user-interview-synthesis

User Interview Synthesis Skill

Transform raw interview transcripts into a structured synthesis document that surfaces themes, pain points, and actionable insights.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

• Interview transcripts or notes (even rough notes work)
• Number of participants and their profiles (role, company size, context)
• Research questions (what was the study trying to answer?)
• Date range of research (for context)

Process

1. Read all provided transcripts fully before drawing conclusions
2. Identify recurring themes (minimum 3 mentions to qualify as a theme)
3. Categorize findings into: Pain Points, Workflow Insights, Feature Requests, Delight Moments
4. Select 2-3 verbatim quotes per theme that best represent the pattern
5. Draft "So What" implications for each theme — what does this mean for the product?
6. Validate — Confirm every theme has quotes from at least 3 participants. Flag any insight resting on fewer as low-confidence.

Output Structure

Research Synthesis: [Study Name]

Participants: [n]

Date Range: [dates]

Research Questions: [list]

Theme 1: [Theme Name]

• Summary (2-3 sentences)
• Supporting quotes (from at least 3 participants)
• Implication for product

[Repeat for each theme]

Low-Confidence Signals (1-2 participants only)

[Findings worth tracking but not acting on yet — note what further research would confirm or deny]

Recommended Next Steps

[Specific, actionable recommendations based on findings]

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

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

| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |

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

| Evidence traceability | Themes asserted with no quotes or participant attribution | Most themes carry quotes, but some rest on 1–2 participants or unattributed paraphrase | Every theme carries verbatim quotes from ≥3 distinct participants, with frequency counts ("6 of 9") consistent with the roster |

| Implication actionability | Implications restate the observation ("users find X frustrating") | Implications gesture at direction but name no decision, owner, or change | Every implication enables a specific product decision someone could act on this quarter |

| Contradiction honesty | All findings conveniently support the sponsor's hypothesis; inconvenient data absent | Contradictory evidence present but buried or softened; both-ways quotes trimmed to the helpful half | Findings that contradict the hypothesis are surfaced prominently, and ambiguous quotes are kept whole with the tension flagged |

| Signal separation & question coverage | Single-source anecdotes mixed into main themes; research questions ignored | Low-confidence signals segregated but with no follow-up path, or one research question left unaddressed | Every 1–2-participant signal sits in its own section with the cheap test that would confirm it, and every research question gets an explicit answer — including "inconclusive" |

Quality Checks

• [ ] Every theme is supported by quotes from at least 3 participants
• [ ] Implications connect to specific product decisions, not just observations
• [ ] Researcher bias check: no leading language, findings don't all support one hypothesis
• [ ] Single-source signals are flagged separately, not mixed into main themes
• [ ] Research questions from the study brief are each addressed (even if the answer is "inconclusive")

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not mix single-source signals into main themes — insights cited by only one participant must be flagged separately
• [ ] Do not write implications that are observations restated rather than product decisions enabled
• [ ] Do not include themes that only support the project hypothesis — contradictory findings must be surfaced, not omitted
• [ ] Do not present findings without quotes — every theme requires verbatim evidence from at least 3 participants
• [ ] Do not leave research questions unanswered — each question from the study brief must be explicitly addressed, even if the answer is inconclusive