majiayu000 Problem Framing Skill
Transform market signals into evidence-anchored problem statements.
Consumes
This skill assumes you have zero prior research. It is the starting point.
- No prior CFD- entries needed
- No prior PR D required
- Assumes: Founder/PM has observed market signals but hasn't validated them
Produces
This skill creates/updates:
- CFD-* entries (customer feedback) — 1-5 per problem dimension, with confidence scoring (see PRINCIPLES.md)
- PRD.md Why section — Evidence-anchored problem statement table
- MVP scope signal — Identifies which problem dimensions will drive MVP feature scope (handed to v0.3)
All CFD- entries should include:
confidence: 1-3/5(pre-product research, no usage data)- Evidence source (competitive analysis, interviews, workarounds, etc.)
- Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we observe 10+ paying customers with this pain"
Workflow Overview
- Assess gaps → Identify what evidence is missing before you can confidently state a problem
- Anchor evidence → Create CFD- entries for each pain point dimension with confidence scoring
- Extract dimensions → Pull multiple distinct problems from each source
- Quantify costs → Add time/money/risk numbers to make pain concrete
- Draft statement → Populate the problem table, tied to CFD- entries
Core Output Template
Populate this table for every problem statement:
| Element | Definition | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Who is hurting? | Specific, findable, countable persona | Segment size |
| What pain exists? | Observable behavior or workflow friction | CFD-ID |
| Cost of problem | Time, money, or opportunity lost | Quantified |
| Why now? | Market trigger creating urgency | Trend/event |
| What's impossible? | Opportunity cost—what can't they do | User quote |
See assets/problem-statement.md for copy-paste template.
Step 1: Gap Assessment
Before drafting, create this status table:
| Element | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Who is hurting? | ⚠️ Hypothesis / ✅ Validated / ❌ Missing | |
| What pain exists? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |
| Cost of problem | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |
| Why now? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |
| What's impossible? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ |
Gate: Require ≥2 elements ✅ Validated before drafting. If ≥3 elements ❌ Missing, run deep research first. See references/research-prompts.md for research templates.
Step 2: Evidence Anchoring
Create CFD entries for each pain point with confidence scoring:
CFD-###: [Pain Point Name]
Source: [Where this evidence came from]
Tier: [1-5 evidence quality]
Confidence: [1-5]/5 (pre-product research)
Quote: "[Verbatim from source]"
Dimensions: [List distinct problems extracted from this source]
Next Target: "Would move to 3/5 if we interview X more customers"
Evidence Tier Hierarchy (strength of observation):
- Tier 1: Buying behavior (invoices, subscriptions, job budgets) — users spend money to solve this
- Tier 2: Active workarounds (spreadsheets, hired help, manual processes) — users invest labor
- Tier 3: Complaints with cost ("costs me X hours/week") — users quantify the pain
- Tier 4: General complaints ("this is annoying") — users acknowledge it but haven't quantified
- Tier 5: Speculation — REJECT ("users probably want...")
Confidence Scoring (pre-product, see PRINCIPLES.md):
- 1/5: PM assumption or single data point
- 2/5: Secondary research (competitive analysis, market reports)
- 3/5: Pre-product interviews (3-5 user conversations)
- 4/5: Beta cohort validation (observed behavior, not questions)
- 5/5: Production usage (reserved for post-launch)
Example entry with confidence:
CFD-001: Sales teams waste 5+ hours/week on spreadsheet workflow
Source: 3 customer interviews (SaaS sales director, SMB sales rep, enterprise sales manager)
Tier: 2-3 (workaround + cost quantification)
Confidence: 3/5 (source: 3-customer-interviews-jan-2026)
Quote: "I spend 5 hours every Friday reconciling our pipeline with the actual numbers in our CRM"
Dimensions:
- Manual data reconciliation between systems (workaround)
- Inventory work (scheduling impact)
- Single source of truth fragmentation (data quality risk)
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5 more sales leaders or observe workflows directly"
Step 3: Pain Dimension Extraction
Extract multiple problems from each source. One quote often contains 3-4 distinct pain dimensions.
Example: "USB sticks removed for every update, no scheduling, screens don't communicate, priced for 100+ displays" → Sneakernet workflow, No dynamic scheduling, No centralization, Price mismatch
Step 4: Cost Quantification
Every problem needs a number:
| Type | Calculation |
|---|---|
| Time | Hours/week × hourly rate |
| Money | Current spend on workaround |
| Opportunity | Revenue/outcomes missed |
| Risk | Penalty × probability |
Step 5: Draft Problem Statement
Use the core output template. Reference CFD-IDs for every claim.
See references/examples.md for good/bad examples with explanations.
Quality Gates
Pass Checklist
- ≥1 Tier 1-2 evidence item
- Cost quantified (time, money, or risk)
- "Who" specific enough to build prospect list
- "Why now" has at least Tier 3 hypothesis
Testability Check
- Can find 10 people with this problem in 48 hours?
- Can observe the pain behavior?
- Can quantify cost without leading questions?
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Example | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Vague "Who" | "Small businesses" | → "SMBs with 1-10 screens" |
| Feature-as-problem | "Need a dashboard" | → "Can't see status" |
| Solution creep | "MVP must solve X" | → Stay on problem (v0.4) |
| Missing cost | "This is annoying" | → "Costs X hrs/week" |
| Speculation | "Users might want" | → Find evidence or reject |
Bundled Resources
references/research-prompts.md— Deep research templates by gap type. Use when gap assessment shows ≥3 missing elements.references/examples.md— Good/bad problem statement examples with explanations.assets/problem-statement.md— Copy-paste template for problem tables and CFD entries.
Handoff
Problem statement complete when quality gates pass. Next: v0.2 Market Definition (segments, sizing, ICP).