MCP HubMCP Hub
스킬 목록으로 돌아가기

pol-probe

deanpeters
업데이트됨 2 days ago
4 조회
4,511
575
4,511
GitHub에서 보기
메타testingdesign

정보

pol-probe 스킬은 개발자가 프로덕션 소프트웨어 구축에 착수하기 전에 위험한 가설을 저렴하게 검증할 수 있는 경량의 일회성 검증 아티팩트를 정의하도록 돕습니다. 이 스킬은 MVP의 오버헤드 없이 가혹한 현실을 드러내고 특정 위험을 제거하도록 설계되었습니다. 탐사 임무처럼 좁은 가정을 검증할 때 사용하며, 프로브는 확장이 아닌 삭제를 전제로 합니다.

빠른 설치

Claude Code

추천
기본
npx skills add deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills -a claude-code
플러그인 명령대체
/plugin add https://github.com/deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills
Git 클론대체
git clone https://github.com/deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills.git ~/.claude/skills/pol-probe

Claude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요

문서

Purpose

Define and document a Proof of Life (PoL) probe—a lightweight, disposable validation artifact designed to surface harsh truths before expensive development. Use this when you need to eliminate a specific risk or test a narrow hypothesis without building production-quality software. PoL probes are reconnaissance missions, not MVPs—they're meant to be deleted, not scaled.

This framework prevents prototype theater (expensive demos that impress stakeholders but teach nothing) and forces you to match validation method to actual learning goal.

Key Concepts

What is a PoL Probe?

A Proof of Life (PoL) probe is a deliberate, disposable validation experiment designed to answer one specific question as cheaply and quickly as possible. It's not a product, not an MVP, not a pilot—it's a targeted truth-seeking mission.

Origin: Coined by Dean Peters (Productside), building on Marty Cagan's 2014 work on prototype flavors and Jeff Patton's principle: "The most expensive way to test your idea is to build production-quality software."


The 5 Essential Characteristics

Every PoL probe must satisfy these criteria:

CharacteristicWhat It MeansWhy It Matters
LightweightMinimal resource investment (hours/days, not weeks)If it's expensive, you'll avoid killing it when the data says to
DisposableExplicitly planned for deletion, not scalingPrevents sunk-cost fallacy and scope creep
Narrow ScopeTests one specific hypothesis or riskBroad experiments yield ambiguous results
Brutally HonestSurfaces harsh truths, not vanity metricsPolite data is useless data
Tiny & FocusedReconnaissance missions, never MVPsSmall surface area = faster learning cycles

Anti-Pattern: If your "prototype" feels too polished to delete, it's not a PoL probe—it's prototype theater.


PoL Probe vs. MVP

DimensionPoL ProbeMVP
PurposeDe-risk decisions through narrow hypothesis testingJustify ideas or defend roadmap direction
ScopeSingle question, single riskSmallest shippable product increment
LifespanHours to days, then deletedWeeks to months, then iterated
AudienceInternal team + narrow user sampleReal customers in production
FidelityJust enough illusion to catch signalsProduction-quality (or close)
OutcomeLearn what doesn't workLearn what does work (and ship it)

Key Distinction: PoL probes are pre-MVP reconnaissance. You run probes to decide if you should build an MVP, not to launch something.


The 5 Prototype Flavors

Match the probe type to your hypothesis, not your tooling comfort.

TypeCore QuestionTimelineTools/MethodsWhen to Use
1. Feasibility Checks"Can we build this?"1-2 daysGenAI prompt chains, API tests, data integrity sweeps, spike-and-delete codeTechnical risk is unknown; third-party dependencies unclear
2. Task-Focused Tests"Can users complete this job without friction?"2-5 daysOptimal Workshop, UsabilityHub, task flowsCritical moments (field labels, decision points, drop-off zones) need validation
3. Narrative Prototypes"Does this workflow earn stakeholder buy-in?"1-3 daysLoom walkthroughs, Sora/Synthesia videos, slideware storyboardsYou need to "tell vs. test"—share the story, measure interest
4. Synthetic Data Simulations"Can we model this without production risk?"2-4 daysSynthea (user simulation), DataStax LangFlow (prompt logic testing)Edge case exploration; unknown-unknown surfacing
5. Vibe-Coded PoL Probes"Will this solution survive real user contact?"2-3 daysChatGPT Canvas + Replit + Airtable = "Frankensoft"You need user feedback on workflow/UX, but not production-grade code

Golden Rule: "Use the cheapest prototype that tells the harshest truth. If it doesn't sting, it's probably just theater."


When to Use a PoL Probe

Use a PoL probe when:

  • You have a specific, falsifiable hypothesis to test
  • A particular risk blocks your next decision (technical feasibility, user task completion, stakeholder support)
  • You need harsh truth fast (within days, not weeks)
  • Building production software would be premature or wasteful
  • You can articulate what "failure" looks like before you start

Don't use a PoL probe when:

  • You're trying to impress executives (that's prototype theater)
  • You already know the answer and just want validation (that's confirmation bias)
  • You can't articulate a clear hypothesis or disposal plan
  • The learning goal is too broad ("Will customers like this?")
  • You're using it to avoid making a hard decision

Application

Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.

PoL Probe Template

Use this structure to document your probe:

# PoL Probe: [Descriptive Name]

## Hypothesis
[One-sentence statement of what you believe to be true]
Example: "If we reduce the onboarding form to 3 fields, completion rate will exceed 80%."

## Risk Being Eliminated
[What specific risk or unknown are you addressing?]
Example: "We don't know if users will abandon signup due to form length."

## Prototype Type
[Select one of the 5 flavors]
- [ ] Feasibility Check
- [ ] Task-Focused Test
- [ ] Narrative Prototype
- [ ] Synthetic Data Simulation
- [x] Vibe-Coded PoL Probe

## Target Users / Audience
[Who will interact with this probe?]
Example: "10 users from our early access waitlist, non-technical SMB owners."

## Success Criteria (Harsh Truth)
[What truth are you seeking? What would prove you wrong?]
- **Pass:** 8+ users complete signup in under 2 minutes
- **Fail:** <6 users complete, or average time exceeds 5 minutes
- **Learn:** Identify specific drop-off fields

## Tools / Stack
[What will you use to build this?]
Example: "ChatGPT Canvas for form UI, Airtable for data capture, Loom for post-session interviews."

## Timeline
- **Build:** 2 days
- **Test:** 1 day (10 user sessions)
- **Analyze:** 1 day
- **Disposal:** Day 5 (delete all code, keep learnings doc)

## Disposal Plan
[When and how will you delete this?]
Example: "After user sessions complete, archive recordings, delete Frankensoft code, document learnings in Notion."

## Owner
[Who is accountable for running and disposing of this probe?]

## Status
- [ ] Hypothesis defined
- [ ] Probe built
- [ ] Users recruited
- [ ] Testing complete
- [ ] Learnings documented
- [ ] Probe disposed

Quality Checklist

Before launching your PoL probe, verify:

  • Lightweight: Can you build this in 1-3 days?
  • Disposable: Have you committed to a disposal date?
  • Narrow Scope: Does it test ONE hypothesis?
  • Brutally Honest: Will the data hurt if you're wrong?
  • Tiny & Focused: Is this smaller than an MVP?
  • Falsifiable: Can you describe what "failure" looks like?
  • Clear Owner: Is one person accountable for executing and disposing of this?

If any answer is "no," revise your probe or reconsider whether you need one.


Examples

See examples/sample.md for full PoL probe examples.

Mini example excerpt:

**Hypothesis:** Users can distinguish "archive" vs "delete"
**Probe Type:** Task-Focused Test
**Pass:** 80%+ correct interpretation

Common Pitfalls

  • Running a broad "will users like this?" experiment instead of testing one falsifiable hypothesis
  • Treating a PoL probe as a proto-MVP and refusing to dispose of it
  • Using vanity metrics that avoid uncomfortable truth
  • Skipping a pre-defined failure threshold before testing begins
  • Choosing tools first and hypothesis second

References

Related Skills

External Frameworks

  • Jeff PattonUser Story Mapping (lean validation principles)
  • Marty CaganInspired (2014 prototype flavors framework)
  • Dean PetersVibe First, Validate Fast, Verify Fit (Dean Peters' Substack, 2025)

Tools Mentioned

  • Feasibility: GenAI (ChatGPT, Claude), API testing tools
  • Task-Focused: Optimal Workshop, UsabilityHub
  • Narrative: Loom, Sora, Synthesia, Veo3 (text-to-video)
  • Synthetic Data: Synthea (patient simulation), DataStax LangFlow
  • Vibe-Coded: ChatGPT Canvas, Replit, Airtable, Carrd

GitHub 저장소

deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills
경로: skills/pol-probe
0
ai-agentsai-product-managementclaude-skillspm-frameworksproduct-management

연관 스킬

content-collections

메타

이 스킬은 콘텐츠 콜렉션(Content Collections)을 위한 프로덕션 검증된 설정을 제공합니다. 콘텐츠 콜렉션은 Markdown/MDX 파일을 Zod 검증이 포함된 타입 안전한 데이터 콜렉션으로 변환해주는 TypeScript 최우선 도구입니다. 블로그, 문서 사이트 또는 콘텐츠 중심의 Vite + React 애플리케이션을 구축할 때 타입 안전성과 자동 콘텐츠 검증을 보장하기 위해 사용하세요. Vite 플러그인 구성과 MDX 컴파일부터 배포 최적화 및 스키마 검증에 이르기까지 모든 것을 다룹니다.

스킬 보기

polymarket

메타

이 스킬은 개발자들이 Polymarket 예측 시장 플랫폼을 활용한 애플리케이션을 구축할 수 있도록 지원하며, 거래 및 시장 데이터를 위한 API 통합 기능을 포함합니다. 또한 WebSocket을 통한 실시간 데이터 스트리밍을 제공하여 실시간 거래와 시장 활동을 모니터링할 수 있습니다. 이를 통해 거래 전략을 구현하거나 실시간 시장 업데이트를 처리하는 도구를 생성하는 데 활용할 수 있습니다.

스킬 보기

creating-opencode-plugins

메타

이 스킬은 개발자들이 명령어, 파일, LSP 작업 등 25개 이상의 이벤트 유형에 연결되는 OpenCode 플러그인을 만들 수 있도록 돕습니다. JavaScript/TypeScript 모듈을 위한 플러그인 구조, 이벤트 API 명세, 구현 패턴을 제공합니다. OpenCode AI 어시스턴트의 라이프사이클을 사용자 정의 이벤트 기반 로직으로 가로채거나, 모니터링하거나, 확장해야 할 때 사용하세요.

스킬 보기

sglang

메타

SGLang은 RadixAttention 프리픽스 캐싱을 활용하여 JSON, 정규식, 에이전트 워크플로우를 위한 고속 구조화 생성에 특화된 고성능 LLM 서빙 프레임워크입니다. 특히 반복되는 프리픽스가 있는 작업에서 상당히 빠른 추론 속도를 제공하여 복잡한 구조화 출력 및 다중 턴 대화에 이상적입니다. 제약 디코딩이 필요하거나 광범위한 프리픽스 공유가 있는 애플리케이션을 구축할 때는 vLLM과 같은 대안보다 SGLang을 선택하십시오.

스킬 보기