Data product validation
Skill hollandkevint/data-product-operator/skills/data-product-validation
Claude Code skills for data product managers. Product thinking meets data engineering.
npx -y skills add hollandkevint/data-product-operator --skill data-product-validationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Score whether a data product idea is worth building before committing resources. Validation scorecard, experiment design, and go/kill decisions. Use when evaluating feasibility, making go/no-go decisions, validating demand, sizing bets, or when someone asks "is this worth building?" or "should we invest in this?"
SKILL.md
5.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Validation Scorecard
Score each dimension 1-5. Multiply all five for a composite score (max 3,125).
1. Demand Frequency
How often do consumers need this answer?
| Score | Frequency | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Daily or real-time | ICU readmission risk scores |
| 4 | Weekly | Regional performance reports |
| 3 | Monthly | Quarterly business reviews |
| 2 | Quarterly | Annual planning data |
| 1 | Rarely or once | Ad-hoc executive request |
2. Decision Impact
What happens when consumers don't have this data?
| Score | Impact | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Critical decision blocked | Can't discharge patients without risk assessment |
| 4 | Significant delay or cost | Team spends 20+ hours/week on manual workaround |
| 3 | Moderate inconvenience | Report takes 3 hours instead of 5 minutes |
| 2 | Minor friction | Slightly slower process, acceptable workaround exists |
| 1 | Mild inconvenience | Nice to have, nobody changes behavior without it |
3. Workaround Effort
What are consumers doing today instead?
| Score | Effort | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Custom tooling built | Analyst maintains a 47-tab Excel model updated daily |
| 4 | Significant manual process | 3 people spend 2 days/week compiling reports |
| 3 | Partial automation | Script exists but breaks frequently, needs babysitting |
| 2 | Simple workaround | Quick Excel export, takes 30 minutes |
| 1 | Haven't tried | Nobody has attempted to solve this yet |
4. Data Feasibility
Can we actually build this with available data?
| Score | Feasibility | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Data exists, quality verified | Source audited, passes data-quality-assessment checks |
| 4 | Data exists, quality unknown | Source available but no quality baseline established |
| 3 | Data exists, known issues | Source has gaps or accuracy problems that need fixing first |
| 2 | Data partially exists | Need to combine 3+ sources, some missing |
| 1 | Data doesn't exist | Would need new data collection or acquisition |
Cross-reference data-quality-assessment for the 5-dimension scoring. A Data Feasibility score of 1 kills the idea regardless of other scores.
5. Schema Risk
How locked-in are consumers once we ship?
| Score | Risk | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Easily re-modeled | Internal API, few consumers, versioning supported |
| 4 | Moderate coupling | Dashboard consumed by 5-10 users, change is disruptive but manageable |
| 3 | Significant coupling | 20+ downstream queries depend on current schema |
| 2 | High coupling | External consumers or contractual SLAs on schema shape |
| 1 | Breaking change impossible | Regulated output, schema changes require compliance review |
Thresholds
| Composite Score | Decision | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 250+ | Build | Shape a pitch, allocate a cycle |
| 100-249 | Investigate | Run a 1-week experiment to de-risk the lowest-scoring dimension |
| <100 | Kill | Document why and move on. Revisit only if new evidence surfaces |
CRITICAL: A Data Feasibility score of 1 kills the idea at any composite score. You can't build a data product without data.
Experiment Types
When the scorecard says "Investigate," pick the cheapest experiment that addresses the weakest dimension:
Sample Query (1 day): Write the SQL. Run it against production data. Does the result answer the consumer's question? Tests Data Feasibility and reveals quality issues fast. If the query returns garbage, kill early.
Manual Pipeline (1 week): Build the transformation by hand for one consumer. Deliver a spreadsheet or flat file. Measure: did they use it? Did it change a decision? Tests Demand Frequency and Decision Impact with real behavior.
Schema Prototype (2-3 weeks): Build a minimal star schema with one fact table and 2-3 dimensions. Load a month of data. Let 2-3 consumers query it. Tests Schema Risk and reveals modeling assumptions before they calcify.
Type 1 vs Type 2 Decisions
Not all data product decisions are equal:
Type 1 (irreversible): Schema design decisions. Data source commitments. Terminology mappings published to external consumers. SCD strategies once historical data accumulates. These deserve full validation and the scorecard process.
Type 2 (reversible): Adding a metric to an existing dashboard. New filters on an existing report. Feature additions to established products. These don't need a scorecard. Just build and measure.
Discovery budget should match decision type. Spend 2 weeks validating a Type 1. Spend 2 hours on a Type 2.