Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-pdr-review-criteria --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Nw Pdr Review Criteria?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nwave-ai-nw-pdr-review-criteria-nwave)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: nw-pdr-review-criteria
description: Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
---
# Review Criteria -- Product Discovery Review
## Evidence Quality Validation
### Past Behavior Indicators (Good)
"Tell me about the last time..." | "When did you last..." | "What happened when..." | "Walk me through how you..." | "What did you try..." | "How much have you spent on..."
Specific dates, dollar amounts, named tools, concrete examples, emotional frustration language
### Future Intent Red Flags (Reject)
"Would you use/pay/like..." | "Do you think..." | "Imagine if..." | "What if we..."
Flag and reject if >20% of evidence is future-intent.
### Validation Thresholds
- Past behavior ratio: >80% (reject if fail, require re-interview)
- Specific examples: min 3 concrete per finding (warn if fail)
- Customer language: quotes in customer words, not paraphrased (warn if fail)
## Sample Size Minimums
| Phase | Minimum | High Confidence | Notes |
|-------|---------|-----------------|-------|
| 1: Problem | 5 | 10 | Interviews required |
| 2: Opportunity | 10 | 20 | Quantitative supplements, not replaces |
| 3: Solution | 5 per iteration | 3 iterations max | Before decision |
| 4: Viability | 5 | -- | Stakeholder review required |
Pivot decision rule: min 5 consistent signals. Block decisions on fewer.
## Decision Gate Criteria
### G1: Problem to Opportunity
Proceed: 5+ confirm pain + willingness to pay | Pivot: differs from expected | Kill: <20% confirm
Checks: 5+ interviews, >60% confirmation, customer words, 3+ examples
### G2: Opportunity to Solution
Proceed: top 2-3 score >8 (0-20) | Pivot: new opportunities | Kill: all low-value
Checks: OST complete with 5+, scores correct (Importance + Max(0, Importance - Satisfaction)), top >8/20
### G3: Solution to Viability
Proceed: >80% task completion, usability validated | Pivot: needs refinement | Kill: fundamental blocks
Checks: 5+ users/iteration, >80% completion, core flow usable, value validated
### G4: Viability to Build
Proceed: 4 risks addressed, model validated | Pivot: adjustment needed | Kill: no viable model
Checks: Lean Canvas complete, all risks green/yellow, stakeholder sign-off
## Bias Types
### Confirmation Bias (critical)
Signals: only positive quotes | skeptics not interviewed | disconfirming evidence dismissed | same questions for "right" answers
Fix: include skeptics, actively seek disconfirming evidence
### Selection Bias (high)
Signals: all existing customers | no churned/non-adopters | lacks diversity | single-enthusiast referral chain
Fix: random/diverse selection, include skeptics and non-users
### Discovery Theater (critical)
Signals: conclusion decided before research | findings match hypothesis perfectly | no surprises | idea-in = idea-shipped
Fix: track idea evolution, expect 50%+ ideas to change
### Sample Size Problem (high)
Signals: major decisions on 2-3 interviews | single quote as "validation" | pivot on one signal
Fix: min 5 interviews per segment, 5+ signals for decisions
## Anti-Patterns
### Interview Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Detection | Bad | Good | Severity |
|---------|-----------|-----|------|----------|
| Leading questions | Suggests desired answer | "Don't you think this would save time?" | "Tell me about the last time you tried to save time on this" | high |
| Future-intent | Hypothetical behavior | "Would you use this feature?" | "What have you tried to solve this problem?" | critical |
| Compliments as validation | Accepting "that's cool" | "They loved the idea!" | "They committed to follow-up and referral" | high |
| Talking > listening | >30% interviewer talk | Long questions, short responses | Open questions, extended answers | medium |
### Process Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Detection | Severity |
|---------|-----------|----------|
| Skipping to solutions | Solution before problem validated | critical |
| Demographic segmentation | Segments by demographics not jobs | medium |
| Building before testing | Code before Phase 3 | critical |
### Strategic Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Detection | Severity |
|---------|-----------|----------|
| Premature pivoting | Direction change on 1-2 signals (need 5+) | high |
| Solution love | Defending despite evidence, dismissing critics | high |
| Sole source of truth | Only quant OR qual, not both | medium |
## Pre-Approval Checklist
### Evidence Quality
- [ ] Past behavior ratio >80% | [ ] No critical future-intent | [ ] Customer language preserved
### Sample Sizes
- [ ] Phase 1: 5+ | [ ] Phase 2: 10+ | [ ] Phase 3: 5+/iteration | [ ] Phase 4: 5+ with stakeholders
### Decision Gates
- [ ] All gates properly evaluated | [ ] Criteria documented with evidence | [ ] Decision justified
### Bias Check
- [ ] No confirmation bias | [ ] No selection bias | [ ] No discovery theater | [ ] Sample size adequate
### Anti-Patterns
- [ ] No critical interview anti-patterns | [ ] No critical process anti-patterns | [ ] No critical strategic anti-patterns
## Approval Decision
- **Approved**: all checks pass, no critical issues. Formal handoff to product-owner.
- **Conditionally approved**: minor issues only (no critical/high). Approval with recommendations.
- **Rejected**: any critical/high issue. Structured rejection with remediation. Blocks handoff.
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!