Synthesises user interview transcripts into structured research findings. Use when asked to analyse interview notes, synthesise qualitative research, identify themes from interviews, or turn raw interview data into actionable product insights. Produces a themed synthesis with supporting quotes per theme, 'so what' implications, and recommended next steps. For mixed sources beyond interviews (surveys, tickets, feedback) use user-research-synthesis instead.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use user-interview-synthesis to synthesize [interview transcripts] against [research questions] into evidence-backed themes, verbatim supporting quotes, product implications, low-confidence signals, and recommended next steps; state any necessary assumptions.
Required inputs
[interview transcripts]
[research questions]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: user-interview-synthesisdescription: "Synthesises user interview transcripts into structured research findings. Use when asked to analyse interview notes, synthesise qualitative research, identify themes from interviews, or turn raw interview data into actionable product insights. Produces a themed synthesis with supporting quotes per theme, 'so what' implications, and recommended next steps. For mixed sources beyond interviews (surveys, tickets, feedback) use user-research-synthesis instead."
User Interview Synthesis Skill
Transform raw interview transcripts into a structured synthesis document that surfaces themes, pain points, and actionable insights.
Required Inputs
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
Interview transcripts or notes (even rough notes work)
Number of participants and their profiles (role, company size, context)
Research questions (what was the study trying to answer?)
Date range of research (for context)
Process
Read all provided transcripts fully before drawing conclusions
Identify recurring themes (minimum 3 mentions to qualify as a theme)
Select 2-3 verbatim quotes per theme that best represent the pattern
Draft "So What" implications for each theme — what does this mean for the product?
Validate — Confirm every theme has quotes from at least 3 participants. Flag any insight resting on fewer as low-confidence.
Output Structure
Research Synthesis: [Study Name]
Participants: [n]
Date Range: [dates]
Research Questions: [list]
Theme 1: [Theme Name]
Summary (2-3 sentences)
Supporting quotes (from at least 3 participants)
Implication for product
[Repeat for each theme]
Low-Confidence Signals (1-2 participants only)
[Findings worth tracking but not acting on yet — note what further research would confirm or deny]
Recommended Next Steps
[Specific, actionable recommendations based on findings]
Deeper Materials
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
references/coding-transcripts.md — Coding Interview Transcripts Without Losing the Signal. Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.
templates/per-session-capture.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.
Scoring Rubric (0–40)
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
Dimension
0
5
10
Evidence traceability
Themes asserted with no quotes or participant attribution
Most themes carry quotes, but some rest on 1–2 participants or unattributed paraphrase
Every theme carries verbatim quotes from ≥3 distinct participants, with frequency counts ("6 of 9") consistent with the roster
Implication actionability
Implications restate the observation ("users find X frustrating")
Implications gesture at direction but name no decision, owner, or change
Every implication enables a specific product decision someone could act on this quarter
Contradiction honesty
All findings conveniently support the sponsor's hypothesis; inconvenient data absent
Contradictory evidence present but buried or softened; both-ways quotes trimmed to the helpful half
Findings that contradict the hypothesis are surfaced prominently, and ambiguous quotes are kept whole with the tension flagged
Signal separation & question coverage
Single-source anecdotes mixed into main themes; research questions ignored
Low-confidence signals segregated but with no follow-up path, or one research question left unaddressed
Every 1–2-participant signal sits in its own section with the cheap test that would confirm it, and every research question gets an explicit answer — including "inconclusive"
Quality Checks
Every theme is supported by quotes from at least 3 participants
Implications connect to specific product decisions, not just observations
Researcher bias check: no leading language, findings don't all support one hypothesis
Single-source signals are flagged separately, not mixed into main themes
Research questions from the study brief are each addressed (even if the answer is "inconclusive")
Anti-Patterns
Do not mix single-source signals into main themes — insights cited by only one participant must be flagged separately
Do not write implications that are observations restated rather than product decisions enabled
Do not include themes that only support the project hypothesis — contradictory findings must be surfaced, not omitted
Do not present findings without quotes — every theme requires verbatim evidence from at least 3 participants
Do not leave research questions unanswered — each question from the study brief must be explicitly addressed, even if the answer is inconclusive
Example Trigger Phrases
"Analyse interview notes."
"Synthesise qualitative research."
"Turn raw interview data into actionable product insights."