Analyze the interview transcripts in the discovery/research/interviews/ folder. These interviews focus on legal operations challenges including contract review, intake management, and knowledge retrieval.
Extract key findings and organize them into:
- Pain points (what frustrates legal operations teams)
- Unmet needs (what legal teams wish they could do)
- Workarounds (how teams currently solve problems)
- Desired outcomes (what success looks like for legal operations)
For each finding:
- Provide a brief description
- Include a supporting quote from the interview
- Note which interview(s) mentioned it (customer-1, customer-2, or sales-rep)
- Rate frequency (mentioned in 1, 2, or 3 interviews)
Save the results to discovery/research/interviews/interview-findings.md
Task: Competitive analysis of legal operations AI tools focused on contract review, intake management, and knowledge retrieval. For each tool, cover: key features, target users, pricing model, and strengths. Then, based on that comparison, identify market gaps.
Rules: Do not identify opportunities or make strategic recommendations. Every claim must include a cited source.
Follow these steps in order:
Step 1 — Clarify: Ask 2–3 clarifying questions, one at a time, to understand what aspects of the competitive landscape matter most. Wait for an answer before asking the next question.
Step 2 — Propose structure: Based on the answers, propose the structure and sections of the output. Wait for approval.
Step 3 — Research and deliver: Conduct web research to identify the top 5 tools in the space, produce the comparison, then derive market gaps from it. Save the results to discovery/research/competitive-analysis/competitive-insights.md
Important: Do NOT use the competitive-analysis skill — conduct all research directly using web search.
Task: Synthesize research into an opportunity backlog using the opportunity tree technique.
Context:
- Interview findings: discovery/research/interviews/interview-findings.md
- Competitive insights: discovery/research/competitive-analysis/competitive-insights.md
- Business objective: PROJECT-OVERVIEW.md
Output structure:
[From PROJECT-OVERVIEW.md]
For each outcome (aim for 2-3):
- Measurable customer behavior (e.g., adoption by legal teams, contract review time reduction)
- Target metric (e.g., 40% faster contract review, 60% reduction in routine legal questions)
- How this outcome supports the business objective
For each opportunity (aim for 3-5):
- Unmet customer need (outcome-focused, not feature-focused)
- Supporting evidence with quotes from interviews
- User segment affected (legal ops, GCs, contract managers, sales teams)
- Current workarounds users employ
- Competitive gap or advantage in legal tech space
- How meeting this need drives product outcomes
Save to discovery/opportunities/opportunity-backlog.md
Add a first-pass assessment to each opportunity in the backlog and recommend the top opportunity for immediate assessment.
- discovery/opportunities/opportunity-backlog.md
- For each opportunity, add a Value score (impact on product outcomes) and Viability score (market demand, strategic alignment), each rated High / Medium / Low
- Cite the specific evidence used, or flag as "Discovery needed: [what is missing]" if evidence is absent
- Add an overall priority rank (High=3, Medium=2, Low=1; unscored dimensions don't count) and a recommendation (Assess now / Defer / Reject / Needs more evidence)
- Flag if evidence is too thin for a fair comparison
- Include a brief summary of the scores you were confident in, the ones you flagged as low-confidence, and any opportunities where the evidence was too thin for a fair comparison
Update discovery/opportunities/opportunity-backlog.md in place
Explore solution alternatives for the top opportunity and evaluate their risk profile.
- discovery/opportunities/opportunity-backlog.md
- discovery/research/interviews/interview-findings.md
- Identify the highest-ranked opportunity and present it with a brief summary of why it ranks highest
- Ask me to confirm or choose a different one before proceeding
- Apply SCAMPER lenses (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify/Magnify/Minimize, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Rearrange/Reverse) to generate 3-5 distinct alternatives
- Include at least one minimal option, one ambitious option, and at least one option inspired by a non-obvious lens; note which lens inspired each solution
- For each solution, cover: name and description, how it addresses the opportunity (citing evidence), key capabilities, effort estimate (S/M/L), key assumptions, and advantages
- Flag anything not supported by the files as "Discovery needed"
- This is an open brainstorm — present the alternatives, invite reactions, additions, and their own ideas; add, remove, or reshape solutions freely and iterate as many rounds as needed; no commitment is required at this stage
- When the list feels right, explicitly ask: "Do you approve this list to move to risk evaluation, or would you like to keep iterating?" — only proceed to Step 3 once they confirm the list
- For each approved solution, score value, viability, usability, and feasibility on a 1–5 scale; use this scale: 1-2 = high risk or low confidence, 3 = no data (default), 4-5 = strong evidence supporting low risk
- Cite the specific file and finding behind each score, or mark as "Discovery needed: [what would move this score]"
- Produce a comparison table across all solutions and dimensions, a recommended solution with justification, a go/no-go recommendation, and a list of critical evidence gaps
- Save the files directly without waiting for review
- After saving, share a brief summary of the key judgment calls you made: scores you were confident in, scores you flagged as low-confidence, and the top evidence gaps that most affect the recommendation
- One file per solution: discovery/opportunities/-/solutions/-.md — full solution description and its risk evaluation
- Summary file: discovery/opportunities/-/solutions/solution-evaluations.md — comparison table, recommended solution with justification, go/no-go recommendation, and critical evidence gaps
Draft a first-pass Opportunity Assessment (OpA) from the investigation artifacts, present it for review, and save the approved version.
Read from:
- discovery/opportunities/opportunity-backlog.md
- All files under discovery/opportunities/-/
List the subfolders in discovery/opportunities/ to find the opportunity folder. If you find more than one opportunity folder, stop and ask me which one to use before proceeding.
Structure the document using the following sections exactly:
- Go/no-go recommendation with a one-sentence justification
- Recommended solution (name and brief rationale)
- Top 3 evidence gaps that most affect confidence in the recommendation
- One-paragraph description of the opportunity and the problem it addresses
- A table with one row (Opportunity) and four columns: Value, Viability, Usability, Feasibility
- Rate each dimension High / Medium / Low based on available evidence
- If evidence is insufficient or not present in the data collected so far, rate as Low ("Discovery needed: [what would move this score]") and add a brief note
- A table with three columns: Risk factor, Evidence, Actions
- Cover the following risk factors: Value
- Market definition & size: How many users and customers does this impact? What is the total addressable market?
- Customers & business processes: What and how many customers or business processes are impacted?
- As-is pain points & impact: How difficult is the experience to complete the business process? Where are the gaps, and what is the severity of impact?
- Competitors & workarounds: What alternatives exist? What are the direct and indirect competitor offerings? Viability
- Alignment to business strategy: Is this opportunity aligned to our business strategy?
- Alignment to North Star Metric: Is this opportunity aligned to our North Star Metric?
- Timing and opportunity cost: Why now? What is the risk of not fulfilling the opportunity?
- Where evidence is missing for any cell, mark it as "Discovery needed: [what is missing]" rather than speculating
- A table with the following columns: a label column, one column per solution alternative (Option 1, Option 2, … Option X), and a Suggested activities and artifacts column
- Cover the following rows grouped under four dimensions: Value — Is this a real, compelling market need?
- Hill / wave-factor: What outcome can this solution promise to the customer? Is it compelling?
- Competitive differentiation: Does the solution offer meaningfully differentiated value from competitors? Usability — Will users be able to get value from the solution?
- Solution concept: Is the solution clear? Does the solution actually fulfill the user or customer need?
- To-be experience: Does the solution offer a compelling user and customer experience?
- Pricing & packaging: Will this be introduced as a new product, or a new feature on an existing product? Will customers accept the price and package? Viability — Does solving this work for our business?
- Legal & regulatory: Will we have legal challenges to deliver, launch, maintain and support this investment?
- Monetization: How will we monetize the value we deliver to customers?
- Impact on North Star Metric: Will this solution positively impact our North Star?
- Impact on revenue & costs: How will this solution impact our revenues and costs?
- Alignment to go-to-market approach: Does solving this problem fit with the go-to-market model of our business? Feasibility — Is the solution achievable, given our constraints?
- Data: Does the data we need exist? Will we have access to it? Can we gather it?
- Application: Do the applications and services we need exist? Will we have access to it? Can we build it?
- Infrastructure: Does the infrastructure we need exist? Will we have access to it? Can we build it?
- People: Will we have the people, skills and subject matter expertise to deliver, launch, maintain and support this investment?
- Time & cost: Is the solution ultimately achievable with the time and resources available?
- Where evidence is missing for any cell, mark it as "Discovery needed: [what is missing]" rather than speculating
- Save the file directly without waiting for review
- After saving, share a short summary (5–8 bullet points) of the key judgement calls you made: scores you were confident in, scores you flagged as low-confidence, and the top evidence gaps that most affect the recommendation
- Don't use the governing OpA skill, the same instructions are here already
discovery/opportunities/-/opportunity-assessment-.md
Read from:
- discovery/opportunities/-/opportunity-assessment-.md
- discovery/opportunities/-/solutions/-.md (once the opportunity folder is identified)
List the subfolders in discovery/opportunities/ to find the opportunity folder. If more than one is found, stop and ask which one to use before proceeding.
Once the opportunity folder is identified, read the opportunity assessment. From the OpA, identify the opportunity being assessed and the recommended solution. Present both with a brief summary, then ask: "Is this the solution you want to evaluate, or would you like to choose a different one from the assessed alternatives?"
Once the solution is confirmed, read its full details from the solutions folder.
Do not proceed to Step 2 until the solution is confirmed and its solution file has been read.
With the confirmed solution in context, help determine which risk factors to prioritize for evaluation. Present these role-based recommendations:
For Engineers:
- Feasibility (technical architecture, performance, integration complexity)
For Designers:
- Usability (user workflows, interaction patterns, accessibility)
For Product Managers:
- Viability and value (business model, user adoption, market fit)
For Other roles:
- Select 2-3 factors most relevant to their responsibilities
Ask: "Which risk factors do you want to prioritize? Choose from: viability, value, usability, feasibility"
After receiving an answer, confirm the selected priorities and ask for approval before generating any documents.
Once the selected priorities are approved, create two comprehensive documents:
Structure the plan with these sections:
- Evaluation objectives - Key questions to answer for each selected risk factor
- Evaluation methods - A blend of approaches tailored to the selected risk factors. The plan must include at least one prototype-based technique (for example: usability testing with an interactive mockup, concept walkthrough with a functional prototype, or an interactive demo session). Qualitative interviews, surveys, and other non-interactive methods may also be included where appropriate.
- Success criteria - Clear thresholds for proceed vs. pivot decisions
- Participants - Required stakeholders (users, technical experts, business leaders)
- Timeline - Estimated duration for each testing activity
Define what will be built for testing. Include sufficient context about the opportunity being addressed so this overview can stand alone:
- Problem statement and opportunity context
- Target users and their needs
- Core features and functionality to evaluate
- User workflows and key interactions
- Technical requirements and constraints
- Success metrics and measurement approach
After drafting both documents, save them directly, then share a brief summary and nudge to review them.
Save the evaluation plan to: discovery/opportunities/-/testing/concept-evaluation-plan.md Save the solution overview to: discovery/opportunities/-/testing/solution-overview-v1.md