Purpose
Prevent premature feature explosion by forcing an idea through problem
definition and risk ranking before scope is decided — so the MVP is the
smallest thing that actually tests the riskiest assumption, not a wish list.
When to use
- A vague or ambitious product idea needs to become a scoped, buildable plan.
- Asked to write a PRD, define an MVP, or turn "we should build X" into
user stories and success metrics.
When NOT to use
- The feature is already fully specified (clear scope, clear acceptance
criteria) — go straight to
feature-to-production.
- The question is a pure technology choice with no user-facing product
dimension — that's
research-to-decision.
Required inputs
- The idea or request, however rough.
- Whatever's known about the target user/context — ask if genuinely unknown
rather than inventing a persona wholesale.
Workflow
- Idea/request — capture it as stated, without immediately jumping to
solution details.
- Problem definition — what problem is this actually solving, for whom?
If the request is already a solution ("add a dashboard"), work backward
to the underlying problem before accepting the solution as given.
- Target user — who specifically has this problem? Avoid "everyone."
- Jobs-to-be-done — what is the user actually trying to accomplish,
independent of any specific feature?
- Pain / current alternatives — how do they solve this today, and
what's wrong with that? A problem with no real current pain is a weak
foundation for a feature.
- Assumptions — list what must be true for this to be worth building
(usage frequency, willingness to change behavior, technical feasibility).
- Risk ranking — rank assumptions by (a) how likely they are to be
wrong and (b) how costly it is if they are. The riskiest, cheapest-to-test
assumption drives the MVP scope — not the most exciting feature.
- Hypotheses — turn the riskiest assumptions into falsifiable
statements ("users will complete checkout 20% more often if we remove
this step") that the MVP/experiment can actually test.
- MVP scope — the smallest version that tests the top hypothesis.
Actively resist scope growth: if a feature doesn't test the
hypothesis or serve the core job-to-be-done, cut it from v1 regardless
of how easy or appealing it seems.
- User stories — concrete, testable stories for the MVP scope only.
- Success metrics — how will you know if the hypothesis was right?
Tie directly to the hypothesis from step 8, not a vanity metric.
- Experiment design — how the MVP will actually be evaluated (A/B
test, cohort comparison, qualitative feedback threshold) — see
research-to-decision's references/ for rigor on this if it's a
formal experiment.
- PRD — the durable artifact combining the above (see output contract).
Tool & resource guidance
If usage/behavioral data already exists that bears on the risk ranking
(step 7) or could establish a real baseline for the success metric (step
11), that's a data-scientist task — don't guess at numbers a dataset
could actually answer.
Output contract
Using the templates in assets/:
- PRD (
assets/prd-template.md) — problem, users, MVP scope, stories,
metrics, non-goals.
- User stories (
assets/user-story-template.md) for each MVP-scope story.
- Success metrics (
assets/metrics-template.md).
- Experiment plan (
assets/experiment-template.md) if a formal
test/rollout is warranted.
- Decision log (
assets/decision-log-template.md) for major scope
decisions and why they were made (especially what was cut and why).
Quality checks
Edge cases
- User already has a fully-formed feature spec: don't force the full
workflow — validate the MVP-scoping and risk-ranking steps briefly, then
move to
feature-to-production.
- No clear target user yet: make defining one step 1 of the actual
deliverable rather than picking one arbitrarily and proceeding.
- Stakeholder pressure for a large v1: state the risk-ranking-based
case for the smaller MVP explicitly in the decision log rather than
silently capitulating to scope growth.
References
See examples/collaborative-playlist-prd.md for a full worked example.
1---2name: product-manager3description: Turns an ambiguous product idea or feature request into a validated, right-sized product plan: problem definition, target user, jobs-to-be-done, assumptions and risk ranking, a minimal MVP scope, user stories, success metrics, and a PRD. Use when asked to scope a new feature/product idea, write a PRD, define an MVP, or turn a vague request ("we should have X") into something buildable. Do not use once a feature is already fully scoped and specified and the task is just implementation (use feature-to-production), or for a purely technical decision with no product/ user dimension (use research-to-decision).4license: MIT5---67# Purpose89Prevent premature feature explosion by forcing an idea through problem10definition and risk ranking before scope is decided — so the MVP is the11smallest thing that actually tests the riskiest assumption, not a wish list.1213# When to use1415- A vague or ambitious product idea needs to become a scoped, buildable plan.16- Asked to write a PRD, define an MVP, or turn "we should build X" into17 user stories and success metrics.1819# When NOT to use2021- The feature is already fully specified (clear scope, clear acceptance22 criteria) — go straight to `feature-to-production`.23- The question is a pure technology choice with no user-facing product24 dimension — that's `research-to-decision`.2526# Required inputs2728- The idea or request, however rough.29- Whatever's known about the target user/context — ask if genuinely unknown30 rather than inventing a persona wholesale.3132# Workflow33341. **Idea/request** — capture it as stated, without immediately jumping to35 solution details.362. **Problem definition** — what problem is this actually solving, for whom?37 If the request is already a solution ("add a dashboard"), work backward38 to the underlying problem before accepting the solution as given.393. **Target user** — who specifically has this problem? Avoid "everyone."404. **Jobs-to-be-done** — what is the user actually trying to accomplish,41 independent of any specific feature?425. **Pain / current alternatives** — how do they solve this today, and43 what's wrong with that? A problem with no real current pain is a weak44 foundation for a feature.456. **Assumptions** — list what must be true for this to be worth building46 (usage frequency, willingness to change behavior, technical feasibility).477. **Risk ranking** — rank assumptions by (a) how likely they are to be48 wrong and (b) how costly it is if they are. The riskiest, cheapest-to-test49 assumption drives the MVP scope — not the most exciting feature.508. **Hypotheses** — turn the riskiest assumptions into falsifiable51 statements ("users will complete checkout 20% more often if we remove52 this step") that the MVP/experiment can actually test.539. **MVP scope** — the smallest version that tests the top hypothesis.54 **Actively resist scope growth**: if a feature doesn't test the55 hypothesis or serve the core job-to-be-done, cut it from v1 regardless56 of how easy or appealing it seems.5710. **User stories** — concrete, testable stories for the MVP scope only.5811. **Success metrics** — how will you know if the hypothesis was right?59 Tie directly to the hypothesis from step 8, not a vanity metric.6012. **Experiment design** — how the MVP will actually be evaluated (A/B61 test, cohort comparison, qualitative feedback threshold) — see62 `research-to-decision`'s `references/` for rigor on this if it's a63 formal experiment.6413. **PRD** — the durable artifact combining the above (see output contract).6566# Tool & resource guidance6768If usage/behavioral data already exists that bears on the risk ranking69(step 7) or could establish a real baseline for the success metric (step7011), that's a `data-scientist` task — don't guess at numbers a dataset71could actually answer.7273# Output contract7475Using the templates in `assets/`:7677- **PRD** (`assets/prd-template.md`) — problem, users, MVP scope, stories,78 metrics, non-goals.79- **User stories** (`assets/user-story-template.md`) for each MVP-scope story.80- **Success metrics** (`assets/metrics-template.md`).81- **Experiment plan** (`assets/experiment-template.md`) if a formal82 test/rollout is warranted.83- **Decision log** (`assets/decision-log-template.md`) for major scope84 decisions and why they were made (especially what was cut and why).8586# Quality checks8788- [ ] The MVP scope is traceable to the single riskiest hypothesis, not a89 collection of "nice to have while we're at it" features.90- [ ] Every user story in scope is testable and tied to the core job-to-be-done.91- [ ] Success metrics are specific and tied to the hypothesis, not generic92 ("increase engagement").93- [ ] At least one thing was explicitly cut from scope and recorded in the94 decision log — if nothing was cut, scope discipline probably wasn't95 actually applied.9697# Edge cases9899- **User already has a fully-formed feature spec**: don't force the full100 workflow — validate the MVP-scoping and risk-ranking steps briefly, then101 move to `feature-to-production`.102- **No clear target user yet**: make defining one step 1 of the actual103 deliverable rather than picking one arbitrarily and proceeding.104- **Stakeholder pressure for a large v1**: state the risk-ranking-based105 case for the smaller MVP explicitly in the decision log rather than106 silently capitulating to scope growth.107108# References109110See `examples/collaborative-playlist-prd.md` for a full worked example.