assumption-mapper

Assumption Mapper Skill

Surface and prioritize the untested assumptions embedded in any product plan before development begins.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

• Product brief, PRD, or concept description (even rough notes work)
• Stage (concept / discovery / pre-build / post-launch — affects which assumptions matter most)

Process

1. Read the provided brief, PRD, or concept description
2. Extract assumptions across four categories:

• Desirability (do users want this?)
• Feasibility (can we build it?)
• Viability (will it sustain the business?)
• Usability (can users actually use it?)

1. Score each assumption:

• Confidence (1-5): How sure are we this is true?
• Impact (1-5): How badly does the plan fail if this assumption is wrong?
• Priority = Impact − Confidence (higher = test first)

1. Validate completeness — Ensure at least one assumption per category. If a category is empty, re-read the brief looking specifically for that type.
2. Output a ranked list with recommended validation methods

Output Structure

Assumption Map: [Feature/Product Name]

| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority | Validation Method |

|------------|----------|------------|--------|----------|-------------------|

| [assumption] | [type] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [score] | [method] |

Critical Assumptions (Impact 4+ and Confidence 2 or below)

[Flagged items with detailed validation recommendations]

Top 3 Assumptions to Validate First

[Detailed recommendations including specific research method, estimated effort, and what the result would change]

Example (Partial)

Input: "We're building a self-serve onboarding flow to reduce time-to-value for SMB customers."

| Assumption | Category | Confidence | Impact | Priority | Validation Method |

|------------|----------|------------|--------|----------|-------------------|

| SMB users can complete onboarding without human help | Usability | 2 | 5 | 3 | Unmoderated usability test (n=8) |

| Faster onboarding correlates with higher retention | Viability | 3 | 4 | 1 | Cohort analysis of current onboarding times vs. 90-day retention |

| The current onboarding is the primary reason for slow time-to-value | Desirability | 2 | 4 | 2 | User interviews with recent churned SMB accounts |

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not only surface desirability assumptions — feasibility and viability assumptions are equally likely to kill a product and are often overlooked
• [ ] Do not assign high confidence to an assumption just because it hasn't been challenged yet — absence of evidence is not evidence
• [ ] Do not recommend "user interviews" as the validation method for every assumption — some assumptions require quantitative data, competitive analysis, or technical spikes
• [ ] Do not list assumptions that cannot be tested — every assumption in the map must have a plausible validation method, or it should be flagged as unknowable and treated as a risk

Deeper Materials

This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:

• references/cheap-tests.md — The Cheap-Test Catalog: Right-Sizing Validation. Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.
• templates/assumption-board.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |

|---|---|---|---|

| Category coverage | Desirability-only — the feasibility and viability assumptions most likely to kill the plan are absent | Three categories populated, but the empty one wasn't re-mined from the brief; coverage is token (one throwaway row) | All four categories populated with substantive rows, with visible digging into whichever category the brief itself neglected |

| Scoring discipline | Confidence/impact numbers arbitrary or missing; priority arithmetic inconsistent; no critical flags | Scores present and Priority = Impact − Confidence holds, but confidence is inflated for unchallenged assumptions and critical flags applied selectively | Scores defensible (unchallenged ≠ high confidence), arithmetic consistent including negative priorities left visible, and the CRITICAL flag applied mechanically at Impact 4+ / Confidence ≤2 — even to assumptions the team likes |

| Validation method fit | "User interviews" (or "do research") pasted into every row | Methods vary but several are mismatched to the assumption type, missing sample sizes, or unpriced | Each method matched to the assumption (data audit, backtest, fake door, desk check, spike…) with sample size and effort; untestable assumptions flagged unknowable and converted to owned risks, not given fake tests |

| Decision leverage | Top-3 list missing, or tests whose outcome would change nothing | Top 3 named with effort, but "what the result changes" is vague or the tests validate comfortable assumptions over dangerous ones | Top 3 are the highest-priority testable assumptions, each with effort, a pre-committed threshold where relevant, and a concrete decision the result would change |

Quality Checks

• [ ] At least one assumption per category (Desirability, Feasibility, Viability, Usability)
• [ ] All Impact 4+ / Confidence 2− assumptions flagged as CRITICAL
• [ ] Each validation method is specific (not just "do research" — name the method and sample size)
• [ ] Priority scores are consistent (Impact − Confidence, higher = more urgent)