user-persona
Synthesizes interview notes, surveys, support tickets, and analytics into evidence-based user personas that drive design decisions, with every claim traced to source data. Use when someone asks "build personas from our research", "turn these interview notes into personas", "how many personas do we need", or "are our personas evidence-based". Do NOT use for sales-targeting ideal customer profiles with filterable firmographics and buying committees - use icp-persona-builder instead. Do NOT use for extracting jobs-to-be-done from research - use jtbd-extractor instead.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-10-14
- Stars
- ★ 25
- Forks
- 3
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- user-persona
- metadata
- { "title": "User Persona Builder" }
- description
- Synthesizes interview notes, surveys, support tickets, and analytics into evidence-based user personas that drive design decisions, with every claim traced to source data. Use when someone asks "build personas from our research", "turn these interview notes into personas", "how many personas do we need", or "are our personas evidence-based". Do NOT use for sales-targeting ideal customer profiles with filterable firmographics and buying committees - use icp-persona-builder instead. Do NOT use for extracting jobs-to-be-done from research - use jtbd-extractor instead.
03 SKILL.md 正文
User Persona Builder
Build personas that designers and PMs actually consult - grounded in observed behavior, not demographics invented for a slide. A persona is a research artifact, not a character. The costly failure this prevents is the decorative persona: a stock photo, a name, an age, and a made-up hobby that no design decision ever touches, which quietly teaches the team that research outputs are theater.
Operating procedure
Step 1: Gather inputs and enforce the evidence floor
Ask for the source material: interview notes or transcripts, survey results, support tickets, analytics, session recordings. Then apply the evidence rules:
- Minimum for defensible personas: 8-12 interviews across the target population; below 5, refuse to call the outputs personas - label them proto-personas (assumption maps) and recommend research first, offering to design it (pair with interview-guide-builder).
- Surveys and analytics alone cannot produce personas - they show what and how much, never why. They corroborate interview-derived clusters; they do not replace them.
- If there is no research at all, say so plainly and offer a research plan. Never fabricate a persona from team assumptions and present it as evidence.
Also collect: the decisions the personas must inform (onboarding? pricing? feature priority?), and any existing segmentation to reconcile against. Label assumed context as a guess.
Step 2: Find patterns, not averages
Read across all data and tag recurring behaviors, goals, and pain points. Cluster users by behavior and motivation, not by age or job title - two 28-year-old marketers can need opposite products, and a 24-year-old and a 55-year-old with the same workflow belong in the same persona. Averaging produces a user who does not exist; clustering finds users who do.
Aim for the smallest number of personas that captures the meaningful differences - usually 3-5. Each persona must represent a distinct strategy or need; if two clusters would lead to the same design decisions, merge them.
Step 3: Build each persona from the skeleton
PERSONA - [FILL: memorable label tied to defining behavior, e.g. "The Batch Processor"]
Evidence base: [FILL: n of X interviews, plus corroborating sources] Research date: [FILL]
SNAPSHOT [FILL: one sentence - who they are via what they do, not who they resemble]
CONTEXT [FILL: role, environment, constraints - time, budget, skill level]
GOALS [FILL: what they are ultimately trying to accomplish - the job-to-be-done]
Evidence: [FILL: e.g. 7/10 interviews; P2, P4, P7 explicit]
FRUSTRATIONS [FILL: concrete obstacles from the data, not generic gripes]
Evidence: [FILL]
BEHAVIORS [FILL: how they actually act - tools, workarounds, frequency]
Evidence: [FILL: observed vs self-reported, noted separately]
QUOTES [FILL: 1-3 verbatim quotes, participant IDs attached]
NEEDS [FILL: what the product must do to serve them]
ASSUMPTIONS [FILL: anything inferred rather than observed - marked to validate]
DESIGN IMPLICATION Because [goal/frustration], the product should [decision].
The design implication line is mandatory - it is what makes a persona drive decisions instead of decorating a wall.
Step 4: Tie every claim to evidence
For each goal and frustration, note how many participants expressed it or which data point supports it ("6 of 10 interviews", "38% of survey respondents", "top-3 support ticket driver"). A claim supported by one participant is a signal, not a persona trait. Mark anything inferred as an assumption to validate later - the assumptions row is a feature, not an embarrassment.
Contrast pair:
Bad: "Sarah, 34, loves technology and values efficiency. She enjoys yoga."
Good: "Batch Processor - clears all approvals in one Friday session because context-switching costs her more than delay does (8/12 interviews; P3: 'I'd rather let it pile up than break focus'). Design implication: build a bulk-approve queue, not per-item notifications."
Step 5: Differentiate and rank
Place personas on the one or two dimensions that matter most for the decision at hand (e.g., expertise vs. usage frequency). If two personas sit on top of each other, merge them; if one has no distinct need, question whether it earns its place. Then designate: primary (design for), secondary (accommodate), anti-persona (explicitly not for - naming who you will not serve is as clarifying as naming who you will).
Step 6: Set the expiry
Personas decay. Stamp each with the research date and recommend revalidation - every 12-18 months for stable products, after any major product or market shift otherwise. An undated persona is unfalsifiable and will be trusted long after it is wrong.
Deliverable
Produce a persona set containing: 3-5 personas built from the skeleton with per-claim evidence counts, verbatim quotes with participant IDs, a primary/secondary/anti-persona designation, a one-line design implication per persona, an explicit assumptions-to-validate list, and the research date with a revalidation cadence.
Do NOT
- Do NOT invent demographics, hobbies, or stock-photo characterization the data does not support - they add false vividness and invite stereotyping.
- Do NOT cluster by demographic category; behavior and motivation only. Demographic clustering produces stereotypes with citations.
- Do NOT average across participants - the "average user" is a statistical fiction nobody can design for.
- Do NOT present proto-personas (assumption-based) with the same visual authority as researched ones; label the difference loudly.
- Do NOT ship a persona without a design implication line - an implication-free persona changes no decisions.
Quality bar
- Every goal and frustration carries an evidence count or source; zero unsourced claims.
- Each persona is behaviorally distinct - no two would lead to the same design decisions.
- Quotes are verbatim and attributed to participant IDs, anonymized for external sharing.
- Assumptions are explicitly separated from findings.
- The set names a primary persona and the research date.
Escalation
For sales-facing targeting with firmographics, triggers, and buying committees, route to icp-persona-builder. To generate the interview data these personas require, pair with interview-guide-builder; to theme the raw notes first, pair with interview-synthesis.
04 同仓库更多 Skills
有氧运动计划
zone-2-cardio-plan
当有人要求制定稳态有氧训练计划、进行有氧基础训练或达到第二区间、安排轻松或耐力型的每周有氧训练、按心率区间训练,或提高静息心率、最大摄氧量或耐力时,可以使用此方案。该方案构建了一个包含训练计划结构、训练方式选择和进度安排的心率区间有氧训练模块。本方案仅提供一般健身指导,不构成医疗建议。请勿用于设计力量或举重训练计划(请使用力量训练计划)、高强度间歇训练 (HIIT) 或循环训练(请使用体能训练和 HIIT 计划),或灵活性/柔韧性训练(请使用灵活性训练计划)。
youtube-script-writer
Writes retention-engineered long-form YouTube scripts on a hook/body/payoff architecture - a first-30-seconds hook that survives the retention cliff, a beat-sheet body with mini-hooks and bridges, timed pattern interrupts, and a payoff that over-delivers - with B-roll and editing cues marked inline. Use when someone says "script my next video", "my retention graph dies at the start", "tighten this draft", or "outline a video on X". Do NOT use for the 3-second opener of TikTok, Reels, or Shorts - use video-hook-writer instead; do NOT use for spoken voiceover synced to on-screen tutorial actions - use narration-script instead; do NOT use for a sales demo built on a buyer's discovery notes - use demo-script instead; do NOT use to design the thumbnail and title - use thumbnail-concept instead.
win-back-campaign
Designs segmented win-back email sequences for dormant users - dormancy tiers, a three-beat sequence with a single proportional incentive, and a suppression rule - and measures success by re-activation, not opens. Use when someone says "our users went quiet", "design a win-back campaign", "how do I re-engage lapsed customers", "should we email people who haven't logged in for months", or lifecycle messaging has stopped landing with a lapsed segment. Do NOT use for recovering an unfinished checkout - use abandoned-cart-sequence instead. Do NOT use for diagnosing and fixing why active customers cancel - use churn-reduction instead. Do NOT use for building always-on onboarding or nurture flows - use email-drip-builder instead.
wikipedia-style
Writes neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic prose following Wikipedia's core content policies and manual of style - NPOV, inline citations, notability-backed claims, and a strict ban on promotional language. Use when someone asks "write this like a Wikipedia article", "draft a Wikipedia page for this company or person", "make this neutral and encyclopedic", or "why does my article draft keep getting rejected". Do NOT use for persuasive or opinion writing - use op-ed-writer instead; for thesis-driven academic papers, use academic-essay; for verifying claims in existing text, use fact-checker.
whitepapers
Structures and writes authoritative B2B whitepapers - a standalone executive summary, a data-sized problem statement, methodology, evidence-driven findings, recommendations, and a soft call to action - flagging every claim that needs a real citation. Use when a marketer asks "write a whitepaper on this topic", "turn our research into a lead-gen asset", "make this credible enough for executives", or a draft reads like a product pitch instead of analysis. Do NOT use for customer-story-driven proof - use case-study-builder instead; for policy audiences, use policy-brief.
white-space-analysis
Finds unmet market gaps by ranking jobs-to-be-done on importance versus satisfaction, overlaying them against current solutions and workarounds, and validating that each gap is real, winnable, and worth winning. Use when someone asks "where are the gaps in this market", "what's underserved here", "where should we play next", or is hunting for product, feature, or market-entry opportunities. Do NOT use for profiling competitors and building battle cards - use competitive-intelligence instead; for putting a dollar figure on an identified opportunity - use market-sizing instead; for extracting jobs-to-be-done from raw customer interviews - use jtbd-extractor instead.