nw-interviewing-techniques
This Claude Code skill provides structured questioning frameworks for conducting customer discovery interviews, including the Mom Test methodology, job-to-be-done analysis, and assumption testing. Use it when designing interview guides, preparing to validate product hypotheses, developing interview protocols to uncover customer problems and commitments, or establishing frameworks to challenge internal assumptions with evidence-based inquiry rather than speculation.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave /tmp/nw-interviewing-techniques && cp -r /tmp/nw-interviewing-techniques/nWave/skills/nw-interviewing-techniques ~/.claude/skills/nw-interviewing-techniquesSKILL.md
# Interviewing Techniques ## Questioning Toolkit by Purpose ### Problem Discovery Understand if problem is real and worth solving. - "Tell me about the last time you [encountered this problem]." - "What was the hardest part about that?" - "What did you do about it?" | "What don't you love about that solution?" | "What else have you tried?" ### Understanding the Job Map the job-to-be-done and desired outcomes. - "What are you ultimately trying to accomplish?" - "Walk me through your process step by step." - "At each step, how do you know if you've succeeded?" - "What slows you down or frustrates you most?" | "What workarounds have you created?" ### Probing Assumptions Challenge beliefs and uncover truth. - "What makes you believe that?" | "What would need to be true for this to work?" - "What could we assume instead?" | "What would change your mind?" ### Testing Commitment Distinguish interest from commitment. - "Would you be willing to [specific action]?" | "What would you pay for this?" - "Can you introduce me to someone else with this problem?" | "When can we schedule a follow-up?" ### Exploring Implications Understand impact and urgency. - "If this were solved, what would change?" | "What would that enable you to do?" - "What would happen if we didn't solve this?" ## Interview Conduct Rules **Do**: Ask about past specifics | Open, non-directive questions | Seek commitment not praise | Keep informal | 80% listening | Talk about their life first **Avoid**: Future behavior questions | Leading questions | Accepting compliments as validation | Talking >20% | Mentioning idea before understanding problem | Formal settings ## Assumption Challenging ### Triggers Challenge when: belief without evidence | prediction about future | negative feedback dismissed | skipping to solution | single data point relied on ### Challenge Format 1. "What evidence supports this?" -- specific past examples 2. "What would disprove this?" -- falsification criteria 3. "What's the opposite assumption?" -- explore alternatives 4. "Who would disagree and why?" -- disconfirming perspectives Tone: curious and supportive, not confrontational -- goal is truth-seeking. ## Assumption Testing Framework ### Assumption Categories | Category | Core Question | |----------|--------------| | Value | Will customers want this? | | Usability | Can customers use this? | | Feasibility | Can we build this? | | Viability | Does this work for our business? | ### Risk Scoring | Factor | Weight | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | |--------|--------|---------|------------|----------| | Impact if wrong | 3 | Minor adjustment | Significant rework | Solution fails | | Uncertainty | 2 | Have data | Mixed signals | Speculation | | Ease of testing | 1 | Days, low cost | Weeks, moderate | Months, high cost | **Risk Score** = (Impact x 3) + (Uncertainty x 2) + (Ease x 1) | Priority | Score | Action | |----------|-------|--------| | Test first | > 12 | Immediate | | Test soon | 8-12 | Schedule | | Test later | < 8 | Backlog | ### Hypothesis Template ``` We believe [doing X] for [user type] will achieve [outcome]. We will know this is TRUE when we see [measurable signal]. We will know this is FALSE when we see [counter-signal or absence of signal]. ``` ### Test Methods by Category | Category | Methods | |----------|---------| | Value | Landing page, Fake door, Mom Test interviews | | Usability | Prototype testing, 5-second tests, Task completion | | Feasibility | Spike, Technical prototype, Expert review | | Viability | Lean Canvas review, Stakeholder interviews | ### Decision Rules | Result | Criteria | Action | |--------|----------|--------| | Proven | >80% meet success criteria | Proceed | | Disproven | <20% meet criteria | Pivot or kill | | Inconclusive | 20-80% | Increase sample, try different method, segment |
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
Comprehensive architecture patterns, methodologies, quality frameworks, and evaluation methods for solution architects. Load when designing system architecture or selecting patterns.
Canonical AT completeness gate — research-anchored 7-category taxonomy (C1-C7) + 15-item mechanical checklist. Paradigm-neutral. Drives acceptance-designer reviewer verdict deterministically.