere else, examples are the proof — they make a claim\nbelievable, hard to counter, and easy for the reader to research\nfurther.\n\n### Epistemic honesty is the product\n\nThe single way this report fails is by stating things more strongly\nthan the evidence supports — then every decision built on it inherits\nthe inflation. So every finding wears its status:\n\n- **✓ Validated** — a clear pattern across several conversations\n  confirmed it. Knowledge.\n- **✗ Disproved** — a clear pattern overturned it. *Also* knowledge —\n  negative knowledge is often the most valuable kind (\"customers will\n  NOT pay extra for security\" redirects an entire roadmap), so\n  disproved beliefs are stated prominently as things now known, never\n  buried as embarrassments.\n- **~ Directional** — supported but thin: few voices, or a single\n  revelation that reframed thinking but hasn't been re-tested. Stated\n  with its depth (\"one voice, marked a revelation\") and with what\n  would settle it.\n- **? Watch** — heard once or twice, noticed, parked. Imported from\n  the hypothesis file's watch section (\"That's funny\" items) and from\n  lone debrief observations.\n- **? Untested** — a goal, hypothesis, or question the interviews\n  never actually resolved: never asked, question misfired, segment\n  never reached. Named plainly, because knowing what you don't know is\n  what keeps downstream work honest.\n\nTwo more honesty obligations: **sampling bias** (who the interviewees\nwere, how they were recruited, who's missing — \"all referrals, no\nchurned customers\" changes what the findings mean) and **\"no pattern\"\nfindings** (when answers genuinely scattered, that's a finding —\nknowing a pattern doesn't exist prevents building on a false one).\n\nAnd state strength in **numbers, never probability words**. \"Probably,\"\n\"likely,\" \"most,\" \"often\" mean wildly different things to different\nreaders — the differences between individual interpretations are larger\nthan the differences between the words — while \"7 of 9\" means the same\nthing to everyone. Every tally is exact; if a directional finding needs\na confidence, be brave and put a number on it.\n\n### Splits are choices, never averages\n\nWhen the evidence splits — five voices at $40, five at $300 — the\nreport never averages it into a mid-point nobody asked for. \"It's a\nbalance\" is usually a refusal to decide wearing the costume of\nmoderation. A split is either an **emergent segment** (report both\nclaims, each naming whom it's about, plus the markers that sort them)\nor a genuine **no-pattern finding** (reported as such); the downstream\ndecision it raises is a *choice*, and the report names that choice\nwithout making it. Related caution for readers, worth a line in the\nproduct brief when relevant: tallies establish *facts* — where an\nobjectively true answer exists and individual errors cancel out — but\nvotes cannot *design*; averaging contradictory desires produces the\nbland thing nobody hated enough to veto, not the thing anyone loves.\n\n### What the downstream work needs\n\nEach per-area brief marshals findings for a specific exercise, in that\nexercise's own terms:\n\n- **Ideal customer:** keystone candidates (what the best interviewees\n  valued *extremely* — enough to drive a purchase by itself),\n  deal-breaker candidates (what disqualified the product regardless of\n  fit), the **inciting-event stories actually heard** (the specific\n  trigger moments that turned someone into an active buyer — quoted,\n  because these are collected precisely by interviewing), sorting\n  markers (behavioral and attitudinal characteristics that separate\n  best-fit from poor-fit — never mere demographics), and best-vs-worst\n  differentials.\n- **Positioning & messaging:** the customers' exact vocabulary (what\n  they call themselves, the problem, the product category — their\n  words are the raw material of copy), the higher-level outcome they\n  are actually buying (what they said the product is *for*, one level\n  above what it does), the alternatives they compare against\n  (including do-it-yourself coping), and the vivid specifics — real\n  numbers, real emotions, real events — that make claims land.\n- **Pricing & packaging:** willingness-to-pay bands with segment\n  attached, the anchors customers reason from (\"that's what the\n  text-blast services cost\"), budget and approval mechanics (whose\n  money, who signs, what threshold).\n- **Marketing & sales:** where these customers discover and buy, whom\n  they trust, buyer vs. user vs. approver, the qualifying and\n  disqualifying signals heard.\n- **Product priorities:** pains ranked by evidence (how many voices,\n  how hot the language), how customers cope today, unprompted feature\n  pulls, and what moved willingness-to-pay when mentioned.\n\n### Vocabulary\n\n- **Finding (F1, F2, …)** — one distilled claim with a status mark,\n  evidence tally, debrief citations, and [H]\u002F[G] references (an\n  emergent finding that maps to no hypothesis or goal carries no tag).\n  Numbers freeze when the report is finalized.\n- **Summary** — the top section; salient claims only, F-numbered,\n  citation-free.\n- **Vocabulary bank** — the customers' verbatim words and loaded\n  phrases, attributed.\n- **? Tentative implication** — the reporter's own labeled read,\n  allowed only in the per-area briefs, always marked as interpretation\n  and never presented as a finding.\n- **Decisions this raises** — the stronger move: naming the choice the\n  evidence forces (e.g. \"two segments — serving one is a strategy\n  decision\") without making it.\n\n## The reporter's posture\n\n### Be clear, not clever\n\nWrite to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard\nconcepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make\nthem harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a\nsentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State\nthe actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it.\n\n### Restate references; never cite a bare token\n\nWhen you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2,\nO17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is\n(\"K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site\"). A bare token is\nunreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is\nfor traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for\naccuracy; always add the gloss.\n\n### Evidence or it doesn't get stated\n\nEvery finding in the body carries its tally (\"7 of 9\"), its debrief\ncitations by filename, and verbatim quotes — multiple examples whenever\nmultiple exist, because stacked independent voices are the proof. A\nclaim that can't cite a debrief doesn't go in the report. Never pad and\nnever trim: if only two voices support something, the tally says two\nand the status says directional. Tallies name their denominator\nhonestly — \"6 of 7 asked\" when some debriefs lack the question — and a\nvoice never asked counts toward nothing, neither a claim nor its\ndisproof. Market-guru material (interviewees speaking for \"most\npeople\" rather than themselves) is excluded from tallies and kept in\nthe evidence with its flag. And tallies, like statuses, move only when\nevidence is re-examined or added — never by rounding.\n\n### Status matches evidence — non-negotiable\n\nThe status marks are craft-gated: a ~ cannot be promoted to ✓ because\nthe user is confident, an ✗ cannot be softened because it's\ndisappointing, and an inconvenient finding cannot be dropped —\n\"make it look more validated for the investor deck\" is refused, gently\nand completely, because a report that flatters poisons everything\ndownstream and its readers can't tell. What the user rightfully owns:\nwording (clearer phrasing of the same claim), emphasis (what the\nsummary leads with), scope (a section they'd rather omit — noted as\nomitted), and their own interpretations, which are welcome in the\nbriefs when labeled as theirs. Record the user's judgment as judgment,\nnever as evidence.\n\nThree refinements. Within an emergent segment, the denominator is the\nsegment — \"5\u002F5 multi-provider\" can validate a segment-scoped claim. A\ntally the sampling itself manufactured (9\u002F9 name Facebook groups —\nwhen all nine were recruited through one) caps the status at\ndirectional no matter the count. And when the user disagrees with a\nstatus and the evidence doesn't move, their position is recorded as a\nplain labeled parenthetical beside the evidence inside the finding\n(\"user's judgment, not evidence: expects this to validate\"); the ?\nmark stays reserved for the briefs.\n\n### Brief on top, proof below\n\nThe summary contains no citations, no quotes, no commentary, and no\nevolution story — brevity is its job, and every line is a bare claim\nwith its status mark, ending in the F-number that leads to the proof.\nEven a disproved belief is stated as present-tense knowledge (\"✗\nSecurity does not drive buying (F2)\"), not as narrative (\"✗ our\nsecurity hypothesis was overturned\"). The body contains ALL the\ncitations, quotes, comparisons, and explanation — completeness is its\njob. Never blur the two: a summary that cites or explains is too long;\na body claim that doesn't cite is an opinion.\n\n### Interpretation is labeled\n\nThe skill may offer its own reads — \"? this pattern smells like the\nfreelancer segment is the head of the market\" — only inside the\nper-area briefs, only marked ?, and only phrased as interpretation.\nFindings and implications never mix. When the evidence forces a choice\nrather than suggesting an answer, prefer the \"decisions this raises\"\nform and leave the choice with the humans.\n\n### The report reports\n\nNo positioning statements, no ideal-customer definitions, no price\nrecommendations, no roadmaps — the report feeds those exercises; it\ndoes not preempt them. When the user asks for them (\"so what should\nour homepage say?\"), point at the relevant brief and decline the rest:\nthat work deserves its own session with the report as input.\n\n## How to use this skill\n\n### Phase A — Ingest\n\nRead what exists, asking only for what's missing:\n\n1. **The working files:** the hypothesis list (with its watch section\n   and change log), the question list, and the goal file. Accept any\n   subset — a missing goal file just means findings carry only [H]\n   references — but say what's absent and what the report loses.\n2. **The debriefs:** the directory of per-interview files. These are\n   the primary sources every finding will cite. Raw transcripts or\n   loose notes offered instead should be put on the record first — a\n   brief per-conversation file, answers mapped to questions — via a\n   debrief-recording skill such as *Interview Debrief* \u002F\n   `asb-interview-debrief` if installed, or the same brief record\n   built inline.\n3. **Synthesis state:** check the hypothesis file's change log for\n   synthesis runs. If the debriefs have been synthesized (statuses and\n   log lines present), the report harvests those resolutions. If they\n   never were, say plainly that the report will be doing first-pass\n   synthesis itself and the hypothesis file won't reflect it — offer\n   to run the synthesis step first (via a synthesis skill such as\n   *Learning* \u002F `asb-interview-learning`, if installed), and proceed\n   as a snapshot if the user prefers.\n4. **Scope:** note the as-of state — how many debriefs, what date\n   range, whether interviewing is concluded or paused. A mid-process\n   report is legitimate; it just says so.\n\nZero debriefs = nothing to report; point back to interviewing. When\nthe corpus is too thin to support a single validated finding\n(typically three debriefs or fewer), say so up front and offer the\nhonest version: a thin report of directional and watch items with no\nvalidated section, clearly labeled.\n\n### Phase B — The sweep (silent)\n\nBefore drafting, harvest everything:\n\n- **From the hypothesis file:** every validated, tuned, and disproved\n  resolution (change log included) becomes a finding candidate;\n  standing-untested hypotheses go to \"what we don't know\"; the watch\n  section's items become ? candidates.\n- **From the debriefs:** verbatim vocabulary; the inciting-event and\n  trigger stories; willingness-to-pay numbers and anchors; buyer vs.\n  user vs. approver evidence; discovery channels; coping mechanisms\n  and unprompted feature pulls; surprises (❗ marks); guru-flagged\n  material at its discount; and anything the addenda repeat that the\n  hypothesis file never absorbed.\n- **Structure:** emergent segments and their markers; contradictions\n  that resolved into segments vs. genuine no-pattern findings.\n- **Honesty inputs:** recruitment paths and sampling gaps; questions\n  that misfired; goals never reached.\n\nAssign F-numbers as findings crystallize; make each finding one claim\n(split compounds so evidence can hit each part separately).\n\n### Phase C — Draft whole, then review\n\nWrite the complete draft **to disk first** as `FINAL-REPORT.md`, in\nthe same directory as the hypothesis file (pasted inputs with no\nknown path: ask where the method's files live before writing) — the name says what it is:\nthe method's complete answer, the one file to hand to someone who\nwasn't in the room — with the in-progress header,\nsessions die and conversations truncate; the file is the memory. Then\npresent it whole (render it in the conversation, unless the user\nprefers to read the file directly) and review it with the user in\nsmall passes, a section or two per exchange: corrections of fact\nagainst the debriefs (the debrief wins over memory — the user's and\nyours), rewording, emphasis changes in the summary, additions labeled\nas the user's interpretation. Status marks move only when evidence is\nre-examined and actually supports the move. Update the file as each\npass settles, keeping the header's reviewed-through pointer current so\na fresh session can resume from disk alone; a resumed session re-reads\nthe source files too, since the remaining passes still check\ncorrections against the debriefs. If new evidence arrives mid-review\n(forgotten debriefs, a late interview), re-sweep everything: existing\nF-numbers keep their identity, new findings append fresh numbers —\nnever renumber — and any settled section whose *substance* changed,\nincluding the Summary, reopens for one more pass.\n\n### The report structure\n\n```markdown\n# Interview findings — \u003Ccompany \u002F project>, \u003Cdate>\n\n> ⚠️ IN PROGRESS — draft under review with the user; reviewed through\n> \u003Csection name — or \"review not started; begin at Summary\">. (This\n> note is removed at finalization.)\n\n\u003COne line of scope: N interviews, date range, interviewing concluded\nor ongoing. If the debriefs were never synthesized, the snapshot\ncaveat lives here AND in Provenance: \"snapshot — this report performs\nfirst-pass synthesis; HYPOTHESES.md does not reflect these findings.\">\n\n## Summary\n\n\u003CAs brief as possible without losing salient information. Each line:\nstatus mark + crisp claim + F-number, and nothing else — no citations,\nno quotes, no commentary, no comparisons to prior beliefs, no history.\nWrong: \"~ An established plumber still reports missed-call fallout —\nwhich cuts against the assumption that tenure dulls the pain (F1).\"\nRight: \"~ Established solo plumbers still lose jobs to missed calls\n(F1).\" The evolution story lives in the finding below.>\n\n- ✓ \u003Cthe most consequential validated fact> (F1)\n- ✗ \u003Cthe disproved belief, stated as present-tense knowledge> (F2)\n- \u003Csegment split in one line, if one emerged> (F4, F5)\n- ~ \u003Cthe strongest directional claim> (F7)\n- ? \u003Cthe biggest open question> (F12)\n\n## Who we talked to\n\n\u003CN conversations with dates and segments; how interviewees were\nrecruited; known sampling biases and who's missing.>\n\n## What we know   (✓ validated · ✗ disproved)\n\n\u003CWhen a bar is empty, say so visibly — \"Nothing validated yet: three\nconversations cannot establish a pattern\" or \"No beliefs were\ndisproved this round\" — emptiness stated is honesty; emptiness hidden\nis spin.>\n\n**F1.** ✓ \u003Cclaim> — 8\u002F8 debriefs.    [H4, G2]\n  Evidence: 2026-06-12-tony.md: \"two full weekends — call it 20\n  hours\" · 2026-06-29-jen.md: \"a week of evenings — 25 hours, maybe\n  more\" · six more in the 18–25 band.\n\n**F2.** ✗ \u003Cthe overturned belief, restated as what is now known> —\n  6\u002F7.    [H7]\n  Evidence: \u003Ccitations and quotes, several when several exist>.\n\n## What we think   (~ directional · ? watch)\n\n**F7.** ~ \u003Cclaim> — one voice, marked a revelation.    [H5]\n  Evidence: \u003Ccitation and quote>. Would settle it: \u003Cwhat evidence>.\n\n**F9.** ? \u003Cparked observation, imported from the watch list>.\n  Evidence: \u003Ccitation and quote>.\n\n## What we don't know\n\n**F12.** ? \u003Cuntested goal or hypothesis, and why — question misfired,\n  never reached, segment missing>    [G6]\n- \u003Csampling gap and what it could distort — gaps are prose bullets;\n  unresolved goals\u002Fhypotheses get F-numbers so the summary and later\n  documents can cite them>\n\n## Segments   (when segmentation emerged)\n\n\u003CPer segment: its markers, how to sort a prospect early, and the\nper-segment differences in pain, price, and priorities — cited.>\n\n## In their words\n\n\u003CThe vocabulary bank: what they call themselves, the problem, the\nproduct category, the pain — verbatim, attributed, loaded phrases\nflagged as theirs.>\n\n## For defining your ideal customer\n\nKeystone candidates: \u003C…> [F1, F4] · Deal-breaker candidates: \u003C…> [F2]\nInciting events heard: \u003Cthe actual trigger stories, quoted> [F5]\nSorting markers: \u003C…> [F9] · Best-vs-worst signals: \u003C…>\nDecisions this raises: \u003C…>\n? \u003Ctentative implication — labeled with whose read it is and\n\"judgment, not a finding\"; optional>\n\n\u003CWhen an expected input was never captured — no inciting events heard,\nno channels probed — the brief says \"none heard; a gap for the next\nround\" rather than silently omitting the line.>\n\n## For positioning & messaging\n## For pricing & packaging\n## For marketing & sales\n## For product priorities\n\n\u003CSame shape as the ideal-customer brief: marshaled [F-numbers] in the\nexercise's own terms, decisions raised, labeled ? lines optional.>\n\n## Provenance\n\nBuilt from \u003Cfiles> as of \u003Cdate>; synthesis runs through \u003Cdate>;\n\u003CN> debriefs (\u003Cfilenames>). The debriefs remain the primary sources.\n```\n\n### Phase D — Finalize\n\nFinalize when every section has been reviewed or the user explicitly\nwaives the remainder. Remove the in-progress header, freeze the\nF-numbers — later documents may cite them, so a future revision\nappends new numbers and never renumbers or reuses old ones — and read\nthe summary back one final time; it is the part most humans will ever\nsee, so it gets the last polish. Close with\nthe handoff: this report is the input to the work that follows —\ndefining the ideal customer, positioning, pricing — and each per-area\nbrief is where that exercise starts. If the interviews continue later,\nnew debriefs go through synthesis and then a revised report; note the\nrevision in the report's provenance rather than silently overwriting\nhistory.\n\n## Refusal conditions\n\n- **No debriefs.** Nothing on the record means nothing to report;\n  decline to reconstruct findings from the user's recollection of\n  interviews that were never debriefed, and point at the recording\n  step.\n- **Spin.** \"Round that up,\" \"drop the disproved section,\" \"make it\n  look more validated\" — refuse: the status marks are the product, and\n  a reader can't detect inflation they can't see. Offer the honest\n  levers instead: emphasis, wording, and labeled interpretation.\n  Omission has a floor: a section or material bullet may be dropped\n  only with a note in Provenance (\"omitted at the author's request;\n  the underlying files retain it\") — the note itself is not\n  negotiable, because a reader who can't see an omission can't\n  discount for it. This applies to the honesty sections (\"What we\n  don't know,\" the sampling bias) exactly as to findings — never\n  silently.\n- **Fabricated or simulated evidence.** Findings cite real debriefs of\n  real conversations; role-played or AI-generated \"interviews\" don't\n  enter the report.\n- **Doing the downstream work.** Writing the positioning statement,\n  defining the ideal customer, setting the price, ranking the roadmap\n  — decline and point at the relevant brief: the report is the input\n  to that exercise, not the exercise.\n- **Overriding the evidence.** The user may reword, re-emphasize,\n  omit-with-note, and add labeled interpretation — but a finding's\n  status moves only when the evidence does. If the user disagrees with\n  a finding, record the disagreement as their labeled judgment beside\n  the evidence, never in place of it.\n","# Interview Report: What You Know, What You Think\n\nA round of interviews ends and the learning scatters: a hypothesis file\nonly its author can decode, debriefs nobody rereads, teammates asking\n\"so what did we actually find?\" This skill closes the method by\ndistilling all of it into one report — what is now *known* (including\nwhat got disproved), what is merely *thought*, and what remains\nuntested — every claim carrying its evidence, in the customers' own\nwords, organized so the people doing positioning, ideal-customer,\npricing, marketing, and product work can act on it.\n\n## The mental model\n\n### The report is the bridge from evidence to action\n\nThe interview method runs goals → hypotheses → questions → interviews →\nlearning. Its output is validated facts: hypotheses confirmed,\noverturned, or tuned by real customer voices. Those facts are the raw\nmaterial of strategy — but there is no mechanical procedure that turns\n\"what customers said\" into \"what to do next.\" Humans do that combining,\nand they can only do it if the facts arrive organized, honest about\ntheir strength, and traceable to their sources. That package is this\nreport. It is deliberately NOT the strategy itself: it delivers the\nevidence and names the decisions the evidence raises, and stops there.\n\n### Two readers, one document\n\nThe report serves both at once:\n\n- **The human skimmer** reads only the top. So the report opens with a\n  summary that is as brief as possible without losing anything salient\n  — and each line is exactly three things: the status mark, the crisp\n  claim, the F-number. Nothing else. No citations or quotes; no\n  commentary or interpretation; no history of the finding — no \"which\n  cuts against what we assumed,\" no \"unlike our original hypothesis,\"\n  no \"ambiguous between X and Y.\" The status mark IS the entire\n  confidence-and-history a summary line gets; how the finding evolved,\n  what it contradicts, and what it might mean all live in the body.\n  Numbers may be part of the claim (\"…one lost job ($300–800)\");\n  explanations may not. If a summary line grows a \"which…\" clause or\n  an em-dash explanation, cut the clause and put it in the finding.\n- **The deep reader** — a teammate doing the positioning work, or an\n  LLM assisting any downstream exercise, which reads everything\n  regardless of length — gets the reference sections below: every\n  finding with its voice-count, its debrief citations, and verbatim\n  quotes. In the body, ALWAYS quote and ALWAYS cite, with multiple\n  examples when multiple exist: the citations are simultaneously the\n  proof that a claim is correct and the trail for finding out more.\n\nThe finding-numbers (F1, F2, …) are the hinge between the two: a\nsummary line ends with its F-number, and the F-entry below carries the\nevidence. The rule of thumb: when brevity is the goal, examples are\nbloat; everywhere else, examples are the proof — they make a claim\nbelievable, hard to counter, and easy for the reader to research\nfurther.\n\n### Epistemic honesty is the product\n\nThe single way this report fails is by stating things more strongly\nthan the evidence supports — then every decision built on it inherits\nthe inflation. So every finding wears its status:\n\n- **✓ Validated** — a clear pattern across several conversations\n  confirmed it. Knowledge.\n- **✗ Disproved** — a clear pattern overturned it. *Also* knowledge —\n  negative knowledge is often the most valuable kind (\"customers will\n  NOT pay extra for security\" redirects an entire roadmap), so\n  disproved beliefs are stated prominently as things now known, never\n  buried as embarrassments.\n- **~ Directional** — supported but thin: few voices, or a single\n  revelation that reframed thinking but hasn't been re-tested. Stated\n  with its depth (\"one voice, marked a revelation\") and with what\n  would settle it.\n- **? Watch** — heard once or twice, noticed, parked. Imported from\n  the hypothesis file's watch section (\"That's funny\" items) and from\n  lone debrief observations.\n- **? Untested** — a goal, hypothesis, or question the interviews\n  never actually resolved: never asked, question misfired, segment\n  never reached. Named plainly, because knowing what you don't know is\n  what keeps downstream work honest.\n\nTwo more honesty obligations: **sampling bias** (who the interviewees\nwere, how they were recruited, who's missing — \"all referrals, no\nchurned customers\" changes what the findings mean) and **\"no pattern\"\nfindings** (when answers genuinely scattered, that's a finding —\nknowing a pattern doesn't exist prevents building on a false one).\n\nAnd state strength in **numbers, never probability words**. \"Probably,\"\n\"likely,\" \"most,\" \"often\" mean wildly different things to different\nreaders — the differences between individual interpretations are larger\nthan the differences between the words — while \"7 of 9\" means the same\nthing to everyone. Every tally is exact; if a directional finding needs\na confidence, be brave and put a number on it.\n\n### Splits are choices, never averages\n\nWhen the evidence splits — five voices at $40, five at $300 — the\nreport never averages it into a mid-point nobody asked for. \"It's a\nbalance\" is usually a refusal to decide wearing the costume of\nmoderation. A split is either an **emergent segment** (report both\nclaims, each naming whom it's about, plus the markers that sort them)\nor a genuine **no-pattern finding** (reported as such); the downstream\ndecision it raises is a *choice*, and the report names that choice\nwithout making it. Related caution for readers, worth a line in the\nproduct brief when relevant: tallies establish *facts* — where an\nobjectively true answer exists and individual errors cancel out — but\nvotes cannot *design*; averaging contradictory desires produces the\nbland thing nobody hated enough to veto, not the thing anyone loves.\n\n### What the downstream work needs\n\nEach per-area brief marshals findings for a specific exercise, in that\nexercise's own terms:\n\n- **Ideal customer:** keystone candidates (what the best interviewees\n  valued *extremely* — enough to drive a purchase by itself),\n  deal-breaker candidates (what disqualified the product regardless of\n  fit), the **inciting-event stories actually heard** (the specific\n  trigger moments that turned someone into an active buyer — quoted,\n  because these are collected precisely by interviewing), sorting\n  markers (behavioral and attitudinal characteristics that separate\n  best-fit from poor-fit — never mere demographics), and best-vs-worst\n  differentials.\n- **Positioning & messaging:** the customers' exact vocabulary (what\n  they call themselves, the problem, the product category — their\n  words are the raw material of copy), the higher-level outcome they\n  are actually buying (what they said the product is *for*, one level\n  above what it does), the alternatives they compare against\n  (including do-it-yourself coping), and the vivid specifics — real\n  numbers, real emotions, real events — that make claims land.\n- **Pricing & packaging:** willingness-to-pay bands with segment\n  attached, the anchors customers reason from (\"that's what the\n  text-blast services cost\"), budget and approval mechanics (whose\n  money, who signs, what threshold).\n- **Marketing & sales:** where these customers discover and buy, whom\n  they trust, buyer vs. user vs. approver, the qualifying and\n  disqualifying signals heard.\n- **Product priorities:** pains ranked by evidence (how many voices,\n  how hot the language), how customers cope today, unprompted feature\n  pulls, and what moved willingness-to-pay when mentioned.\n\n### Vocabulary\n\n- **Finding (F1, F2, …)** — one distilled claim with a status mark,\n  evidence tally, debrief citations, and [H]\u002F[G] references (an\n  emergent finding that maps to no hypothesis or goal carries no tag).\n  Numbers freeze when the report is finalized.\n- **Summary** — the top section; salient claims only, F-numbered,\n  citation-free.\n- **Vocabulary bank** — the customers' verbatim words and loaded\n  phrases, attributed.\n- **? Tentative implication** — the reporter's own labeled read,\n  allowed only in the per-area briefs, always marked as interpretation\n  and never presented as a finding.\n- **Decisions this raises** — the stronger move: naming the choice the\n  evidence forces (e.g. \"two segments — serving one is a strategy\n  decision\") without making it.\n\n## The reporter's posture\n\n### Be clear, not clever\n\nWrite to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard\nconcepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make\nthem harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a\nsentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State\nthe actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it.\n\n### Restate references; never cite a bare token\n\nWhen you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2,\nO17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is\n(\"K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site\"). A bare token is\nunreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is\nfor traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for\naccuracy; always add the gloss.\n\n### Evidence or it doesn't get stated\n\nEvery finding in the body carries its tally (\"7 of 9\"), its debrief\ncitations by filename, and verbatim quotes — multiple examples whenever\nmultiple exist, because stacked independent voices are the proof. A\nclaim that can't cite a debrief doesn't go in the report. Never pad and\nnever trim: if only two voices support something, the tally says two\nand the status says directional. Tallies name their denominator\nhonestly — \"6 of 7 asked\" when some debriefs lack the question — and a\nvoice never asked counts toward nothing, neither a claim nor its\ndisproof. Market-guru material (interviewees speaking for \"most\npeople\" rather than themselves) is excluded from tallies and kept in\nthe evidence with its flag. And tallies, like statuses, move only when\nevidence is re-examined or added — never by rounding.\n\n### Status matches evidence — non-negotiable\n\nThe status marks are craft-gated: a ~ cannot be promoted to ✓ because\nthe user is confident, an ✗ cannot be softened because it's\ndisappointing, and an inconvenient finding cannot be dropped —\n\"make it look more validated for the investor deck\" is refused, gently\nand completely, because a report that flatters poisons everything\ndownstream and its readers can't tell. What the user rightfully owns:\nwording (clearer phrasing of the same claim), emphasis (what the\nsummary leads with), scope (a section they'd rather omit — noted as\nomitted), and their own interpretations, which are welcome in the\nbriefs when labeled as theirs. Record the user's judgment as judgment,\nnever as evidence.\n\nThree refinements. Within an emergent segment, the denominator is the\nsegment — \"5\u002F5 multi-provider\" can validate a segment-scoped claim. A\ntally the sampling itself manufactured (9\u002F9 name Facebook groups —\nwhen all nine were recruited through one) caps the status at\ndirectional no matter the count. And when the user disagrees with a\nstatus and the evidence doesn't move, their position is recorded as a\nplain labeled parenthetical beside the evidence inside the finding\n(\"user's judgment, not evidence: expects this to validate\"); the ?\nmark stays reserved for the briefs.\n\n### Brief on top, proof below\n\nThe summary contains no citations, no quotes, no commentary, and no\nevolution story — brevity is its job, and every line is a bare claim\nwith its status mark, ending in the F-number that leads to the proof.\nEven a disproved belief is stated as present-tense knowledge (\"✗\nSecurity does not drive buying (F2)\"), not as narrative (\"✗ our\nsecurity hypothesis was overturned\"). The body contains ALL the\ncitations, quotes, comparisons, and explanation — completeness is its\njob. Never blur the two: a summary that cites or explains is too long;\na body claim that doesn't cite is an opinion.\n\n### Interpretation is labeled\n\nThe skill may offer its own reads — \"? this pattern smells like the\nfreelancer segment is the head of the market\" — only inside the\nper-area briefs, only marked ?, and only phrased as interpretation.\nFindings and implications never mix. When the evidence forces a choice\nrather than suggesting an answer, prefer the \"decisions this raises\"\nform and leave the choice with the humans.\n\n### The report reports\n\nNo positioning statements, no ideal-customer definitions, no price\nrecommendations, no roadmaps — the report feeds those exercises; it\ndoes not preempt them. When the user asks for them (\"so what should\nour homepage say?\"), point at the relevant brief and decline the rest:\nthat work deserves its own session with the report as input.\n\n## How to use this skill\n\n### Phase A — Ingest\n\nRead what exists, asking only for what's missing:\n\n1. **The working files:** the hypothesis list (with its watch section\n   and change log), the question list, and the goal file. Accept any\n   subset — a missing goal file just means findings carry only [H]\n   references — but say what's absent and what the report loses.\n2. **The debriefs:** the directory of per-interview files. These are\n   the primary sources every finding will cite. Raw transcripts or\n   loose notes offered instead should be put on the record first — a\n   brief per-conversation file, answers mapped to questions — via a\n   debrief-recording skill such as *Interview Debrief* \u002F\n   `asb-interview-debrief` if installed, or the same brief record\n   built inline.\n3. **Synthesis state:** check the hypothesis file's change log for\n   synthesis runs. If the debriefs have been synthesized (statuses and\n   log lines present), the report harvests those resolutions. If they\n   never were, say plainly that the report will be doing first-pass\n   synthesis itself and the hypothesis file won't reflect it — offer\n   to run the synthesis step first (via a synthesis skill such as\n   *Learning* \u002F `asb-interview-learning`, if installed), and proceed\n   as a snapshot if the user prefers.\n4. **Scope:** note the as-of state — how many debriefs, what date\n   range, whether interviewing is concluded or paused. A mid-process\n   report is legitimate; it just says so.\n\nZero debriefs = nothing to report; point back to interviewing. When\nthe corpus is too thin to support a single validated finding\n(typically three debriefs or fewer), say so up front and offer the\nhonest version: a thin report of directional and watch items with no\nvalidated section, clearly labeled.\n\n### Phase B — The sweep (silent)\n\nBefore drafting, harvest everything:\n\n- **From the hypothesis file:** every validated, tuned, and disproved\n  resolution (change log included) becomes a finding candidate;\n  standing-untested hypotheses go to \"what we don't know\"; the watch\n  section's items become ? candidates.\n- **From the debriefs:** verbatim vocabulary; the inciting-event and\n  trigger stories; willingness-to-pay numbers and anchors; buyer vs.\n  user vs. approver evidence; discovery channels; coping mechanisms\n  and unprompted feature pulls; surprises (❗ marks); guru-flagged\n  material at its discount; and anything the addenda repeat that the\n  hypothesis file never absorbed.\n- **Structure:** emergent segments and their markers; contradictions\n  that resolved into segments vs. genuine no-pattern findings.\n- **Honesty inputs:** recruitment paths and sampling gaps; questions\n  that misfired; goals never reached.\n\nAssign F-numbers as findings crystallize; make each finding one claim\n(split compounds so evidence can hit each part separately).\n\n### Phase C — Draft whole, then review\n\nWrite the complete draft **to disk first** as `FINAL-REPORT.md`, in\nthe same directory as the hypothesis file (pasted inputs with no\nknown path: ask where the method's files live before writing) — the name says what it is:\nthe method's complete answer, the one file to hand to someone who\nwasn't in the room — with the in-progress header,\nsessions die and conversations truncate; the file is the memory. Then\npresent it whole (render it in the conversation, unless the user\nprefers to read the file directly) and review it with the user in\nsmall passes, a section or two per exchange: corrections of fact\nagainst the debriefs (the debrief wins over memory — the user's and\nyours), rewording, emphasis changes in the summary, additions labeled\nas the user's interpretation. Status marks move only when evidence is\nre-examined and actually supports the move. Update the file as each\npass settles, keeping the header's reviewed-through pointer current so\na fresh session can resume from disk alone; a resumed session re-reads\nthe source files too, since the remaining passes still check\ncorrections against the debriefs. If new evidence arrives mid-review\n(forgotten debriefs, a late interview), re-sweep everything: existing\nF-numbers keep their identity, new findings append fresh numbers —\nnever renumber — and any settled section whose *substance* changed,\nincluding the Summary, reopens for one more pass.\n\n### The report structure\n\n```markdown\n# Interview findings — \u003Ccompany \u002F project>, \u003Cdate>\n\n> ⚠️ IN PROGRESS — draft under review with the user; reviewed through\n> \u003Csection name — or \"review not started; begin at Summary\">. (This\n> note is removed at finalization.)\n\n\u003COne line of scope: N interviews, date range, interviewing concluded\nor ongoing. If the debriefs were never synthesized, the snapshot\ncaveat lives here AND in Provenance: \"snapshot — this report performs\nfirst-pass synthesis; HYPOTHESES.md does not reflect these findings.\">\n\n## Summary\n\n\u003CAs brief as possible without losing salient information. Each line:\nstatus mark + crisp claim + F-number, and nothing else — no citations,\nno quotes, no commentary, no comparisons to prior beliefs, no history.\nWrong: \"~ An established plumber still reports missed-call fallout —\nwhich cuts against the assumption that tenure dulls the pain (F1).\"\nRight: \"~ Established solo plumbers still lose jobs to missed calls\n(F1).\" The evolution story lives in the finding below.>\n\n- ✓ \u003Cthe most consequential validated fact> (F1)\n- ✗ \u003Cthe disproved belief, stated as present-tense knowledge> (F2)\n- \u003Csegment split in one line, if one emerged> (F4, F5)\n- ~ \u003Cthe strongest directional claim> (F7)\n- ? \u003Cthe biggest open question> (F12)\n\n## Who we talked to\n\n\u003CN conversations with dates and segments; how interviewees were\nrecruited; known sampling biases and who's missing.>\n\n## What we know   (✓ validated · ✗ disproved)\n\n\u003CWhen a bar is empty, say so visibly — \"Nothing validated yet: three\nconversations cannot establish a pattern\" or \"No beliefs were\ndisproved this round\" — emptiness stated is honesty; emptiness hidden\nis spin.>\n\n**F1.** ✓ \u003Cclaim> — 8\u002F8 debriefs.    [H4, G2]\n  Evidence: 2026-06-12-tony.md: \"two full weekends — call it 20\n  hours\" · 2026-06-29-jen.md: \"a week of evenings — 25 hours, maybe\n  more\" · six more in the 18–25 band.\n\n**F2.** ✗ \u003Cthe overturned belief, restated as what is now known> —\n  6\u002F7.    [H7]\n  Evidence: \u003Ccitations and quotes, several when several exist>.\n\n## What we think   (~ directional · ? watch)\n\n**F7.** ~ \u003Cclaim> — one voice, marked a revelation.    [H5]\n  Evidence: \u003Ccitation and quote>. Would settle it: \u003Cwhat evidence>.\n\n**F9.** ? \u003Cparked observation, imported from the watch list>.\n  Evidence: \u003Ccitation and quote>.\n\n## What we don't know\n\n**F12.** ? \u003Cuntested goal or hypothesis, and why — question misfired,\n  never reached, segment missing>    [G6]\n- \u003Csampling gap and what it could distort — gaps are prose bullets;\n  unresolved goals\u002Fhypotheses get F-numbers so the summary and later\n  documents can cite them>\n\n## Segments   (when segmentation emerged)\n\n\u003CPer segment: its markers, how to sort a prospect early, and the\nper-segment differences in pain, price, and priorities — cited.>\n\n## In their words\n\n\u003CThe vocabulary bank: what they call themselves, the problem, the\nproduct category, the pain — verbatim, attributed, loaded phrases\nflagged as theirs.>\n\n## For defining your ideal customer\n\nKeystone candidates: \u003C…> [F1, F4] · Deal-breaker candidates: \u003C…> [F2]\nInciting events heard: \u003Cthe actual trigger stories, quoted> [F5]\nSorting markers: \u003C…> [F9] · Best-vs-worst signals: \u003C…>\nDecisions this raises: \u003C…>\n? \u003Ctentative implication — labeled with whose read it is and\n\"judgment, not a finding\"; optional>\n\n\u003CWhen an expected input was never captured — no inciting events heard,\nno channels probed — the brief says \"none heard; a gap for the next\nround\" rather than silently omitting the line.>\n\n## For positioning & messaging\n## For pricing & packaging\n## For marketing & sales\n## For product priorities\n\n\u003CSame shape as the ideal-customer brief: marshaled [F-numbers] in the\nexercise's own terms, decisions raised, labeled ? lines optional.>\n\n## Provenance\n\nBuilt from \u003Cfiles> as of \u003Cdate>; synthesis runs through \u003Cdate>;\n\u003CN> debriefs (\u003Cfilenames>). The debriefs remain the primary sources.\n```\n\n### Phase D — Finalize\n\nFinalize when every section has been reviewed or the user explicitly\nwaives the remainder. Remove the in-progress header, freeze the\nF-numbers — later documents may cite them, so a future revision\nappends new numbers and never renumbers or reuses old ones — and read\nthe summary back one final time; it is the part most humans will ever\nsee, so it gets the last polish. Close with\nthe handoff: this report is the input to the work that follows —\ndefining the ideal customer, positioning, pricing — and each per-area\nbrief is where that exercise starts. If the interviews continue later,\nnew debriefs go through synthesis and then a revised report; note the\nrevision in the report's provenance rather than silently overwriting\nhistory.\n\n## Refusal conditions\n\n- **No debriefs.** Nothing on the record means nothing to report;\n  decline to reconstruct findings from the user's recollection of\n  interviews that were never debriefed, and point at the recording\n  step.\n- **Spin.** \"Round that up,\" \"drop the disproved section,\" \"make it\n  look more validated\" — refuse: the status marks are the product, and\n  a reader can't detect inflation they can't see. Offer the honest\n  levers instead: emphasis, wording, and labeled interpretation.\n  Omission has a floor: a section or material bullet may be dropped\n  only with a note in Provenance (\"omitted at the author's request;\n  the underlying files retain it\") — the note itself is not\n  negotiable, because a reader who can't see an omission can't\n  discount for it. This applies to the honesty sections (\"What we\n  don't know,\" the sampling bias) exactly as to findings — never\n  silently.\n- **Fabricated or simulated evidence.** Findings cite real debriefs of\n  real conversations; role-played or AI-generated \"interviews\" don't\n  enter the report.\n- **Doing the downstream work.** Writing the positioning statement,\n  defining the ideal customer, setting the price, ranking the roadmap\n  — decline and point at the relevant brief: the report is the input\n  to that exercise, not the exercise.\n- **Overriding the evidence.** The user may reword, re-emphasize,\n  omit-with-note, and add labeled interpretation — but a finding's\n  status moves only when the evidence does. If the user disagrees with\n  a finding, record the disagreement as their labeled judgment beside\n  the evidence, never in place of it.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","c9d0c408715983e993b2f9ebffdbfa7f10153bcb","business\u002Fasb-interview-report",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.naironai.com\u002F","Building the future of Work","2026-09-20 17:40:05",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":62,"prompt":72,"zipAvailable":73},[63,66,69],{"tool":64,"command":65},"npx","npx skills add Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack --skill asb-interview-report",{"tool":67,"command":68},"bunx","bunx skills add Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack --skill asb-interview-report",{"tool":70,"command":71},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Nairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack --skill asb-interview-report","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fbusiness\u002Fasb-interview-report\u002FSKILL.md",true,[75,80],{"path":76,"resourceType":76,"resourceTypeDesc":77,"sizeBytes":78,"sourceHtmlUrl":79},"LICENSE","许可证",18657,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fbusiness\u002Fasb-interview-report\u002FLICENSE",{"path":81,"resourceType":82,"resourceTypeDesc":83,"sizeBytes":84,"sourceHtmlUrl":85},"NOTICE.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",449,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fbusiness\u002Fasb-interview-report\u002FNOTICE.md",[87,121,143,164,184,206],{"skillNo":88,"name":89,"nameZh":6,"description":90,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":91,"categories":92,"keywords":101,"publishedAt":47},"01M6RBCG630Y8X99XWR9Q4GYNY","writing-shape","Take a markdown file of raw material and shape it into an article through a conversational session — drafting candidate openings, growing the piece paragraph by paragraph, arguing about format (lists, tables, callouts, quotes) at each step. Use when the user has a pile of notes, fragments, or a rough draft and wants help turning it into something publishable.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fwriting-shape\u002FSKILL.md",[93,98],{"categoryNo":94,"categoryName":95,"taxonomyType":96,"taxonomyTypeDesc":97},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者",[102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,32],"writing","writing shape","shape","notes","help","file","markdown","format","session","use","take","draft","article","material","it","about","quotes","at","candidate",{"skillNo":122,"name":123,"nameZh":6,"description":124,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":125,"categories":126,"keywords":129,"publishedAt":47},"01M6RBCCCB1KMF01P5SYGFWBSW","writing-fragments","Grilling session that mines the user for fragments — heterogeneous nuggets of writing (claims, vignettes, sharp sentences, half-thoughts) — and appends them to a single document as raw material for a future article. Use when the user wants to develop ideas before imposing structure, or mentions \"fragments\", \"ideate\", or \"raw material\" for writing.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fwriting-fragments\u002FSKILL.md",[127,128],{"categoryNo":94,"categoryName":95,"taxonomyType":96,"taxonomyTypeDesc":97},{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[102,130,131,132,133,134,110,111,135,136,137,114,138,115,139,140,141,142,32],"writing fragments","grilling","ideate","develop","user","document","structure","ideas","as","sharp","claims","for","single",{"skillNo":144,"name":145,"nameZh":6,"description":146,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":147,"categories":148,"keywords":151,"publishedAt":47},"01M6RBC8V7NHHKMTAZB4BPXVYQ","writing-beats","Shape an article as a journey of beats, choose-your-own-adventure style. The user picks a starting beat from the raw material, you write only that beat, then offer options for where to pivot next, beat by beat, until the article reaches a natural end. Use when the user has raw material and wants to assemble it as a narrative rather than an argument.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fwriting-beats\u002FSKILL.md",[149,150],{"categoryNo":94,"categoryName":95,"taxonomyType":96,"taxonomyTypeDesc":97},{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[102,152,153,154,111,155,156,104,157,158,159,114,160,138,161,115,162,163,141,32],"writing beats","choose","write","assemble","only","journey","next","options","end","style","narrative","argument",{"skillNo":165,"name":166,"nameZh":6,"description":167,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":168,"categories":169,"keywords":172,"publishedAt":47},"01M6RBC58SG5Y5SC4ZV4ZNEFHC","stop-slop","Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use when drafting, editing, or reviewing text to eliminate predictable AI tells.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fstop-slop\u002FSKILL.md",[170,171],{"categoryNo":94,"categoryName":95,"taxonomyType":96,"taxonomyTypeDesc":97},{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[173,174,175,102,176,177,178,179,180,111,181,182,183,141,32],"stop","stop slop","slop","content","https","text","editing","remove","prose","patterns","drafts",{"skillNo":185,"name":186,"nameZh":6,"description":187,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":188,"categories":189,"keywords":192,"publishedAt":47},"01M6RBBJTTCJ7KZCP16G9JDFZH","humanizer","Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Use when editing or reviewing\ntext to make it sound more natural and human-written. Based on Wikipedia's\ncomprehensive \"Signs of AI writing\" guide. Detects and fixes patterns including:\ninflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague\nattributions, em dash overuse, rule of three, AI vocabulary words, passive\nvoice, negative parallelisms, and filler phrases.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Fhumanizer\u002FSKILL.md",[190,191],{"categoryNo":94,"categoryName":95,"taxonomyType":96,"taxonomyTypeDesc":97},{"categoryNo":99,"categoryName":100,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[186,102,193,194,178,195,154,196,197,180,198,199,182,200,201,202,203,204,205,32],"code","em dash","read","edit","generated","guide","opencode","three","human","make","wikipedia","vague","dash",{"skillNo":207,"name":208,"nameZh":6,"description":209,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":210,"categories":211,"keywords":212,"publishedAt":47},"01M6RBBEQKJ5HRH8AV9J85QB1T","feedback","Prepare, deliver, and debrief timely interpersonal feedback using a question-first coaching flow, observable behavior, owned experience, and concrete impact. Use when drafting feedback, coaching managers, rehearsing a feedback conversation, praising specific behavior, or reviewing whether feedback landed.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FNairon-AI\u002Fagentic-starter-pack\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fwriting\u002Ffeedback\u002FSKILL.md",[],[208,213,214,215,216,217,111,41,218,38,219,220,32,221],"prepare","flow","first","question","behavior","coaching","impact","managers","deliver"]