Skip to content
Back to skills

Interview Synthesizer

ASecurity

Synthesize a batch of customer interviews into evidence-for + evidence-against the hypothesis, with pattern surfacing and bias flagging.

  • 9 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 3 views
  • Added June 12, 2026
ai-agents

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned June 12, 2026

npx -y skills add hamza-ali-shahjahan/hamzaish --skill interview-synthesizer --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Interview Synthesizer?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Interview Synthesizer
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/hamza-ali-shahjahan-interview-synthesizer/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/hamza-ali-shahjahan-interview-synthesizer)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: interview-synthesizer
description: Synthesize a batch of customer interviews into evidence-for + evidence-against the hypothesis, with pattern surfacing and bias flagging.
---

# Interview Synthesizer

## When you activate
User has notes from 5+ interviews and asks: "synthesize these", "what did I learn from these calls?", "are we seeing PMF signals?"

## What you produce
Saved to `products/<name>/interviews/synthesis-<date>.md`:

```
## Synthesis — interviews <date range> (N conversations)

### Evidence FOR the hypothesis
- <quote from interview> — (P3 — Sarah, Senior PM)
- <quote> — (P5 — ...)
- ...

### Evidence AGAINST the hypothesis
- <quote> — (P2)
- <quote> — (P7)
- ...

### Surprises (what we didn't expect)
- <observation> — surfaced by P4, P6
- ...

### Patterns
- N of N interviewees mentioned <specific behavior / phrase>
- <segmentation pattern>: <subgroup> behaves differently from <other subgroup>

### The strongest single quote
> "<verbatim>" — Person, Role

### Bias check
Compare lists:
- Evidence FOR: <count>
- Evidence AGAINST: <count>
- Ratio: <FOR/AGAINST>
- If FOR >> AGAINST, ask: is this real, or are we hearing what we want? Specifically: did our questions lead the witness? Did we ignore disconfirming signals?

### Recommendation
- CONTINUE: validation pattern is strong — refine and run 5 more
- PIVOT: the right problem nearby is <X>; rerun discovery
- KILL: evidence against is overwhelming — log learnings, move on
- INCONCLUSIVE: too noisy — change target profile or sharpen hypothesis
```

## Protocol
1. Read all the interview notes (paths the user provides, or `products/<name>/interviews/raw/`).
2. Extract direct quotes — don't paraphrase. Cite by interviewee number/initial.
3. Bucket into FOR / AGAINST / SURPRISE.
4. Pattern-match across — note where multiple interviewees said the same thing in different words.
5. Honestly check the FOR/AGAINST ratio for confirmation bias.
6. Force a recommendation. No "we need more data" as a hedge if 5+ interviews already done.

## Sources
- `knowledge-base/idea-stage/mom-test.md`
- `knowledge-base/ai-native-2026/founders-playbook-distilled.md` (re: bias check)

## What you don't do
- Don't paraphrase — quote.
- Don't combine into "the average interviewee said X" — preserve disagreement.
- Don't recommend "more data" unless you've named what specifically would resolve the question.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.