Claude-Skills identify-assumptions
git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/project-management/discovery/identify-assumptions" ~/.claude/skills/borghei-claude-skills-identify-assumptions && rm -rf "$T"
project-management/discovery/identify-assumptions/SKILL.mdAssumption Mapping Expert
Overview
Systematically identify, categorize, and prioritize the assumptions underlying your product decisions. This skill extends Teresa Torres' four risk categories with four additional categories for new products, and uses a devil's advocate approach from PM, Designer, and Engineer perspectives to surface hidden assumptions.
When to Use
- After ideation, before committing to build.
- When a product decision "feels right" but has not been validated.
- When the team disagrees on risk or priority -- assumptions make disagreements explicit.
- Before designing experiments -- test the riskiest assumptions first.
Risk Categories
Core 4 Categories (Existing Products)
These four categories come from Teresa Torres' Continuous Discovery Habits and cover the primary risks for features within an established product:
| Category | Question It Answers | Example Assumption |
|---|---|---|
| Value | Will customers want this? | "Users will prefer AI-generated summaries over manual note-taking." |
| Usability | Can customers figure out how to use it? | "Users will understand the drag-and-drop interface without a tutorial." |
| Viability | Can the business sustain this? | "The feature will generate enough upgrades to justify the engineering cost." |
| Feasibility | Can we build this? | "Our current infrastructure can handle real-time processing at scale." |
Extended 8 Categories (New Products)
For new products, four additional risk categories become critical:
| Category | Question It Answers | Example Assumption |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics | Should we build this? Are there unintended harms? | "Collecting location data will not create privacy concerns for our target segment." |
| Go-to-Market | Can we reach and acquire customers? | "Our target segment actively searches for solutions on Google, making SEO viable." |
| Strategy & Objectives | Does this align with where we want to go? | "Entering the SMB market will not dilute our enterprise positioning." |
| Team | Do we have the right people and skills? | "Our team can learn the required ML skills within the project timeline." |
Methodology
Phase 1: Devil's Advocate Assumption Surfacing
For each product idea or decision, adopt three adversarial perspectives:
PM Devil's Advocate "I challenge whether this is worth building."
- Is there real demand, or are we projecting our own preferences?
- Will this move the metric we care about?
- Can we sustain this economically?
- Does this align with strategy, or is it a distraction?
Designer Devil's Advocate "I challenge whether users will actually use this."
- Will users discover this feature?
- Can they complete the task without help?
- Does this add complexity that hurts the overall experience?
- Are we designing for edge cases and assuming they are common?
Engineer Devil's Advocate "I challenge whether we can build and maintain this."
- Do we have the technical skills and infrastructure?
- What are the hidden dependencies and integration risks?
- Can this scale if it succeeds?
- What is the ongoing maintenance burden?
Phase 2: Categorize Each Assumption
For each assumption surfaced, assign:
| Field | Options |
|---|---|
| Description | Clear, specific statement of what must be true |
| Risk Category | Value / Usability / Viability / Feasibility / Ethics / Go-to-Market / Strategy / Team |
| Confidence | High (we have strong evidence) / Medium (some evidence, not conclusive) / Low (gut feeling or no evidence) |
| Impact | 1-10 scale (if this assumption is wrong, how bad is it?) |
Phase 3: Prioritize Using Impact x Risk Matrix
Calculate a risk score for each assumption:
Risk Score = Impact x (1 - Confidence)
Where confidence maps to: High = 0.8, Medium = 0.5, Low = 0.2
| Impact | Confidence | Risk Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Low (0.2) | 7.2 | Critical -- test immediately |
| 9 | High (0.8) | 1.8 | Important but well-understood |
| 3 | Low (0.2) | 2.4 | Low priority |
| 3 | High (0.8) | 0.6 | Ignore |
Phase 4: Classify into Quadrants
Place each assumption on a 2x2 matrix:
HIGH IMPACT | Proceed with | Test Now Confidence | (highest priority) | ──────────────────────┼────────────────────── | Defer | Investigate (low priority) | (may be important) | LOW IMPACT LOW RISK ◄─────┼─────► HIGH RISK
| Quadrant | Impact | Risk | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test Now | High | High | Design an experiment immediately |
| Proceed | High | Low | Move forward with monitoring |
| Investigate | Low | High | Gather more data, may upgrade to Test Now |
| Defer | Low | Low | Accept the risk, revisit if context changes |
Phase 5: Suggest Tests
For each "Test Now" assumption, recommend a validation approach:
| Assumption Type | Suggested Test Methods |
|---|---|
| Value assumptions | Customer interviews, fake door test, landing page test |
| Usability assumptions | Usability test (5 users), prototype walkthrough |
| Viability assumptions | Financial modeling, pricing experiment, unit economics analysis |
| Feasibility assumptions | Technical spike, proof of concept, architecture review |
| Ethics assumptions | Ethics review board, user consent study, regulatory consultation |
| Go-to-Market assumptions | Channel experiment, SEO keyword test, paid ad test |
| Strategy assumptions | Strategy review with leadership, competitive analysis |
| Team assumptions | Skills assessment, hiring timeline analysis, training feasibility |
Python Tool: assumption_tracker.py
Track and prioritize assumptions using the CLI tool:
# Run with demo data python3 scripts/assumption_tracker.py --demo # Run with custom input python3 scripts/assumption_tracker.py input.json # Output as JSON python3 scripts/assumption_tracker.py input.json --format json
Input Format
{ "assumptions": [ { "description": "Users will prefer AI summaries over manual notes", "category": "value", "confidence": "low", "impact": 9 } ] }
Output
Sorted by risk priority with quadrant classification and suggested actions.
See
scripts/assumption_tracker.py for full documentation.
Output Format
Assumption Registry
| # | Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Risk Score | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ... | Value | Low | 9 | 7.2 | Test Now |
| 2 | ... | Feasibility | Medium | 8 | 4.0 | Test Now |
| 3 | ... | Usability | High | 7 | 1.4 | Proceed |
| 4 | ... | GTM | Low | 3 | 2.4 | Investigate |
Action Plan for "Test Now" Assumptions
For each assumption in the Test Now quadrant, document:
- Assumption description
- Why it is high risk
- Suggested validation method
- Owner and timeline
Use
assets/assumption_map_template.md for the full template.
Integration with Other Discovery Skills
- Use
to generate ideas whose assumptions you will map.brainstorm-ideas/ - Feed "Test Now" assumptions into
for experiment design.brainstorm-experiments/ - Run
to catch risks that assumption mapping might miss (especially elephants).pre-mortem/
Troubleshooting
| Symptom | Likely Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| All assumptions classified as "Test Now" | Impact scores inflated or confidence levels consistently set to "low" | Calibrate impact scoring with team; use relative ranking (force distribution across quadrants) |
| Validation fails with category error | Category string does not match valid set exactly | Use lowercase: , , , , , , , |
| Risk scores cluster around the same value | Impact and confidence values lack variance across assumptions | Use the full 1-10 impact scale; challenge the team to differentiate high vs. medium vs. low confidence with evidence |
| Team generates fewer than 10 assumptions | Devil's Advocate perspectives not applied systematically | Run all three perspectives (PM, Designer, Engineer) independently before combining; use the prompts in Phase 1 |
| "Defer" quadrant is empty | All assumptions scored as high impact, or low-impact assumptions not captured | Include operational and edge-case assumptions; not every assumption is existential |
| Suggested tests are too generic | Tool uses category-level test suggestions, not assumption-specific ones | Use the category suggestion as a starting point; tailor the test method using skill |
| Assumptions not updated after experiments | No feedback loop from experiment results back to assumption tracker | Re-run with updated confidence levels after each experiment completes |
Success Criteria
- All product decisions have at least 8-15 explicit assumptions documented before build commitment
- Every "Test Now" assumption has an assigned owner, validation method, and timeline
- Risk scores are calculated consistently using the Impact x (1 - Confidence) formula
- Assumptions are re-scored after each validation experiment (confidence levels update)
- At least 80% of "Test Now" assumptions are validated or invalidated before major build decisions
- Assumption map is reviewed and updated at every product discovery cycle (weekly or bi-weekly)
- The team can articulate the top 3 riskiest assumptions for any active initiative
Scope & Limitations
In Scope:
- Systematic assumption identification using PM/Designer/Engineer devil's advocate perspectives
- 8-category risk classification (Value, Usability, Viability, Feasibility, Ethics, Go-to-Market, Strategy, Team)
- Quantitative risk scoring using Impact x (1 - Confidence) formula
- Quadrant classification (Test Now, Proceed, Investigate, Defer) with suggested validation methods
- Assumption registry with priority sorting and action plan generation
Out of Scope:
- Running validation experiments (see
skill)brainstorm-experiments/ - Product strategy or roadmap decisions (see
)execution/outcome-roadmap/ - Technical feasibility deep-dives or architecture reviews (see
skills)engineering/ - Financial modeling for viability assumptions (see
domain skills)finance/
Important Caveats:
- Confidence levels (high/medium/low) map to fixed numeric values (0.8/0.5/0.2). This is a simplification; real confidence is continuous.
- The quadrant threshold for "high impact" is set at 7/10. Adjust this threshold for your risk tolerance.
- Assumption mapping is most effective when done collaboratively (Product Trio), not by a single person.
Integration Points
| Integration | Direction | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Receives from | Ideas generated become the subjects whose assumptions are mapped |
| Feeds into | "Test Now" assumptions become hypotheses for experiment design |
| Complements | Pre-mortem catches risks that assumption mapping may miss (especially elephants) |
| Feeds into | Validated assumptions populate the PRD Assumptions section (Section 7) |
| Feeds into | Viability assumptions inform OKR key result selection and confidence levels |
| Feeds into | High-impact assumptions feed into portfolio risk registers |
Tool Reference
assumption_tracker.py
Tracks, scores, and prioritizes product assumptions using an Impact x Risk matrix with quadrant classification.
| Flag | Type | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| positional | (optional) | Path to JSON file with assumptions array |
| flag | off | Run with built-in sample data (8 assumptions across all categories) |
| choice | | Output format: or |
Input fields per assumption:
(required): Clear statement of what must be truedescription
(required): One ofcategory
,value
,usability
,viability
,feasibility
,ethics
,gtm
,strategyteam
(required): One ofconfidence
,high
,mediumlow
(required): Integer 1-10impact
References
- Teresa Torres, Continuous Discovery Habits (2021)
- David J. Bland & Alexander Osterwalder, Testing Business Ideas (2019)
- Ash Maurya, Running Lean (2012)
- Marty Cagan, Inspired (2018)