The Mom Test for Customer Conversations

Based on Rob Fitzpatrick's public method. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Rob Fitzpatrick.

When to use

Use this skill to prepare customer conversations, rewrite leading questions, review supplied interview notes, or decide what an interested prospect's actions actually establish. It produces a customer discovery brief: a practical conversation guide, an evidence review, or both. The aim is to learn facts that change a decision and, when an offer exists, identify concrete progress toward a purchase. [S1] [S2]

Apply it before committing development effort, when feedback sounds uniformly encouraging, or when repeated meetings produce enthusiasm without advancement. It also helps investigate feature requests and understand why customers retain apparently awkward workflows. Do not turn a conversation into a vote on the founder's idea. Specific behavior is more informative than predicted adoption. [S3] [S5]

This package draws on public interviews and essays rather than book text. The output schema, evidence labels, and review gates are agent adaptations. They organize Fitzpatrick's advice without claiming that he prescribed this exact reporting system. Source citations identify the public method; customer findings must point to supplied notes or observations separately.

Procedure

1. Choose the deliverable and decision. Open templates/output-template.md. Select planning, evidence review, or mixed mode. State the customer group, product stage, and decision the work must inform. If context is incomplete, make narrow assumptions explicit; do not invent interview evidence.

2. Separate learning from selling. Read the distinction in references/method.md. Identify whether success means understanding existing behavior or securing progress on an actual offer. In mixed work, keep those outcomes separate and identify where the conversation changes mode. [S2]

3. Set three learning objectives. Follow references/method.md. Choose the uncertainties that could change the plan, including a threatening assumption. Record what an unwelcome answer would imply. Prioritize current behavior, failed alternatives, and purchasing constraints over a long questionnaire. [S4] [S5]