design-thinking v2026.5.17A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/bf07ce5a2d538ece.

---
name: design-thinking
description: >
  Use this skill when the user asks for design thinking or wants human-centered
  exploration—empathizing with needs, framing the problem, ideating, prototyping
  intent, and defining what to learn next. Use for HCD, service or UX concept
  sprints, how-might-we style discovery before build, or reframing from user
  evidence, even with messy context. Skip when the spec is fully frozen and they
  want no discovery, or when the task is code-only maintenance with no user
  problem framing requested.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: ysskrishna
  version: "2026.5.17"
---

# Design Thinking

Fall in love with the problem, not the first solution. End with **what to learn next**, not just ideas.

---

## When to Use

Use for product, service, policy, or experience work where **user/stakeholder needs** should drive the shape of the solution. Skip when the spec is fully frozen and no discovery is wanted.

---

## Setup (run before starting)

In one short block:

1. **Design challenge** — who is affected and in what situation?
2. **Default pass** — Empathize → Define → Ideate → Prototype → Test plan (state this line)

Up to 3 questions on users, constraints, and success signals; otherwise proceed with `[ASSUMED]`.

If **Empathize** is thin (no real user input), say so honestly in **Define** and keep the POV narrow instead of inventing research.

---

## The Stages

### Empathize

**Who** — primary user or stakeholder (facts from user vs `[INFERRED]`). **Jobs / pains / gains** — what they are trying to do and what hurts. **Context** — when/where the need shows up.

No fabricated quotes; paraphrase only what the user supplied.

### Define

**Insight statement** — non-obvious tension connecting pains and context. **Point of View (POV)** — "**[User]** needs **[verb]** because **[insight]**." **How Might We (HMW)** — 2–3 well-scoped questions opened by the POV.

### Ideate

Quantity + variety. Use **HMW** as prompts. Tag ideas `desirable` / `feasible` / `viable` as **hypotheses** (not proven). Aim for **about 10** ideas unless the user specifies otherwise.

### Prototype

Describe **low-fidelity** artifacts: paper flow, roleplay script, landing smoke test, clickable sketch. For each: **Purpose:** what question does this answer? **Fidelity:** low / medium.

### Test plan

**Learning goals** — what would convince you the idea is wrong? **Participants / sample** (or `[TBD]`). **Signals** — behaviors or metrics to observe. **Next iteration** — what changes if results are mixed.

---

## Execution Rules

1. **Define** must reflect whatever **Empathize** actually contains; do not invent field research.
2. Do not collapse **Ideate** into a single solution before **Prototype**.
3. **Test plan** must include falsifiable signals.

---

## Checklist (verify before responding)

- [ ] Setup: design challenge + default pass
- [ ] Empathize distinguishes fact vs `[INFERRED]`
- [ ] POV + HMW before Ideate
- [ ] Ideation volume ~10 unless adjusted; desirable / feasible / viable tags used
- [ ] Prototype states purpose and fidelity
- [ ] Test plan has learning goals and signals