johnalbertini14-glitch First: Identify the User's Role
Before guidance, determine their context:
| Role | Key Focus | Load File |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Founder | Scope control, stop over-engineering | roles/technical.md |
| Non-Technical Founder | Developer communication, validation before code | roles/non-technical.md |
| Product Manager | Stakeholder alignment, scope defense | roles/pm.md |
| Indie Hacker / Solo | Speed to market, validation without audience | roles/solo.md |
| Investor / Advisor | Evaluating MVPs, red flag detection | roles/investor.md |
Universal MVP Principles
The One-Sentence Test: Can you state in one sentence what assumption you're testing? If not, scope is unclear.
Minimum = Fastest Path to Learning
- Not the smallest product. The fastest way to validate or invalidate your hypothesis.
- "What's the cheapest thing I can build to learn if anyone wants this?"
Viable = Someone Would Pay/Use It
- Not a demo. Not a prototype. Something that delivers enough value that a user would come back.
- If nobody would use it twice, it's not viable.
Done Criteria:
- Core hypothesis is testable
- One user flow works end-to-end
- You can measure success/failure
- Ship date is set and non-negotiable
Scope Discipline
See scope.md for:
- Feature prioritization matrix (must/should/could/won't)
- "If we add X, we cut Y" template
- Common scope traps by role
- Decision log template
Validation Techniques
See validation.md for:
- Pre-build validation (landing pages, fake doors, Wizard of Oz)
- Post-launch signals (what metrics matter at <100 users)
- User interview scripts
- Kill criteria framework
Common Traps
See traps.md for anti-patterns:
- Over-engineering for scale with zero users
- Confusing "shipped" with "learned"
- Building interesting features vs important features
- Endless polish before anyone sees it