Turns raw user-interview notes into coded patterns and registry verdicts — the method behind validation 6c and any qualitative debrief. Use for "вот заметки с интервью", "interview notes", "разбери интервью", "что сказали пользователи на интервью", "проанализируй звонки с клиентами".
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add lenar-amirov/product-pipeline-public --skill interview-analysis --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Interview Analysis?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/lenar-amirov-interview-analysis)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: interview-analysis
description: Turns raw user-interview notes into coded patterns and registry verdicts — the method behind validation 6c and any qualitative debrief. Use for "вот заметки с интервью", "interview notes", "разбери интервью", "что сказали пользователи на интервью", "проанализируй звонки с клиентами".
---
# Interview Analysis — notes → codes → verdicts
Interviews are the highest-confidence qualitative REAL source (0.9–1.0 by
the evidence-typing scale) — and the easiest to cherry-pick. This method
keeps them honest.
## 1. Intake
Input: `research/interview-notes.md` (or pasted notes / transcripts).
Establish per interview: participant segment (matches CONTEXT.md segment?),
date, moderated by whom. Off-segment participants get analyzed separately —
their quotes must not launder into the main verdicts.
## 2. Coding (before any conclusions)
Walk the notes and tag utterances with codes — behaviors, pains,
workarounds, triggers ("compares prices elsewhere", "doesn't trust
payment"). Rules:
- Code what the user DID or experienced, not what they proposed ("add
feature X" → code the underlying pain, not the feature)
- One utterance may carry several codes; keep participant id attached
- New code ≠ new hypothesis yet — codes are raw material
## 3. Patterns with frequency honesty
Group codes → patterns with explicit counts: "4 of 6 participants
mentioned…". Rules:
- A pattern needs ≥3 participants (of a typical 5–8 batch) — below that
it's an anecdote; report it as such
- Actively look for DISCONFIRMING quotes for each pattern — one honest
counter-example in the report beats ten confirmations
- Divergent answers may mean segmentation, not noise — say which
## 4. Verdicts to the registry
Map each pattern onto open hypotheses:
`hypotheses.py set <id> --status confirmed|refuted|testing --type REAL
--confidence 0.9 --add-source "research/interview-notes.md::N of M
participants, codes: <...>"`. Confidence scales with N/M and segment match
(0.9–1.0 full batch on-segment; 0.6–0.7 thin or mixed). Patterns matching
no hypothesis → candidate `hypotheses.py add` (ask the PM). Then
`hypotheses.py validate && hypotheses.py render`.
## 5. Deliver
Synthesis to `research/interview-notes.md` (append section): patterns with
counts and verbatim quotes (marked per participant), disconfirming
evidence, what interviews CANNOT tell us (quantification → analytics),
registry changes made. Update decisions.md. If the batch was synthetic
(personas, not people) — this skill does not apply; that's SYNTHETIC 0.2–0.4
territory in step 2.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!