voice-of-customer-miner skill

Voice-of-Customer Miner

Purpose

Mine public customer voice — review sites, app stores, Reddit and practitioner forums, community boards — for unmet needs, competitor weaknesses, and switching triggers: search plan → source sweep → verbatim capture → need themes → so what → next-step options. This bridges competitive intelligence and discovery: it delivers customers' exact words without waiting on an interview cycle. But public voice skews toward the angry and the vocal, so every theme it surfaces is a hypothesis to validate, never a verdict — the output's last stop is always a real conversation.

Input

Works best with: the product(s) or competitor(s) to mine — yours, a rival's, or a set — and the decision this should inform. Also useful: a theme to focus on (onboarding, pricing, reliability) if you have one; otherwise the sweep runs open.

Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget; don't re-ask.

Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (whose voice, what decision, theme or open sweep) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered.

Example invocation: Mine voice-of-customer for [Competitor A] and [Competitor B], focus on onboarding — informs whether our Q1 bet is a migration tool.

Key Concepts

contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step. Discipline: OSINT's review-and-community layer (see intelligence-collection-disciplines).

• Governing protocol: honors the autonomous-investigation

data where my team works" is the underlying need. Theming by need is the same solution-free discipline as JTBD and painstorming — and it's what makes themes portable into discovery.

• Theme by need, not by feature. "Exports are broken" is a feature complaint; "I can't get my

persona language: the exact words customers use become interview probes and positioning copy. Never fabricate quotes, ratings, review counts, or reviewer roles.

• Verbatims are the product. Short, real, quoted customer language with URLs. Verbatims teach

stores over-represent update anger. Note the bias per source — public voice is evidence with a known skew, not ground truth.

• Every source has a known skew. Reviewers skew negative; vendor communities skew loyal; app

vivid*. Say which; one articulate ranter is not a theme.

• Honest frequency. Recurring across sources ≠ concentrated in one thread ≠ *isolated but

discovery-interview-prep instead; you need your users' voice on a private area → mine your own tickets and research; statistical confidence required → this is qualitative theming.

• When NOT to use: no meaningful public footprint (early-stage, niche enterprise) → run

Application

representative verbatims, how observation will be separated from interpretation. Continue unless revised.

1. Credit inline context, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
2. Whose customer voice — yours, a competitor's, or a set?
3. What decision should this inform?
4. Any specific theme to focus on, or open sweep?
5. Show the 3-bullet search plan — which voice sources you'll sweep, how you'll select

practitioner forums, community boards, social threads — capturing short real quotes with URLs and noting each source's bias.

1. Sweep mixed voice sources — review sites (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius), app stores, Reddit and

1. Emit the schema below exactly.

Output schema (do not reorder)

~~~markdown

Voice-of-Customer Snapshot

1. Scope

Products mined: | Decision supported: | Sources swept: | As-of date:

2. Need Themes

For each of the top 3-5 themes:

Theme: [Underlying need, solution-free, 4 to 8 words]

• Frequency: [recurring across sources / concentrated / isolated]
• Verbatim: "[short real quote]" — [source, URL]
• Verbatim: "[short real quote]" — [source, URL]
• Who says it: [role/segment, if evident — labeled]
• Reading: [Inference — what this suggests]

3. Competitor Weak Points

• [Competitor]: [weakness in customers' words; frequency; URL]
• [Max 5, strongest evidence only]

4. Switching Triggers

• [What pushes customers off a product; what pulls them; labeled, cited]

5. So What?

Each bullet: label, confidence, URL where relevant. ~~~

• 3 opportunity hypotheses (phrased as problems, not features)
• 2 battle-card-ready weaknesses (with evidence quality noted)
• 3 assumptions to validate in real interviews

A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in template.md.

Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)

1. Generate discovery interview questions from the top theme (discovery-interview-prep)
2. Feed the weaknesses into a competitive battle card (battle-card-builder)
3. Build an opportunity solution tree from the top hypothesis (opportunity-solution-tree)
4. Re-run scoped to one theme in Verbose Mode

Accept 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 and 2, Verbose Mode, or a custom path.

Examples

A theme done right (fictional product, illustrative verbatims):

### Theme: getting historical data out at contract end

- Frequency: recurring — 9 reviews across two sites plus a forum thread, past 6 months

- Verbatim: "export took three support tickets and still dropped custom fields" — [G2-style review, URL]

- Verbatim: "we stayed a year longer than we wanted because leaving meant losing our audit trail" — [forum thread, URL]

- Who says it: ops managers at 50-200-person firms — Inference (reviewer titles where shown)

- Reading: exit friction is functioning as involuntary retention — Inference; a rival with

effortless migration turns this from their moat into their churn event.

Notice the theme name contains no feature ("export tool") — it names the need, so discovery can explore solutions the reviews never imagined.

See examples/sample.md for a complete worked mining run (fictional FSM-software market) where frequency honesty caps a vivid theme at low confidence and each source's bias becomes a reading instruction. examples/sample-industrial.md shows the thin-voice case — what honest mining looks like when the market barely posts reviews.

Common Pitfalls

hands your roadmap to the loudest UI complaint.