Product Management
Umbrella skill for PM workflows: specs, roadmaps, stakeholder comms, research synthesis, competitive analysis, metrics review, sprint planning, and product brainstorming. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand.
Mode Detection
Classify into one mode before proceeding.
| Mode |
Signal Phrases |
Reference |
| SPEC |
write spec, PRD, feature requirements, acceptance criteria, user stories |
references/spec-writing.md |
| ROADMAP |
roadmap, prioritize, Now/Next/Later, reprioritize, timeline, OKR alignment |
references/roadmap-planning.md |
| STAKEHOLDER |
stakeholder update, status report, executive brief, launch announcement |
(inline templates) |
| RESEARCH |
synthesize research, interview analysis, user feedback, personas, thematic analysis |
references/research-synthesis.md |
| COMPETITIVE |
competitive brief, competitor analysis, battle card, positioning, win/loss |
(inline templates) |
| METRICS |
metrics review, KPI, funnel analysis, retention, cohort, dashboard, OKR scoring |
references/metrics-review.md |
| SPRINT |
sprint planning, backlog grooming, capacity, sprint goal, carryover |
(inline templates) |
| BRAINSTORM |
brainstorm, explore problem, stress-test idea, thinking partner, assumption testing |
(Socratic — see below) |
If the request spans modes, pick the primary mode and note the secondary.
Workflow by Mode
SPEC Mode
Load: references/spec-writing.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md
- Understand — Accept any input: feature name, problem statement, user request, vague idea.
- Gather context — Ask conversationally (not a wall of questions):
- User problem and who experiences it
- Target users / segments
- Success metrics (how will we know it worked?)
- Constraints: technical, timeline, regulatory, dependencies
- Prior art: attempted before? Existing solutions?
- Generate PRD with these sections:
| Section |
Content |
| Problem Statement |
2-3 sentences. Who, how often, cost of not solving. Grounded in evidence. |
| Goals |
3-5 measurable outcomes. Outcomes not outputs. |
| Non-Goals |
3-5 explicit exclusions with rationale. |
| User Stories |
"As a [specific type], I want [capability] so that [benefit]." Group by persona. Include edge cases. |
| Requirements |
P0 (must-have), P1 (nice-to-have), P2 (future). Each with acceptance criteria. |
| Success Metrics |
Leading (days-weeks) and lagging (weeks-months). Specific targets with measurement method. |
| Open Questions |
Tagged by owner (eng, design, legal, data). Blocking vs non-blocking. |
| Timeline |
Hard deadlines, dependencies, phasing. |
- Review — Offer iteration, expansion, follow-up artifacts (design brief, ticket breakdown).
Acceptance criteria format: Given/When/Then or checklist. Cover happy path, error cases, edge cases. No ambiguous words ("fast", "intuitive") without concrete definitions.
Scope management: Write explicit non-goals. Any scope addition requires a scope removal or timeline extension. Separate v1 from v2. Time-box investigations.
ROADMAP Mode
Load: references/roadmap-planning.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md
- Current state — Get existing roadmap (paste, describe, or build from scratch).
- Determine operation:
| Operation |
Inputs |
Key Actions |
| Add item |
Name, priority, effort, timeframe, owner, dependencies |
Suggest placement based on priorities and capacity |
| Update status |
Item + new status (not started / in progress / at risk / blocked / completed / cut) |
For at-risk/blocked: require blocker + mitigation |
| Reprioritize |
What changed (strategy shift, new data, resource change) |
Apply framework (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Value/Effort). Show before/after. |
| Move timeline |
Why (scope change, dependency slip, resource constraint) |
Identify downstream impacts. Flag hard-deadline conflicts. |
| Create new |
Timeframe, format preference, initiative list |
Use Now/Next/Later unless user specifies otherwise |
- Generate — Status overview, items grouped by timeframe/theme, risks/dependencies, change summary.
- Follow up — Offer audience-specific formatting, change communication drafts.
Capacity rule: When adding to roadmap, always ask "What comes off?" Roadmaps are zero-sum against capacity.
STAKEHOLDER Mode
- Update type: Weekly / Monthly / Launch / Ad-hoc
- Audience detection:
| Audience |
Frame |
Length |
| Executives |
Outcome-focused, G/Y/R status, strategic alignment |
< 300 words |
| Engineering |
Technical detail, links to PRs/tickets, decisions needed with options |
As needed |
| Cross-functional |
Impact on their team, asks with deadlines, input opportunities |
Medium |
| Customers |
Benefits-focused, no jargon, honest timelines |
Short |
| Board |
Metrics-driven, risk-focused, strategic |
Very concise |
- Generate using audience-appropriate template.
- Risk communication — Use ROAM framework (Resolved, Owned, Accepted, Mitigated). Every risk comes with: clear statement, quantified impact, likelihood with evidence, mitigation plan, specific ask.
Executive update rule: Lead with conclusion, not journey. "We shipped X and it moved Y" not "we had 14 standups." Status color reflects reality, not optimism.
Gate: Update draft exists. Audience-appropriate framing verified (no engineering jargon in exec updates, no hand-waving in engineering updates). Every risk has a ROAM classification.
RESEARCH Mode
Load: references/research-synthesis.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md
- Gather inputs — Accept any combination: pasted text, uploaded files, described findings.
- Process — For each source extract: observations, verbatim quotes, behaviors (vs stated preferences), pain points, positive signals, context.
- Thematic analysis:
- Familiarize -> Initial coding -> Theme development -> Theme review -> Theme refinement -> Report
- Affinity mapping: one observation per note, let clusters emerge, split large clusters.
- Triangulation: methodological, source, temporal. Findings supported by multiple sources are stronger.
- Priority matrix:
|
High Impact |
Low Impact |
| High Frequency |
Top priority |
Quality-of-life |
| Low Frequency |
Segment-specific |
Note and deprioritize |
- Generate synthesis: Research overview, 5-8 key findings (with evidence, frequency, impact, confidence), user segments/personas, opportunity areas, actionable recommendations, open questions.
Critical rule: Distinguish behaviors from stated preferences. Behavioral data always outweighs what users say they want. Quote attribution uses participant type ("Enterprise admin, 200-person team"), never names.
COMPETITIVE Mode
- Scope — Which competitor(s)? Full comparison or specific area? What decision does this inform?
- Research — Product pages, pricing, changelogs, customer reviews (G2, Capterra), job postings (strategic signals), community discussions.
- Generate brief:
- Competitor overview (company, positioning, momentum)
- Feature comparison matrix (Strong/Adequate/Weak/Absent ratings)
- Positioning analysis (For [target] who [need], [Product] is a [category] that [benefit])
- Honest strengths and weaknesses
- Opportunities and threats
- Strategic implications: build/accelerate/deprioritize, differentiate vs parity, positioning adjustments
- Competitive set levels: Direct (same problem, same way), Indirect (same problem, different way), Adjacent (could expand into your space), Substitute (entirely different approach including "do nothing").
Honesty rule: Dismissing competitors makes analysis useless. Rate based on real product experience and customer feedback, not marketing claims. Be honest about where competitors lead.
Gate: Competitive brief exists with feature matrix, positioning analysis, and strategic implications. At least one honest "they lead here" finding present.
METRICS Mode
Load: references/metrics-review.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md
- Gather data — Get metrics with comparison data (previous period, targets). Ask about known events (launches, incidents, seasonality).
- Organize — Use metrics hierarchy:
| Level |
Purpose |
Examples |
| North Star |
Core value delivered |
WAU completing core workflow |
| L1 (Health) |
Lifecycle stages |
Acquisition, Activation, Engagement, Retention, Monetization, Satisfaction |
| L2 (Diagnostic) |
Drill-down |
Funnel steps, feature adoption, segment breakdowns, performance |
- Analyze — For each metric: current value, trend, vs target, rate of change, anomalies. Identify correlations, leading indicators, segment-driven aggregate trends.
- Generate review: Summary (2-3 sentences), scorecard table, trend analysis, bright spots, areas of concern, recommended actions, caveats.
- Goal-setting support: OKRs (2-3 objectives, 2-4 KRs each, outcomes not outputs, 70% completion = target for stretch). Target-setting: baseline -> benchmark -> trajectory -> effort -> confidence.
Context rule: Absolute numbers without comparison are useless. Always show vs previous period, vs target, vs benchmark. Small fluctuations are noise — focus on meaningful changes.
SPRINT Mode
- Gather: Team roster + availability, sprint length, prioritized backlog, carryover, dependencies.
- Capacity calculation: Available days minus overhead (meetings, on-call, PTO). Rule of thumb: 60-70% of time on planned work.
- Allocation: 70% planned features, 20% tech health, 10% unplanned buffer.
- Generate sprint plan:
- Sprint goal (one sentence)
- Capacity table (person, available days, allocation, notes)
- Sprint backlog (P0 must-ship, P1 should-ship, P2 stretch)
- Planned capacity vs sprint load (target 70-80%)
- Risks with impact and mitigation
- Definition of done
- Key dates (start, mid-sprint check, demo, retro)
- Carry over honestly — If something did not ship, understand why before re-committing.
Gate: Sprint plan exists with goal, capacity table, prioritized backlog, and load vs capacity check showing 70-80% target.
BRAINSTORM Mode (Socratic)
This mode is fundamentally different. The PM does not get a deliverable. They get a thinking partner. Be opinionated. Push back. Bring unexpected angles. Challenge assumptions.
Session principles:
- Apply frameworks to the specific problem at hand
- Generate, evaluate, then discuss before handing over
- Challenge ideas actively — push back with reasons
- Hold divergent exploration open before converging
- Explore multiple directions before committing
Sub-modes — Detect which fits and shift as conversation evolves:
| Sub-mode |
When |
Approach |
| Problem Exploration |
PM has a problem area, not a defined problem |
Ask "who has this problem?" and "what are they doing today?" Map the ecosystem. Distinguish symptoms from root causes. |
| Solution Ideation |
Problem is well-defined, need options |
Generate 5-7 distinct approaches before evaluating. Include one "do the opposite" and one "remove something." Resist early convergence. |
| Assumption Testing |
PM has a direction, needs stress-testing |
List every assumption (stated + unstated). Find the riskiest one. Suggest the cheapest test. Play devil's advocate. |
| Strategy Exploration |
Big bets, positioning, direction |
Map possible moves. Think in bets (odds, payoff). Consider second-order effects and competitive responses. |
Session rhythm: Frame -> Diverge -> Provoke -> Converge -> Capture.
Ideation techniques:
- Constraint removal: "What if no technical/budget/political constraints?"
- Analogies: "How does [another industry] solve this?"
- Inversion: "How would we make this worse?" Then reverse.
- Decomposition: Break into subproblems, solve independently, recombine.
- User hat-switching: Power user? New user? Admin? Someone who hates the product?
Frameworks as thinking tools (use when they help, not as templates):
| Framework |
Structure |
Failure Mode |
| HMW |
"How might we [outcome] for [user] without [constraint]?" |
Too broad ("improve onboarding") or too narrow ("add tooltip to step 3") |
| JTBD |
"When [situation], I want to [motivation] so I can [outcome]." |
Functional jobs are easy; emotional and social jobs are often more powerful. Ask "what did they fire?" |
| Opportunity Solution Tree |
Outcome -> Opportunities (from research) -> Solutions (multiple per opportunity) -> Experiments (cheapest test) |
Opportunities must trace to evidence, not imagination. One solution per opportunity = not enough exploration. |
| First Principles |
State assumption -> Break to fundamentals -> Question each -> Rebuild |
Use when team is stuck in incrementalism |
| OODA |
Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act -> loop |
Most teams get stuck in Orient. OODA says: orient with what you have, act, let next cycle correct. |
| Reverse Brainstorming |
"How to make this worse?" -> List -> Reverse each |
When team is stuck; people are better at identifying wrong than imagining right. |
Provocation prompts:
- "What is the strongest argument against this?"
- "Who would hate this and why?"
- "What are we not seeing?"
- "What if the opposite were true?"
- "What is the 10x more ambitious version?"
Gate: Session produced at least one challenge the PM hadn't considered. Captured decisions/next-steps documented. Frameworks used as thinking tools, not dumped as checklists.
LLM Failure Modes in PM Work
See references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md for the complete failure mode catalog (vague specs, fabricated research, generic competitive analysis, metrics without context, happy-path-only specs, framework regurgitation, scope creep enablement). Universal failure modes in skills/shared-patterns/llm-domain-failure-modes-base.md.
Prioritization Frameworks (Cross-Mode Reference)
Used in SPEC, ROADMAP, and SPRINT modes.
| Framework |
Formula / Method |
Best For |
| RICE |
(Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort |
Large backlog, quantitative comparison |
| ICE |
Impact x Confidence x Ease (1-10 each) |
Quick prioritization, early-stage |
| MoSCoW |
Must / Should / Could / Won't |
Scoping a release, forcing prioritization conversations |
| Value vs Effort |
2x2 matrix: Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fill-ins, Money Pits |
Visual prioritization in team sessions |
Failure modes: Using a framework as a rubber stamp for a decision already made. If the RICE score does not match intuition, investigate why — do not just adjust the inputs until it does.
Output Conventions
- Markdown with clear headers. Scannable. Busy stakeholders read headers and bold text.
- Tables for comparisons, scorecards, feature matrices.
- Status labels: Done, On Track, At Risk, Blocked, Not Started.
- Executive content: < 300 words. Engineering content: as detailed as needed.
- Every recommendation is specific enough to act on. "Improve onboarding" is not actionable. "Add progress indicator to setup flow" is.
1---2name: product-management-33description: Product management workflows — feature specs, roadmap planning, stakeholder updates, user research synthesis, competitive analysis, metrics review, sprint planning. Use when writing specs, updating roadmaps, briefing stakeholders, synthesizing research, or reviewing product metrics.4---5
6# Product Management
7
8Umbrella skill for PM workflows: specs, roadmaps, stakeholder comms, research synthesis, competitive analysis, metrics review, sprint planning, and product brainstorming. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand.
9
10---
11
12## Mode Detection
13
14Classify into one mode before proceeding.
15
16| Mode | Signal Phrases | Reference |
17|------|---------------|-----------|
18| **SPEC** | write spec, PRD, feature requirements, acceptance criteria, user stories | `references/spec-writing.md` |
19| **ROADMAP** | roadmap, prioritize, Now/Next/Later, reprioritize, timeline, OKR alignment | `references/roadmap-planning.md` |
20| **STAKEHOLDER** | stakeholder update, status report, executive brief, launch announcement | (inline templates) |
21| **RESEARCH** | synthesize research, interview analysis, user feedback, personas, thematic analysis | `references/research-synthesis.md` |
22| **COMPETITIVE** | competitive brief, competitor analysis, battle card, positioning, win/loss | (inline templates) |
23| **METRICS** | metrics review, KPI, funnel analysis, retention, cohort, dashboard, OKR scoring | `references/metrics-review.md` |
24| **SPRINT** | sprint planning, backlog grooming, capacity, sprint goal, carryover | (inline templates) |
25| **BRAINSTORM** | brainstorm, explore problem, stress-test idea, thinking partner, assumption testing | (Socratic — see below) |
26
27If the request spans modes, pick the primary mode and note the secondary.
28
29---
30
31## Workflow by Mode
32
33### SPEC Mode
34
35**Load**: `references/spec-writing.md`, `references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md`
36
371. **Understand** — Accept any input: feature name, problem statement, user request, vague idea.
382. **Gather context** — Ask conversationally (not a wall of questions):
39 - User problem and who experiences it
40 - Target users / segments
41 - Success metrics (how will we know it worked?)
42 - Constraints: technical, timeline, regulatory, dependencies
43 - Prior art: attempted before? Existing solutions?
443. **Generate PRD** with these sections:
45
46| Section | Content |
47|---------|---------|
48| Problem Statement | 2-3 sentences. Who, how often, cost of not solving. Grounded in evidence. |
49| Goals | 3-5 measurable outcomes. Outcomes not outputs. |
50| Non-Goals | 3-5 explicit exclusions with rationale. |
51| User Stories | "As a [specific type], I want [capability] so that [benefit]." Group by persona. Include edge cases. |
52| Requirements | P0 (must-have), P1 (nice-to-have), P2 (future). Each with acceptance criteria. |
53| Success Metrics | Leading (days-weeks) and lagging (weeks-months). Specific targets with measurement method. |
54| Open Questions | Tagged by owner (eng, design, legal, data). Blocking vs non-blocking. |
55| Timeline | Hard deadlines, dependencies, phasing. |
56
574. **Review** — Offer iteration, expansion, follow-up artifacts (design brief, ticket breakdown).
58
59**Acceptance criteria format**: Given/When/Then or checklist. Cover happy path, error cases, edge cases. No ambiguous words ("fast", "intuitive") without concrete definitions.
60
61**Scope management**: Write explicit non-goals. Any scope addition requires a scope removal or timeline extension. Separate v1 from v2. Time-box investigations.
62
63### ROADMAP Mode
64
65**Load**: `references/roadmap-planning.md`, `references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md`
66
671. **Current state** — Get existing roadmap (paste, describe, or build from scratch).
682. **Determine operation**:
69
70| Operation | Inputs | Key Actions |
71|-----------|--------|-------------|
72| Add item | Name, priority, effort, timeframe, owner, dependencies | Suggest placement based on priorities and capacity |
73| Update status | Item + new status (not started / in progress / at risk / blocked / completed / cut) | For at-risk/blocked: require blocker + mitigation |
74| Reprioritize | What changed (strategy shift, new data, resource change) | Apply framework (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Value/Effort). Show before/after. |
75| Move timeline | Why (scope change, dependency slip, resource constraint) | Identify downstream impacts. Flag hard-deadline conflicts. |
76| Create new | Timeframe, format preference, initiative list | Use Now/Next/Later unless user specifies otherwise |
77
783. **Generate** — Status overview, items grouped by timeframe/theme, risks/dependencies, change summary.
794. **Follow up** — Offer audience-specific formatting, change communication drafts.
80
81**Capacity rule**: When adding to roadmap, always ask "What comes off?" Roadmaps are zero-sum against capacity.
82
83### STAKEHOLDER Mode
84
851. **Update type**: Weekly / Monthly / Launch / Ad-hoc
862. **Audience detection**:
87
88| Audience | Frame | Length |
89|----------|-------|--------|
90| Executives | Outcome-focused, G/Y/R status, strategic alignment | < 300 words |
91| Engineering | Technical detail, links to PRs/tickets, decisions needed with options | As needed |
92| Cross-functional | Impact on their team, asks with deadlines, input opportunities | Medium |
93| Customers | Benefits-focused, no jargon, honest timelines | Short |
94| Board | Metrics-driven, risk-focused, strategic | Very concise |
95
963. **Generate** using audience-appropriate template.
974. **Risk communication** — Use ROAM framework (Resolved, Owned, Accepted, Mitigated). Every risk comes with: clear statement, quantified impact, likelihood with evidence, mitigation plan, specific ask.
98
99**Executive update rule**: Lead with conclusion, not journey. "We shipped X and it moved Y" not "we had 14 standups." Status color reflects reality, not optimism.
100
101**Gate**: Update draft exists. Audience-appropriate framing verified (no engineering jargon in exec updates, no hand-waving in engineering updates). Every risk has a ROAM classification.
102
103### RESEARCH Mode
104
105**Load**: `references/research-synthesis.md`, `references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md`
106
1071. **Gather inputs** — Accept any combination: pasted text, uploaded files, described findings.
1082. **Process** — For each source extract: observations, verbatim quotes, behaviors (vs stated preferences), pain points, positive signals, context.
1093. **Thematic analysis**:
110 - Familiarize -> Initial coding -> Theme development -> Theme review -> Theme refinement -> Report
111 - Affinity mapping: one observation per note, let clusters emerge, split large clusters.
112 - Triangulation: methodological, source, temporal. Findings supported by multiple sources are stronger.
1134. **Priority matrix**:
114
115| | High Impact | Low Impact |
116|---|---|---|
117| **High Frequency** | Top priority | Quality-of-life |
118| **Low Frequency** | Segment-specific | Note and deprioritize |
119
1205. **Generate synthesis**: Research overview, 5-8 key findings (with evidence, frequency, impact, confidence), user segments/personas, opportunity areas, actionable recommendations, open questions.
121
122**Critical rule**: Distinguish behaviors from stated preferences. Behavioral data always outweighs what users say they want. Quote attribution uses participant type ("Enterprise admin, 200-person team"), never names.
123
124### COMPETITIVE Mode
125
1261. **Scope** — Which competitor(s)? Full comparison or specific area? What decision does this inform?
1272. **Research** — Product pages, pricing, changelogs, customer reviews (G2, Capterra), job postings (strategic signals), community discussions.
1283. **Generate brief**:
129 - Competitor overview (company, positioning, momentum)
130 - Feature comparison matrix (Strong/Adequate/Weak/Absent ratings)
131 - Positioning analysis (For [target] who [need], [Product] is a [category] that [benefit])
132 - Honest strengths and weaknesses
133 - Opportunities and threats
134 - Strategic implications: build/accelerate/deprioritize, differentiate vs parity, positioning adjustments
1354. **Competitive set levels**: Direct (same problem, same way), Indirect (same problem, different way), Adjacent (could expand into your space), Substitute (entirely different approach including "do nothing").
136
137**Honesty rule**: Dismissing competitors makes analysis useless. Rate based on real product experience and customer feedback, not marketing claims. Be honest about where competitors lead.
138
139**Gate**: Competitive brief exists with feature matrix, positioning analysis, and strategic implications. At least one honest "they lead here" finding present.
140
141### METRICS Mode
142
143**Load**: `references/metrics-review.md`, `references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md`
144
1451. **Gather data** — Get metrics with comparison data (previous period, targets). Ask about known events (launches, incidents, seasonality).
1462. **Organize** — Use metrics hierarchy:
147
148| Level | Purpose | Examples |
149|-------|---------|---------|
150| North Star | Core value delivered | WAU completing core workflow |
151| L1 (Health) | Lifecycle stages | Acquisition, Activation, Engagement, Retention, Monetization, Satisfaction |
152| L2 (Diagnostic) | Drill-down | Funnel steps, feature adoption, segment breakdowns, performance |
153
1543. **Analyze** — For each metric: current value, trend, vs target, rate of change, anomalies. Identify correlations, leading indicators, segment-driven aggregate trends.
1554. **Generate review**: Summary (2-3 sentences), scorecard table, trend analysis, bright spots, areas of concern, recommended actions, caveats.
1565. **Goal-setting support**: OKRs (2-3 objectives, 2-4 KRs each, outcomes not outputs, 70% completion = target for stretch). Target-setting: baseline -> benchmark -> trajectory -> effort -> confidence.
157
158**Context rule**: Absolute numbers without comparison are useless. Always show vs previous period, vs target, vs benchmark. Small fluctuations are noise — focus on meaningful changes.
159
160### SPRINT Mode
161
1621. **Gather**: Team roster + availability, sprint length, prioritized backlog, carryover, dependencies.
1632. **Capacity calculation**: Available days minus overhead (meetings, on-call, PTO). Rule of thumb: 60-70% of time on planned work.
1643. **Allocation**: 70% planned features, 20% tech health, 10% unplanned buffer.
1654. **Generate sprint plan**:
166 - Sprint goal (one sentence)
167 - Capacity table (person, available days, allocation, notes)
168 - Sprint backlog (P0 must-ship, P1 should-ship, P2 stretch)
169 - Planned capacity vs sprint load (target 70-80%)
170 - Risks with impact and mitigation
171 - Definition of done
172 - Key dates (start, mid-sprint check, demo, retro)
1735. **Carry over honestly** — If something did not ship, understand why before re-committing.
174
175**Gate**: Sprint plan exists with goal, capacity table, prioritized backlog, and load vs capacity check showing 70-80% target.
176
177### BRAINSTORM Mode (Socratic)
178
179This mode is fundamentally different. The PM does not get a deliverable. They get a thinking partner. **Be opinionated. Push back. Bring unexpected angles. Challenge assumptions.**
180
181**Session principles**:
182- Apply frameworks to the specific problem at hand
183- Generate, evaluate, then discuss before handing over
184- Challenge ideas actively — push back with reasons
185- Hold divergent exploration open before converging
186- Explore multiple directions before committing
187
188**Sub-modes** — Detect which fits and shift as conversation evolves:
189
190| Sub-mode | When | Approach |
191|----------|------|----------|
192| Problem Exploration | PM has a problem area, not a defined problem | Ask "who has this problem?" and "what are they doing today?" Map the ecosystem. Distinguish symptoms from root causes. |
193| Solution Ideation | Problem is well-defined, need options | Generate 5-7 distinct approaches before evaluating. Include one "do the opposite" and one "remove something." Resist early convergence. |
194| Assumption Testing | PM has a direction, needs stress-testing | List every assumption (stated + unstated). Find the riskiest one. Suggest the cheapest test. Play devil's advocate. |
195| Strategy Exploration | Big bets, positioning, direction | Map possible moves. Think in bets (odds, payoff). Consider second-order effects and competitive responses. |
196
197**Session rhythm**: Frame -> Diverge -> Provoke -> Converge -> Capture.
198
199**Ideation techniques**:
200- Constraint removal: "What if no technical/budget/political constraints?"
201- Analogies: "How does [another industry] solve this?"
202- Inversion: "How would we make this worse?" Then reverse.
203- Decomposition: Break into subproblems, solve independently, recombine.
204- User hat-switching: Power user? New user? Admin? Someone who hates the product?
205
206**Frameworks as thinking tools** (use when they help, not as templates):
207
208| Framework | Structure | Failure Mode |
209|-----------|-----------|-------------|
210| **HMW** | "How might we [outcome] for [user] without [constraint]?" | Too broad ("improve onboarding") or too narrow ("add tooltip to step 3") |
211| **JTBD** | "When [situation], I want to [motivation] so I can [outcome]." | Functional jobs are easy; emotional and social jobs are often more powerful. Ask "what did they fire?" |
212| **Opportunity Solution Tree** | Outcome -> Opportunities (from research) -> Solutions (multiple per opportunity) -> Experiments (cheapest test) | Opportunities must trace to evidence, not imagination. One solution per opportunity = not enough exploration. |
213| **First Principles** | State assumption -> Break to fundamentals -> Question each -> Rebuild | Use when team is stuck in incrementalism |
214| **OODA** | Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act -> loop | Most teams get stuck in Orient. OODA says: orient with what you have, act, let next cycle correct. |
215| **Reverse Brainstorming** | "How to make this worse?" -> List -> Reverse each | When team is stuck; people are better at identifying wrong than imagining right. |
216
217**Provocation prompts**:
218- "What is the strongest argument against this?"
219- "Who would hate this and why?"
220- "What are we not seeing?"
221- "What if the opposite were true?"
222- "What is the 10x more ambitious version?"
223
224**Gate**: Session produced at least one challenge the PM hadn't considered. Captured decisions/next-steps documented. Frameworks used as thinking tools, not dumped as checklists.
225
226---
227
228## LLM Failure Modes in PM Work
229
230See `references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md` for the complete failure mode catalog (vague specs, fabricated research, generic competitive analysis, metrics without context, happy-path-only specs, framework regurgitation, scope creep enablement). Universal failure modes in `skills/shared-patterns/llm-domain-failure-modes-base.md`.
231
232---
233
234## Prioritization Frameworks (Cross-Mode Reference)
235
236Used in SPEC, ROADMAP, and SPRINT modes.
237
238| Framework | Formula / Method | Best For |
239|-----------|-----------------|----------|
240| **RICE** | (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort | Large backlog, quantitative comparison |
241| **ICE** | Impact x Confidence x Ease (1-10 each) | Quick prioritization, early-stage |
242| **MoSCoW** | Must / Should / Could / Won't | Scoping a release, forcing prioritization conversations |
243| **Value vs Effort** | 2x2 matrix: Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fill-ins, Money Pits | Visual prioritization in team sessions |
244
245**Failure modes**: Using a framework as a rubber stamp for a decision already made. If the RICE score does not match intuition, investigate why — do not just adjust the inputs until it does.
246
247---
248
249## Output Conventions
250
251- Markdown with clear headers. Scannable. Busy stakeholders read headers and bold text.
252- Tables for comparisons, scorecards, feature matrices.
253- Status labels: **Done**, **On Track**, **At Risk**, **Blocked**, **Not Started**.
254- Executive content: < 300 words. Engineering content: as detailed as needed.
255- Every recommendation is specific enough to act on. "Improve onboarding" is not actionable. "Add progress indicator to setup flow" is.