Problem Definition
Scope
Covers
- Turning a vague idea into a crisp, testable problem definition
- Writing a shareable problem statement (1-liner + expanded)
- Capturing Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) and target segments
- Mapping current alternatives (including non-digital/analog) and “why now / why digital”
- Building an evidence + assumptions log to drive learning
- Defining success metrics + guardrails and clear scope boundaries
When to use
- “Write a problem statement for…”
- “We need to define the problem space / JTBD.”
- “We keep jumping to solutions; help us get clear on the real problem.”
- “Pressure to ‘do AI’ — verify there’s a real pain point first.”
- “Before we write a PRD, align on what problem we’re solving.”
When NOT to use
- You already have an approved problem definition and need a delivery-ready PRD (use
writing-prds)
- You need roadmap prioritization across many competing initiatives (use
prioritizing-roadmap)
- You need to set company-level strategy/vision (use
defining-product-vision)
- You’re doing deep research execution (recruiting, interviews, analysis); use this to frame what to learn, not as a substitute for research
Inputs
Minimum required
- Product/context + target user (or segment hypotheses)
- The triggering signal (customer quotes, data trend, stakeholder request, competitor move)
- The decision to make (e.g., invest now vs later; explore vs stop) + timeline
- Known constraints (tech/legal/privacy/compliance/capacity)
Missing-info strategy
- Ask up to 5 questions from references/INTAKE.md.
- If still missing, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions and list Open questions that would change the decision.
Outputs (deliverables)
Produce a Problem Definition Pack in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if the user requests):
- Context snapshot (product, user, trigger, decision, constraints)
- Problem statement (1-liner + expanded) + why now
- JTBD (primary job + key sub-jobs) + target segment notes
- Current alternatives (including analog/non-digital) + gaps + switching costs
- Evidence & assumptions log (what we know vs what we’re guessing)
- Success criteria (outcome metric(s), leading indicators) + guardrails
- Scope boundaries (in/out, non-goals, dependencies)
- Prototype / learning plan (fast prototype + tests to de-risk)
- Risks / Open questions / Next steps (always included)
Templates: references/TEMPLATES.md
Expanded heuristics: references/WORKFLOW.md
Workflow (8 steps)
1) Intake + decision framing
- Inputs: User context; references/INTAKE.md.
- Actions: Clarify the decision, time horizon, stakeholders, and constraints. Capture the trigger signal (data/quotes/event).
- Outputs: Context snapshot.
- Checks: You can state the decision in one sentence (“We are deciding whether to… by ”).
2) Define the target user + situation (segment + context)
- Inputs: Context snapshot.
- Actions: Specify who experiences the problem, when it happens, frequency, and what’s at stake. If multiple segments, pick a primary and list others as secondary.
- Outputs: Target user + context bullets.
- Checks: The segment is specific enough that a researcher could recruit for it.
3) Write the problem statement (1-liner + expanded)
- Inputs: Target user + trigger signal.
- Actions: Draft a crisp 1-liner, then expand with symptoms, root causes (hypotheses), and impact. Include why now.
- Outputs: Problem statement section (using references/TEMPLATES.md).
- Checks: Statement describes the problem without implying a specific solution or technology.
4) Map current alternatives (including non-digital) + “why use this”
- Inputs: Problem statement.
- Actions: List how users solve this today (manual workarounds, spreadsheets, incumbents, doing nothing). Include at least one analog/non-digital alternative when relevant.
- Outputs: Alternatives table + gaps + switching costs.
- Checks: You can answer: “Why would a user give this the time of day vs their current way?”
5) Separate problem from solution (avoid the shiny object trap)
- Inputs: Alternatives + early solution ideas (if any).
- Actions: Capture solution ideas as hypotheses, not commitments. If “AI” (or any tech) is proposed, state the user pain point first and treat tech choice as an implementation detail.
- Outputs: Evidence & assumptions log (with test ideas).
- Checks: Each assumption has a proposed test and a confidence level.
6) Define success criteria + guardrails
- Inputs: Problem statement + evidence.
- Actions: Define measurable outcomes, leading indicators, and guardrails (quality, trust, cost, latency, support load, etc.).
- Outputs: Success metrics + guardrails section.
- Checks: Metrics are unambiguous and tied to the user’s desired outcome.
7) Visualize the end state + prototype a path to clarity
- Inputs: Success criteria + scope constraints.
- Actions: Describe what “done” looks like (user-visible end state). Create a fast prototype/experiment plan to validate the hardest assumptions before building.
- Outputs: End-state description + prototype/learning plan.
- Checks: The team can “see the end” and name the 1–3 biggest unknowns being tested.
8) Quality gate + finalize the pack
- Inputs: Full draft pack.
- Actions: Run references/CHECKLISTS.md and score with references/RUBRIC.md. Add Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
- Outputs: Final Problem Definition Pack.
- Checks: A stakeholder can review async and decide “proceed / pause / stop” without a meeting.
Quality gate (required)
- Use references/CHECKLISTS.md and references/RUBRIC.md.
- Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.
Examples
Example 1 (B2B SaaS): “Define the problem for improving onboarding activation in our analytics product.”
Expected: a pack with a tight segment, current onboarding alternatives/workarounds, measurable activation outcomes, and a prototype plan to test the most uncertain hypothesis.
Example 2 (Consumer): “Users abandon checkout on mobile; define the problem space and JTBD before proposing fixes.”
Expected: a problem statement grounded in evidence, an alternatives map (including ‘do nothing’), and guardrails (fraud/chargebacks/support load).
Boundary example: “Write a PRD for building an AI assistant; we don’t know what problem it solves.”
Response: push back; run this skill to define the user pain point and success metrics first, then hand off to writing-prds.
1---2name: problem-definition3description: Define a product problem and produce a Problem Definition Pack (problem statement, JTBD, current alternatives, evidence & assumptions, success metrics, scope boundaries, prototype/learning plan). Use when clarifying the problem space.4---5
6# Problem Definition
7
8## Scope
9
10**Covers**
11- Turning a vague idea into a crisp, testable **problem definition**
12- Writing a shareable **problem statement** (1-liner + expanded)
13- Capturing **Jobs To Be Done (JTBD)** and target segments
14- Mapping **current alternatives** (including non-digital/analog) and “why now / why digital”
15- Building an **evidence + assumptions log** to drive learning
16- Defining **success metrics + guardrails** and clear **scope boundaries**
17
18**When to use**
19- “Write a problem statement for…”
20- “We need to define the problem space / JTBD.”
21- “We keep jumping to solutions; help us get clear on the real problem.”
22- “Pressure to ‘do AI’ — verify there’s a real pain point first.”
23- “Before we write a PRD, align on what problem we’re solving.”
24
25**When NOT to use**
26- You already have an approved problem definition and need a delivery-ready PRD (use `writing-prds`)
27- You need roadmap prioritization across many competing initiatives (use `prioritizing-roadmap`)
28- You need to set company-level strategy/vision (use `defining-product-vision`)
29- You’re doing deep research execution (recruiting, interviews, analysis); use this to frame *what to learn*, not as a substitute for research
30
31## Inputs
32
33**Minimum required**
34- Product/context + target user (or segment hypotheses)
35- The triggering signal (customer quotes, data trend, stakeholder request, competitor move)
36- The decision to make (e.g., invest now vs later; explore vs stop) + timeline
37- Known constraints (tech/legal/privacy/compliance/capacity)
38
39**Missing-info strategy**
40- Ask up to 5 questions from [references/INTAKE.md](references/INTAKE.md).
41- If still missing, proceed with clearly labeled assumptions and list **Open questions** that would change the decision.
42
43## Outputs (deliverables)
44
45Produce a **Problem Definition Pack** in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if the user requests):
46
471) **Context snapshot** (product, user, trigger, decision, constraints)
482) **Problem statement** (1-liner + expanded) + **why now**
493) **JTBD** (primary job + key sub-jobs) + target segment notes
504) **Current alternatives** (including analog/non-digital) + gaps + switching costs
515) **Evidence & assumptions log** (what we know vs what we’re guessing)
526) **Success criteria** (outcome metric(s), leading indicators) + **guardrails**
537) **Scope boundaries** (in/out, non-goals, dependencies)
548) **Prototype / learning plan** (fast prototype + tests to de-risk)
559) **Risks / Open questions / Next steps** (always included)
56
57Templates: [references/TEMPLATES.md](references/TEMPLATES.md)
58Expanded heuristics: [references/WORKFLOW.md](references/WORKFLOW.md)
59
60## Workflow (8 steps)
61
62### 1) Intake + decision framing
63- **Inputs:** User context; [references/INTAKE.md](references/INTAKE.md).
64- **Actions:** Clarify the decision, time horizon, stakeholders, and constraints. Capture the trigger signal (data/quotes/event).
65- **Outputs:** Context snapshot.
66- **Checks:** You can state the decision in one sentence (“We are deciding whether to… by <date>”).
67
68### 2) Define the target user + situation (segment + context)
69- **Inputs:** Context snapshot.
70- **Actions:** Specify who experiences the problem, when it happens, frequency, and what’s at stake. If multiple segments, pick a primary and list others as secondary.
71- **Outputs:** Target user + context bullets.
72- **Checks:** The segment is specific enough that a researcher could recruit for it.
73
74### 3) Write the problem statement (1-liner + expanded)
75- **Inputs:** Target user + trigger signal.
76- **Actions:** Draft a crisp 1-liner, then expand with symptoms, root causes (hypotheses), and impact. Include **why now**.
77- **Outputs:** Problem statement section (using [references/TEMPLATES.md](references/TEMPLATES.md)).
78- **Checks:** Statement describes the problem without implying a specific solution or technology.
79
80### 4) Map current alternatives (including non-digital) + “why use this”
81- **Inputs:** Problem statement.
82- **Actions:** List how users solve this today (manual workarounds, spreadsheets, incumbents, doing nothing). Include at least one analog/non-digital alternative when relevant.
83- **Outputs:** Alternatives table + gaps + switching costs.
84- **Checks:** You can answer: “Why would a user give this the time of day vs their current way?”
85
86### 5) Separate problem from solution (avoid the shiny object trap)
87- **Inputs:** Alternatives + early solution ideas (if any).
88- **Actions:** Capture solution ideas as **hypotheses**, not commitments. If “AI” (or any tech) is proposed, state the user pain point first and treat tech choice as an implementation detail.
89- **Outputs:** Evidence & assumptions log (with test ideas).
90- **Checks:** Each assumption has a proposed test and a confidence level.
91
92### 6) Define success criteria + guardrails
93- **Inputs:** Problem statement + evidence.
94- **Actions:** Define measurable outcomes, leading indicators, and guardrails (quality, trust, cost, latency, support load, etc.).
95- **Outputs:** Success metrics + guardrails section.
96- **Checks:** Metrics are unambiguous and tied to the user’s desired outcome.
97
98### 7) Visualize the end state + prototype a path to clarity
99- **Inputs:** Success criteria + scope constraints.
100- **Actions:** Describe what “done” looks like (user-visible end state). Create a fast prototype/experiment plan to validate the hardest assumptions before building.
101- **Outputs:** End-state description + prototype/learning plan.
102- **Checks:** The team can “see the end” and name the 1–3 biggest unknowns being tested.
103
104### 8) Quality gate + finalize the pack
105- **Inputs:** Full draft pack.
106- **Actions:** Run [references/CHECKLISTS.md](references/CHECKLISTS.md) and score with [references/RUBRIC.md](references/RUBRIC.md). Add Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
107- **Outputs:** Final Problem Definition Pack.
108- **Checks:** A stakeholder can review async and decide “proceed / pause / stop” without a meeting.
109
110## Quality gate (required)
111- Use [references/CHECKLISTS.md](references/CHECKLISTS.md) and [references/RUBRIC.md](references/RUBRIC.md).
112- Always include: **Risks**, **Open questions**, **Next steps**.
113
114## Examples
115
116**Example 1 (B2B SaaS):** “Define the problem for improving onboarding activation in our analytics product.”
117Expected: a pack with a tight segment, current onboarding alternatives/workarounds, measurable activation outcomes, and a prototype plan to test the most uncertain hypothesis.
118
119**Example 2 (Consumer):** “Users abandon checkout on mobile; define the problem space and JTBD before proposing fixes.”
120Expected: a problem statement grounded in evidence, an alternatives map (including ‘do nothing’), and guardrails (fraud/chargebacks/support load).
121
122**Boundary example:** “Write a PRD for building an AI assistant; we don’t know what problem it solves.”
123Response: push back; run this skill to define the user pain point and success metrics first, then hand off to `writing-prds`.
124