Thinking Jobs To Be Done

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 9a5557e61022 · 30 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publishertjboudreaux GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source foldertjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/skills/thinking-jobs-to-be-doneThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict9a5557e61022A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 83 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.

---
name: thinking-jobs-to-be-done
description: Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Jobs to Be Done

Core rule: users hire solutions for progress in a situation. Prioritize the job, forces, outcome, and competing workaround—not the feature list.

## When to Use

- Choosing what to build, cut, or prioritize when user need is unclear
- Explaining low adoption of a shipped feature
- Mapping competition beyond same-category products (email, spreadsheets, manual work, non-consumption)
- Positioning or research when the progress sought is contested

Requires at least one evidence source: PRD/spec, tickets, support/sales notes, analytics/logs, or current product behavior. If none exist, name the research gap; do not invent quotes.

## When NOT to Use

- Pure execution once the job is known (bug fix, schema, CI, performance)—implement, do not rediscover the job
- Retro-justifying a decision already locked—framework theater
- Infrastructure/internal work with no end-user progress decision
- When the open question is only *how* to implement a settled job

## Procedure

1. **Name performers and circumstance.** Who hires a solution, in what trigger situation, how often, and with what stakes. Prefer primary performers with daily high-stakes jobs over rare secondary ones.
2. **State the job, not the solution.** Frame: `When [circumstance], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]`. Reject solution-shaped statements ("use Slack", "add a dashboard"). Capture functional, emotional, and social dimensions only if evidence supports them.
3. **Map forces and switch.** From artifacts: what push made the old way fail, what pull the new progress offers, what anxiety blocks switching, what habit keeps the status quo. List what they hire today—including non-software and non-consumption.
4. **Define done and outcome metrics.** How the performer knows the job is finished. List outcomes to minimize and maximize (time-to-progress, rework, confidence, surprises). Prefer frequent, poorly served jobs over rare, adequately worked-around ones.
5. **Score candidates against the job.** For each feature/priority: which job step it serves, performer share, frequency, quality of alternatives. Promote high-frequency underserved dimensions; demote polished work for well-served or low-stakes jobs.
6. **Strongest countercase.** State the best case that the stated job is wrong (wrong performer, vanity metric, process-is-the-job, competition is actually non-consumption). If the countercase fits evidence better, revise the job before recommending build.
7. **Stop.** Stop when one primary job statement, competing set, and outcome metrics are evidence-backed enough to change a build/position decision—or when artifacts cannot answer and research is the only next step.

## Output

Produce a JTBD decision artifact:

```text
Job statement: When ..., I want to ..., so I can ...
Performers: primary / secondary (frequency, stakes)
Forces: push / pull / anxiety / habit
Competition: direct | indirect | non-consumption
Outcomes: minimize [...] ; maximize [...]
Priority implication: build / cut / reposition — because job gap is ...
Countercase checked: ...
Evidence used / gaps: ...
```

## Verification

- **Falsify:** If replacing the job statement with a feature name does not change the recommendation, you never left solution-space—rewrite the job from circumstance and progress.
- **Stop:** Do not keep mapping job steps once the ranking decision is stable.
- **Over-application guard:** Skip on pure implementation tasks and known jobs. Never fabricate user quotes or personas to fill missing evidence.

Excerpt, first 3,772 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
git -C cc-thinking-skills checkout 9a5557e61022

Works in

1. 2026-10-30
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 9a5557e61022

Questions about Thinking Jobs To Be Done

• github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/tree/main/skills/think — the audited source at commit 9a5557e61022 and every finding aboveObserved · 30 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology