Pm metrics
Public Claude Code skills for Personal Corp, product work, AI operations, and agent-assisted development
npx -y skills add serejaris/personal-corp-skills --skill pm-metricsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Делает ревью продуктовых метрик — тренды, аномалии, root causes и рекомендации к действиям. Включает декомпозицию North Star (L1/L2), диагностику retention-кривых, анализ воронки, разбор A/B-экспериментов, проверку соответствия OKR и фреймворк атрибуции аномалий. User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on /pm-metrics, "обзор метрик", "разбор воронки", "анализ удержания", "ретеншн", "A/B результаты", "review metrics", "DAU analysis", "retention analysis", "funnel analysis", "metric anomaly".
SKILL.md
11.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
pm-metrics — Product metrics review
Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents. Systematically review product metrics, identify trend changes, locate root causes, output action recommendations. Includes North Star decomposition, retention diagnostics, funnel methodology, and A/B experiment reading.
Inputs
| Field | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Metric data | yes | Excel / CSV / pasted table / verbal description |
| Cycle | no | Weekly / monthly / quarterly review; default weekly |
| Focus | no | Full review / single-metric anomaly / experiment readout |
| Business context | no | Releases, campaigns, incidents in the period |
Mode: full data → complete review; single-metric change → focused anomaly analysis.
Step 1 — Data integrity check
- Confirm time coverage (current vs comparison period)
- Confirm metric coverage (which North Star / L1 / L2 are present)
- Flag missing critical data
Step 2 — North Star metric system
Decomposition: North Star → L1 → L2.
L1 dimensions:
- User growth: DAU/WAU/MAU, new, returning
- User engagement: core action frequency, session length, feature reach
- User retention: D1 / D7 / D30
- Conversion efficiency: signup → activation → paid step-by-step rates
- Business value: paid rate, ARPU, LTV
- Satisfaction: NPS, complaint rate, ratings
North Star selection guide:
| Product type | Recommended NSM | Typical L1 |
|---|---|---|
| Social / community | Weekly active posters | DAU/MAU ratio, interactions per user, D7 retention |
| Tools / productivity | Weekly users completing core task | Task completion rate, frequency, feature reach |
| E-commerce | Weekly transacting users | GMV, AOV, repeat rate, conversion |
| Content / media | Weekly content-consumption time | Time per user, completion rate, return rate |
| SaaS / B2B | Weekly active teams | Team penetration, feature depth, renewal rate |
Step 3 — Growth metric analysis
Definitions:
- DAU: distinct users with valid action that day
- WAU: distinct users active ≥ 1 day in 7
- MAU: distinct users active ≥ 1 day in 30
- DAU/MAU ratio (stickiness): > 0.5 very high, 0.3-0.5 high, 0.2-0.3 medium, < 0.2 low
User segmentation:
| Type | Definition | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| New | First-time user | Channel quality, activation rate |
| Active retained | Active in both periods | Depth, feature reach |
| Returning | Inactive last period, active this | Return reason, secondary retention |
| Churned | Active last period, inactive this | Churn cause, win-back potential |
| Dormant | Inactive multiple periods | Possibly permanent loss |
Growth identity: This-period MAU = prev-period retained + new + returning − churned
Step 4 — Retention analysis
Definitions:
- D1: % of new users who return on day 2
- D7: % of new users who return on day 8
- D30: % of new users who return on day 31
Retention benchmarks:
| Product type | D1 | D7 | D30 | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social / messaging | > 70% | > 50% | > 35% | High-frequency essential |
| Tools | > 40% | > 25% | > 15% | "Use and leave" pattern |
| Content / news | > 35% | > 20% | > 10% | Many alternatives, lower retention |
| E-commerce | > 25% | > 15% | > 8% | Low-frequency, watch repeat rate instead |
| Games | > 40% | > 20% | > 10% | High variance by genre |
| SaaS / B2B | > 60% | > 45% | > 30% | High switching cost, higher baseline |
Retention-curve diagnosis:
- Steep drop (D1 → D7 loses > 60%): activation experience broken — users didn't find value
- Slow decay (D7 → D30 keeps falling, doesn't level): no long-term hook
- L-shape (levels off after D7): healthy, core user base formed
- Bounce-back (sudden uptick on a specific day): cyclical use pattern (e.g. weekday-only)
Retention segmentation:
- By channel: organic vs paid retention gap
- By behavior: completed activation vs not
- By cohort month: compare month-over-month curves to gauge product improvement
Step 5 — Conversion funnel analysis
Funnel construction:
- Define start and end points (e.g. homepage visit → payment success)
- Split into key intermediate steps (each step = a user decision point)
- Per-step rate = arriving at next / arriving at this
Funnel framework:
| Step | Action | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Draw | List steps + rates | Full funnel view |
| Identify bottleneck | Find lowest-rate step | Optimization focus |
| Benchmark | Compare history / industry / competitor | Gap quantification |
| Segment | By channel / device / user type | Locate problem cohort |
| Hypothesize | Why is the bottleneck there? | Optimization direction |
| Experiment | Propose A/B test | Action plan |
Common funnels:
- Acquisition: impression → click → install/signup → activation
- Activation: signup → onboarding done → core action first-trigger
- Payment: browse → cart → order → pay success
- Sharing: trigger → share click → recipient open → recipient conversion
Step 6 — A/B experiment readout
| Dimension | Standard | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Statistical significance | p < 0.05 | p > 0.05 → inconclusive, don't decide |
| Effect size | Lift > MDE | Significant but tiny lift may not be worth it |
| Sample size | Reaches pre-set N | "Significant" without N is unreliable |
| Duration | Covers ≥ 1-2 full weeks | Avoid weekday/weekend bias |
| AA check | Pre-period baselines match | Mismatch → split assignment is broken |
Decision framework:
- Significant + large effect → ship to all
- Significant + small effect → weigh long-term value vs cost
- Not significant → don't ship; investigate (wrong hypothesis? sample? execution?)
- Metric conflict (A up, B down) → weigh, prioritize North Star
Common pitfalls:
- Reading results too early (before reaching N)
- Looking only at primary metric, not guardrails
- Multiple peeks → false positives
- Ignoring novelty effect (early data inflated)
Step 7 — OKR alignment check
| Check | Healthy | Anomaly signal |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Every KR has ≥ 1 trackable metric | A KR with no measurable proxy |
| Consistency | Metric direction matches KR target | Metric up but KR no progress |
| Pacing | Linear pacing ≥ 50% by mid-quarter | Severely behind schedule |
| Attribution | Metric movement attributable to team action | Metric improved due to industry tailwind, not team |
OKR progress table:
| OKR | KR metric | Target | Current | Progress % | Trend | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {O1} | {KR1} | {target} | {current} | {X%} | Up/flat/down | On-track / at-risk / severe |
Step 8 — Anomaly attribution
When a metric moves anomalously, work the framework:
- Quantify: how much, starting when?
- Decompose: segment by channel / region / version / cohort to localize
- Time-align: what happened around the inflection? (release, campaign, incident, competitor move)
- Eliminate: rule out causes one by one until the most likely root remains
- Cross-check: verify the attribution via other metrics
Common causes:
| Category | Pattern | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Release | Inflection aligns with deploy time | Compare per-version |
| Campaign | Up during campaign, drops after | Compare per-channel |
| Tech incident | Sudden drop + recovery | Check error logs and uptime |
| External | Industry-wide change | Compare with competitor / industry data |
| Channel mix | One channel changed dramatically | Per-channel decomposition |
| Seasonality | Same as YoY | Look at last year's same period |
Step 9 — Generate review report
# Product Metrics Review
**Period:** {date range}
**Product:** {name}
**Type:** {weekly / monthly / quarterly}
## 1. Health Overview
| Layer | Metric | Current | Previous | MoM | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Star | {} | {} | {} | {±X%} | {} | OK / warn / alert |
| L1 | {} | {} | {} | {±X%} | {} | OK / warn / alert |
**Overall judgment:** {one-sentence summary}
## 2. User Growth
- DAU: {value}, MoM {change}
- MAU: {value}, DAU/MAU = {stickiness}
- Composition: new {X}% / retained {Y}% / returning {Z}%
## 3. Retention
| Metric | Current | Previous | Benchmark | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## 4. Funnel
| Step | Users | Rate | MoM | Bottleneck? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
**Bottleneck diagnosis:** {description}
## 5. Experiments / Feature Effects
| Experiment | Primary metric Δ | Significance | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
## 6. OKR Progress
| KR | Target | Current | Progress | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## 7. Anomaly Attribution
| Anomaly | Magnitude | Start | Attribution | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## 8. Key Insights
1. {insight 1: finding + data + meaning}
2. {insight 2}
3. {insight 3}
## 9. Action Recommendations
| Priority | Action | Linked metric | Expected impact | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Review cadence
| Type | Frequency | Time | Audience | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly | Every Monday | 15-30 min | PM | NSM + anomalies + experiments |
| Monthly | Month start | 30-60 min | Product team | All L1 + retention + funnel + OKR pacing |
| Quarterly | Quarter end | 60-90 min | Product + ops + eng | Strategy review + OKR scoring + next-quarter plan |
Quality bar
- Metric definitions clear — every metric has a calculation note
- Data has comparisons — current always compared to previous, YoY, or target
- Attribution evidenced — no causation from correlation alone
- Recommendations actionable — owner-assignable
- Limitations tagged — call out small samples or data quality issues
Common analysis pitfalls
| Pitfall | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Simpson's paradox | Total goes up while every segment goes down | Always segment, never just look at totals |
| Survivorship bias | Only retained users analyzed, churned ignored | Compare retained vs churned behavior |
| Vanity metric | Cumulative signups only ever grow, not decision-useful | Use active metrics (DAU/WAU) instead |
| Time-window trap | Comparison window happens to be an outlier | Cross-validate across multiple windows |
| Goodhart's law | Target becomes a metric, stops measuring well | Set guardrails to prevent gaming |
Red lines
- No fabricated data — missing data → tag "missing", don't extrapolate
- Don't conflate correlation with causation — attribution must say "highly correlated" or "confirmed causal"
- Don't over-read small swings — small fluctuation → tag "within normal noise"
- Don't ignore negatives — flag risks even when overall is up
When input is incomplete
- Single metric only → focus on that anomaly, no full review
- No history → snapshot only, tag "no baseline, recommend establishing tracking"
- Verbal description → analyze based on description, tag "recommend exact data for verification"
- No targets → use industry benchmarks, suggest team set explicit targets
Related skills
/pm-feedback— pair quantitative anomaly with qualitative voice-of-customer/pm-prioritize— adjust priority based on metric findings/pm-roadmap— adjust roadmap based on OKR pacing