agentsclimarketplace

Pm metrics

Skill serejaris/personal-corp-skills/skills/pm-metrics

Public Claude Code skills for Personal Corp, product work, AI operations, and agent-assisted development

Install
npx -y skills add serejaris/personal-corp-skills --skill pm-metrics

Assembled 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

FieldRequiredNotes
Metric datayesExcel / CSV / pasted table / verbal description
CyclenoWeekly / monthly / quarterly review; default weekly
FocusnoFull review / single-metric anomaly / experiment readout
Business contextnoReleases, 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 typeRecommended NSMTypical L1
Social / communityWeekly active postersDAU/MAU ratio, interactions per user, D7 retention
Tools / productivityWeekly users completing core taskTask completion rate, frequency, feature reach
E-commerceWeekly transacting usersGMV, AOV, repeat rate, conversion
Content / mediaWeekly content-consumption timeTime per user, completion rate, return rate
SaaS / B2BWeekly active teamsTeam 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:

TypeDefinitionFocus
NewFirst-time userChannel quality, activation rate
Active retainedActive in both periodsDepth, feature reach
ReturningInactive last period, active thisReturn reason, secondary retention
ChurnedActive last period, inactive thisChurn cause, win-back potential
DormantInactive multiple periodsPossibly 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 typeD1D7D30Note
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:

  1. Define start and end points (e.g. homepage visit → payment success)
  2. Split into key intermediate steps (each step = a user decision point)
  3. Per-step rate = arriving at next / arriving at this

Funnel framework:

StepActionOutput
DrawList steps + ratesFull funnel view
Identify bottleneckFind lowest-rate stepOptimization focus
BenchmarkCompare history / industry / competitorGap quantification
SegmentBy channel / device / user typeLocate problem cohort
HypothesizeWhy is the bottleneck there?Optimization direction
ExperimentPropose A/B testAction 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

DimensionStandardNote
Statistical significancep < 0.05p > 0.05 → inconclusive, don't decide
Effect sizeLift > MDESignificant but tiny lift may not be worth it
Sample sizeReaches pre-set N"Significant" without N is unreliable
DurationCovers ≥ 1-2 full weeksAvoid weekday/weekend bias
AA checkPre-period baselines matchMismatch → 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

CheckHealthyAnomaly signal
CoverageEvery KR has ≥ 1 trackable metricA KR with no measurable proxy
ConsistencyMetric direction matches KR targetMetric up but KR no progress
PacingLinear pacing ≥ 50% by mid-quarterSeverely behind schedule
AttributionMetric movement attributable to team actionMetric improved due to industry tailwind, not team

OKR progress table:

OKRKR metricTargetCurrentProgress %TrendRisk
{O1}{KR1}{target}{current}{X%}Up/flat/downOn-track / at-risk / severe

Step 8 — Anomaly attribution

When a metric moves anomalously, work the framework:

  1. Quantify: how much, starting when?
  2. Decompose: segment by channel / region / version / cohort to localize
  3. Time-align: what happened around the inflection? (release, campaign, incident, competitor move)
  4. Eliminate: rule out causes one by one until the most likely root remains
  5. Cross-check: verify the attribution via other metrics

Common causes:

CategoryPatternVerification
ReleaseInflection aligns with deploy timeCompare per-version
CampaignUp during campaign, drops afterCompare per-channel
Tech incidentSudden drop + recoveryCheck error logs and uptime
ExternalIndustry-wide changeCompare with competitor / industry data
Channel mixOne channel changed dramaticallyPer-channel decomposition
SeasonalitySame as YoYLook 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

TypeFrequencyTimeAudienceFocus
WeeklyEvery Monday15-30 minPMNSM + anomalies + experiments
MonthlyMonth start30-60 minProduct teamAll L1 + retention + funnel + OKR pacing
QuarterlyQuarter end60-90 minProduct + ops + engStrategy review + OKR scoring + next-quarter plan

Quality bar

  1. Metric definitions clear — every metric has a calculation note
  2. Data has comparisons — current always compared to previous, YoY, or target
  3. Attribution evidenced — no causation from correlation alone
  4. Recommendations actionable — owner-assignable
  5. Limitations tagged — call out small samples or data quality issues

Common analysis pitfalls

PitfallSymptomFix
Simpson's paradoxTotal goes up while every segment goes downAlways segment, never just look at totals
Survivorship biasOnly retained users analyzed, churned ignoredCompare retained vs churned behavior
Vanity metricCumulative signups only ever grow, not decision-usefulUse active metrics (DAU/WAU) instead
Time-window trapComparison window happens to be an outlierCross-validate across multiple windows
Goodhart's lawTarget becomes a metric, stops measuring wellSet guardrails to prevent gaming

Red lines

  1. No fabricated data — missing data → tag "missing", don't extrapolate
  2. Don't conflate correlation with causation — attribution must say "highly correlated" or "confirmed causal"
  3. Don't over-read small swings — small fluctuation → tag "within normal noise"
  4. 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

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.