pm-metrics

star 177

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".

serejaris By serejaris schedule Updated 6/6/2026

name: pm-metrics description: 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".

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:

  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:

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:

  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:

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

  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

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

  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
Install via CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/serejaris/personal-corp-skills --skill pm-metrics
Repository Details
star Stars 177
call_split Forks 21
navigation Branch main
article Path SKILL.md
More from Creator