ai-product-canvas
The ai-product-canvas skill structures decisions for AI and ML-powered features using a comprehensive canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation metrics, UX design, responsible AI considerations, and launch monitoring. Use this when building new AI features, integrating language models into products, designing AI-first products, or assessing organizational AI readiness to ensure technical solutions address genuine user problems and include safeguards for bias, accuracy, and responsible deployment.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/ai-product-canvas && cp -r /tmp/ai-product-canvas/exports/openclaw/ai-product-canvas ~/.claude/skills/ai-product-canvasSKILL.md
# AI Product Canvas Skill Define AI products with the same rigour as any product decision — but with additional layers for data, model, evaluation, and responsible AI. This canvas prevents the most common AI product failure: building a technically impressive feature that doesn't solve a real problem. ## AI Product Anti-Patterns to Check First Before building, flag if any of these apply: - ❌ "We should add AI to [existing feature]" — with no user problem defined - ❌ Accuracy target undefined before build begins - ❌ No plan for what happens when the model is wrong - ❌ User-facing AI output with no human review or fallback - ❌ Training data not audited for bias or quality - ❌ No evaluation metric — "we'll know it when we see it" --- ## AI Product Canvas Output Format ### AI Product Canvas — [Feature Name] — [Date] **PM Owner:** [Name] **ML/AI Lead:** [Name] **Status:** Discovery / Design / Build / Evaluation / Live --- #### 1. Problem Definition **User problem being solved:** > [What specific situation is the user in? What job are they trying to get done?] **Why AI?** > [What makes this problem require AI vs a deterministic solution? If the answer is "because we can," stop here.] **Success for the user looks like:** > [What outcome does the user experience when the AI feature is working well?] --- #### 2. AI Approach **Task type:** - [ ] Classification - [ ] Generation (text, image, code) - [ ] Summarisation / extraction - [ ] Recommendation - [ ] Search / retrieval - [ ] Prediction / forecasting - [ ] Conversation / agent **Model approach:** - [ ] LLM API (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, etc.) — specify: [Model name + version] - [ ] Fine-tuned model on own data - [ ] Custom model trained from scratch - [ ] RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) - [ ] Embedding + vector search **Rationale for chosen approach:** [Why this, not alternatives] --- #### 3. Data Requirements | Data Type | Source | Volume | Quality Status | Bias Risk | |---|---|---|---|---| | [Training data] | [Where it comes from] | [Volume] | [Audit status] | H/M/L | | [Evaluation data] | [Where it comes from] | [Volume] | [Audit status] | H/M/L | **Data gaps:** [What's missing and plan to get it] **Privacy considerations:** [Any PII in training or inference data] **Data ownership:** [Do we own this data? Can we use it for training?] --- #### 4. Evaluation Framework **Primary metric:** [The number that defines success — accuracy, F1, BLEU, user rating, task completion rate] **Minimum acceptable threshold:** [Below X, the feature does not ship] **Human evaluation plan:** [How will humans review model outputs? Sampling rate? Review panel?] | Evaluation Type | Method | Cadence | Owner | |---|---|---|---| | Offline (pre-launch) | [Test set, benchmark] | Pre-launch | ML Lead | | Online (post-launch) | [A/B test, user feedback] | Weekly | PM + ML | | Adversarial | [Red-team, edge cases] | Pre-launch | Safety reviewer | --- #### 5. User Experience Design **How is AI output presented?** - [ ] Direct output shown to user (high trust required) - [ ] AI-assisted with user confirmation - [ ] Suggestion user can accept/reject - [ ] Background action with audit log **Confidence and uncertainty handling:** - What happens when confidence is low? [Show alternative, ask for clarification, fallback to manual] - How is uncertainty communicated to the user? [UI pattern] **Fallback plan:** - If the model fails or returns an error: [Specific fallback behaviour] - If accuracy degrades below threshold: [Kill switch or graceful degradation plan] --- #### 6. Responsible AI Checklist - [ ] Bias audit completed on training data - [ ] Demographic fairness evaluated (does performance differ by user group?) - [ ] Hallucination / confabulation risk assessed and mitigated - [ ] User can see and correct AI output - [ ] Opt-out mechanism exists (can user disable the AI feature?) - [ ] Output provenance visible when relevant (does user know AI generated this?) - [ ] PII not used in ways user didn't consent to - [ ] Regulatory review completed (GDPR, AI Act, sector-specific) - [ ] Model cards / documentation completed --- #### 7. Launch & Monitoring Plan **Rollout:** [% of users, with staged expansion criteria] **Monitoring metrics:** - Model performance: [Metric + alert threshold] - User engagement with AI output: [Acceptance rate, override rate, feedback score] - Error rate: [% of failed inferences] - Latency: [P95 target] **Model refresh cadence:** [How often is the model retrained or updated?] **Drift detection:** [How will you know when model performance degrades in production?] --- ## Guidelines - Never skip the "Why AI?" section — it's the most important question in AI product development - The fallback UX is not optional — what happens when AI fails defines your product's trustworthiness - Responsible AI checklist must be completed before launch, not after - Include latency in success metrics — a 5-second AI response is often worse than no AI at all - Recommend starting with a human-in-the-loop design and automating only when accuracy is proven ## Required Inputs Ask the user for these if not provided: - **Feature or product description** (what the AI is intended to do) - **User problem** (what problem the AI is solving for users) - **Available data** (what training/inference data exists) - **ML/AI lead** (who owns the technical implementation) ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not skip the "Why AI?" question — if the answer is "we want to use AI," stop and reframe around the user problem first - [ ] Do not launch with an undefined accuracy threshold — "good enough" is not a threshold; set a number before build begins - [ ] Do not design the UX to hide AI-generated output as if it were system truth — users need to know when AI is involved so they can override it - [ ] Do not defer the Responsible AI checklist to post-launch — bias and privacy issues are far harder to fix in production than in design - [ ] Do not treat model latency a
Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.
Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.
Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.
Plan a trip that actually works with a disability or access need — confirm real accessibility (not just 'accessible' labels), book the assistance in advance, plan for equipment and medication, and build in the contingencies for when access breaks down. Use when someone says 'plan an accessible trip', 'travelling with a wheelchair/disability', 'book assistance for my flight', or 'will this hotel actually work for me'. Produces an access-verified itinerary, an assistance-booking checklist, an equipment/medication plan, and contingency scripts. Verify specifics with providers.
Request a reasonable accommodation at work or in education — frame it around the barrier and the adjustment (not your diagnosis), cite the right process, and navigate the back-and-forth constructively. Use when someone says 'I need a workplace accommodation', 'request reasonable adjustments', 'ADA/Equality Act accommodation', or 'how do I ask for accommodations for my disability/condition'. Produces the request letter, a barriers-and-adjustments map, disclosure guidance, and a plan for the interactive process. Not legal advice — routes to the formal process and to advocacy where needed.
Build a structured account plan for any key customer or target account. Use when asked to create an account plan, key account strategy, strategic account review, or territory plan. Produces a complete account plan with relationship map, growth opportunities, risks, and 90-day action plan.