feedback-synthesis
$
npx mdskill add mkurman/zorai/feedback-synthesisSynthesize customer feedback into actionable strategic insights.
- Extracts feature requests and categorizes them by underlying opportunity.
- Depends on startup-context data to validate strategic alignment.
- Prioritizes themes using Dan Olsen opportunity scoring methodology.
- Delivers structured reports with raw data breakdowns and quick wins.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/feedback-synthesisView on GitHub ↗
--- name: feedback-synthesis description: When the user needs to analyze, categorize, or extract actionable insights from customer feedback across multiple sources, especially feature requests. related: [user-research-synthesis, churn-analysis, prd-writing] reads: [startup-context] tags: [nontechnical, startup-founder-skills, feedback-synthesis] ----|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------|----------| | [Theme] | [Count] | [Segments] | [Score] | [High/Med/Low] | [H/M/L] | ## Top 3 Opportunities (Deep Dives) ### Opportunity 1: [Theme Name] - **Rationale:** Customer needs and strategic alignment - **Representative quotes:** Direct user language - **Alternative solutions:** Other ways to address this need - **High-risk assumptions:** What must be true - **Cheapest test:** How to validate with minimal effort ## Quick Wins Actions that address frequent feedback with low implementation effort. ## Not Prioritized (and Why) Themes explicitly deprioritized with reasoning. ## Appendix: Raw Data Summary Breakdown by source, segment, and time period. ``` ## Frameworks & Best Practices ### Opportunities Over Features Never let customers design solutions. Prioritize opportunities (problems), not features. When a user says "I want a Gantt chart," the underlying opportunity might be "I need to visualize project timelines and communicate status to stakeholders." Always dig for the job-to-be-done behind the request. ### Opportunity Score (Dan Olsen) Score each theme: Opportunity Score = Importance x (1 - Satisfaction), normalized to 0-1. This surfaces problems that are both important and underserved. A high-importance, high-satisfaction area is already well-served and should not be prioritized over a high-importance, low-satisfaction gap. ### Signal vs. Noise Rules - **One customer saying it is not a pattern.** Require 3+ independent mentions of a theme before treating it as a signal. Exception: if the one customer is a whale account citing it as a churn risk. - **Recency bias check.** A flood of recent feedback about one issue can overshadow a persistent problem. Always compare against the prior period. - **Loudest does not equal most important.** Power users and vocal customers generate disproportionate feedback. Weight by segment size and revenue contribution, not volume alone. - **Praise is data too.** Track what users love. Knowing your strengths prevents you from accidentally breaking them during a redesign. ### Assumption Testing For each top-priority opportunity, identify the highest-risk assumption and design the cheapest possible test. Do not build the full solution to validate an assumption that could be tested with a prototype, survey, or Wizard of Oz experiment. ### Source-Specific Guidance | Source | Strengths | Watch Out For | |--------|-----------|---------------| | Support tickets | High signal, specific problems | Skews toward bugs, misses satisfied users | | NPS/surveys | Broad coverage, quantifiable | Low response rates can bias results | | Feature request boards | Organized, vote counts available | Power users dominate voting | | Sales call notes | Revenue-adjacent, prospect perspective | Prospects request features they may never use | | App store reviews | Public, includes competitor comparisons | Skews negative, vague complaints | | Social media | Unfiltered, real-time | Noisy, hard to segment | ### Avoiding Common Mistakes - **Cherry-picking quotes** that support a pre-existing hypothesis. Present the full distribution, including contradictory feedback. - **Conflating frequency with importance.** A low-frequency issue that causes churn matters more than a high-frequency annoyance users tolerate. - **Delivering data without recommendations.** A theme map without action items is a report, not a synthesis. Always end with what to do next. - **Ignoring the silent majority.** Users who never complain may be happy or disengaged. Segment analysis helps distinguish the two. ## Related Skills - `user-research-synthesis` -- Chain when feedback analysis reveals gaps that need dedicated user research (interviews, usability tests). - `churn-analysis` -- Chain when feedback themes correlate with churn patterns and need deeper retention analysis. - `prd-writing` -- Chain when a clear opportunity emerges from the synthesis and needs to be specced into a PRD. ## Examples ### Example 1: Feature request prioritization **User:** "Our feature request board has 150 items. Help me figure out what to build next quarter." **Good output excerpt:** > **Executive Summary:** 150 requests cluster into 9 themes. The top opportunity is not the most-requested feature (SSO, 34 votes) but the most underserved need: "real-time collaboration on shared documents" (Opportunity Score: 0.82). SSO scores lower (0.45) because existing workarounds satisfy most users adequately. > > **Opportunity 1: Real-time collaboration** > - **Rationale:** 22 requests across 4 segments. Cited as expansion blocker in 3 enterprise deals worth $85K ARR. Current satisfaction: 2/10. > - **Alternative solutions:** (a) Full real-time editing, (b) Lightweight commenting and presence indicators, (c) Async review workflow with notifications > - **High-risk assumption:** Users want simultaneous editing, not just awareness of others' changes > - **Cheapest test:** Add presence indicators only (show who is viewing a document) and measure whether collaboration-related tickets decrease ### Example 2: Multi-source synthesis **User:** "We have 200 support tickets, 50 NPS responses, and notes from 10 customer interviews from last month. What are customers telling us?" **Good output excerpt:** > **Theme 1: CSV export broken for large datasets** (Opportunity Score: 0.91) > - 47 support tickets, 8 NPS detractors, 3 interviews. Users hitting the 10K row limit work around it by splitting exports manually. > - **Strategic alignment:** High -- data export is core to our "open platform" positioning. > - **Cheapest test:** Not needed; this is a clear bug/limitation. Fix directly. > - **Quick win:** Increase CSV export limit to 100K rows (engineering estimate: 2 days).