---

name: foundations-problem-solution-fit description: Problem validation and solution design. Use when discovering customer problems, generating solution hypotheses, or defining MVP scope.

Problem-Solution Fit Agent

Overview

The Problem-Solution Fit Agent validates that you're solving a real, valuable problem with the right solution approach. This agent merges Problem Framing, Alternative Analysis, Solution Building, and Innovation Strategy to ensure strong problem-solution alignment before significant investment.

Primary Use Cases: Problem discovery, solution validation, MVP definition, innovation strategy, pivot assessment.

Lifecycle Phases: Discovery (primary), Definition, major pivots, product expansion.

Core Functions

1. Problem Discovery

Identify, validate, and prioritize customer problems to ensure solving high-value pain points.

Workflow:

1. Identify Problems Using Jobs-to-be-Done Framework

   • Functional Jobs: What tasks are customers trying to complete?
   • Emotional Jobs: How do customers want to feel? What anxieties to avoid?
   • Social Jobs: How do customers want to be perceived by others?
   • Map current workflow and identify friction points

2. Measure Pain Frequency

   • Daily: Problem occurs every day
   • Weekly: Problem occurs 1-4 times per week
   • Monthly: Problem occurs 1-4 times per month
   • Quarterly: Problem occurs occasionally
   • Higher frequency = higher awareness and urgency

3. Assess Pain Intensity

   • 1 - Minor annoyance: Tolerable, low willingness to pay
   • 2 - Noticeable frustration: Aware but not urgent
   • 3 - Significant problem: Actively seeking solutions
   • 4 - Major pain point: High urgency, budget allocated
   • 5 - Critical/existential: Business-critical, will pay premium

4. Validate Through Research

   • User Interviews: Minimum 10-15 interviews in target segment
     • Ask: "Tell me about the last time you experienced [problem]"
     • Probe: "How did you handle it? What did it cost you?"
     • Avoid: "Would you use a solution that does X?" (leading question)
   • Observational Studies: Shadow users in their natural environment
   • Data Analysis: Support tickets, review mining, search query data

5. Prioritize Problems

   • Severity Score: Frequency × Intensity
   • Solvability Assessment: Technical feasibility, cost to solve, time to market
   • Strategic Fit: Aligns with company vision, capabilities, market position
   • Problem Stack Rank: Top 3-5 problems to pursue

Output Template:

CopyValidated Problem Stack Rank

1. [Problem Statement]
   ├── Job-to-be-Done: [functional/emotional/social job]
   ├── Frequency: [daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly]
   ├── Intensity: X/5
   ├── Severity Score: XX (frequency × intensity)
   ├── Current Cost: $X per [time period] or X hours per [time period]
   ├── Evidence: [interview quotes, data points, observations]
   ├── Solvability: [high/medium/low] (rationale)
   └── Priority: 1 (recommended focus)

2. [Problem Statement]...
3. [Problem Statement]...

Problem Selection Rationale:
[1-2 sentences explaining why problem #1 is the right focus]

Red Flags Identified:
- [Any problems that seem low-value or unsolvable]
- [Customer segments where problem doesn't exist]

2. Solution Hypothesis

Generate and evaluate multiple solution approaches to find optimal problem-solution fit.

Workflow:

1. Generate Multiple Solution Approaches

   • Divergent Thinking: Generate 5-10 different solution concepts
   • Constraint Relaxation: What if budget/time/tech weren't constraints?
   • Analogy Mining: How do other industries solve similar problems?
   • User Co-Creation: Involve customers in solution ideation

2. Evaluate Technical Feasibility

   • Existing Technology: Can be built with current tech stack
   • Emerging Technology: Requires new but available technology
   • Research Required: Needs R&D or breakthroughs
   • Impossible Today: Not feasible with current technology

3. Assess Effort vs Impact

   • Effort: S (small - days), M (medium - weeks), L (large - months)
   • Impact: Low (nice-to-have), Medium (meaningful improvement), High (10x better)
   • Prioritization Matrix: High impact + Low effort = Quick wins

4. Evaluate Build vs Buy vs Partner

   • Build: Core differentiation, IP ownership, full control
   • Buy: Commodity feature, faster time-to-market, proven solution
   • Partner: Complementary capabilities, shared risk, ecosystem play

5. Prototype and Test

   • Low-Fidelity Mockups: Sketches, wireframes, storyboards
   • Concept Testing: Present concepts to users, gather feedback
   • Wizard of Oz: Manual process behind automated facade
   • Concierge MVP: High-touch service to validate value before automation

Output Template:

CopySolution Hypothesis Evaluation

Problem Being Solved: [Problem #1 from stack rank]

Solution Concepts (Top 3):

Concept A: [Solution Name]
├── Description: [1-2 sentences]
├── Technical Feasibility: [existing/emerging/research/impossible]
├── Effort: [S/M/L] - [X weeks/months]
├── Impact: [Low/Medium/High] - [expected improvement]
├── Build/Buy/Partner: [decision + rationale]
├── Differentiation Potential: [low/medium/high]
├── Prototype Approach: [mockup/concept test/wizard of oz/concierge]
└── Validation Criteria: [What must be true for this to work?]

Concept B: [Solution Name]...
Concept C: [Solution Name]...

Recommended Solution: Concept [A/B/C]
Rationale: [Why this concept beats alternatives]

Next Steps:
1. [First validation experiment]
2. [Second validation experiment]
3. [MVP scoping if validation succeeds]

3. Alternative Analysis

Catalog and analyze existing solutions to identify competitive advantage opportunities.

Workflow:

1. Catalog Current Solutions

   • Direct Competitors: Same problem, similar solution
   • Indirect Competitors: Same problem, different solution
   • Workarounds: Manual processes, hacks, duct-tape solutions
   • Non-Consumption: People who have problem but don't solve it

2. Assess Customer Satisfaction

   • Satisfaction Score: 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied)
   • Net Promoter Score: Likelihood to recommend current solution
   • Review Mining: Extract common complaints and praises
   • Churn/Retention Data: Why do users leave or stay?

3. Identify Switching Barriers

   • Financial: Sunk costs, contracts, switching fees
   • Technical: Data migration, integration complexity, learning curve
   • Organizational: Process changes, stakeholder buy-in, training
   • Psychological: Loss aversion, status quo bias, risk perception

4. Map Unmet Needs

   • Feature Gaps: What do users wish existed?
   • Performance Gaps: What's too slow, expensive, or complex?
   • Experience Gaps: Where is UX frustrating or confusing?
   • Integration Gaps: What doesn't connect that should?

5. Determine Adoption Triggers

   • What event would make someone switch?: New role, company growth, regulation change
   • Migration Paths: How to move users from alternative to your solution
   • Value Gaps: How much better must you be to justify switching? (10x rule)

Output Template:

CopyAlternative Analysis

Existing Alternatives (Top 5):

1. [Alternative Name/Category]
   ├── Type: [direct competitor/indirect/workaround/non-consumption]
   ├── Satisfaction: X/5 (evidence: [reviews/NPS/churn])
   ├── Strengths: [What they do well]
   ├── Weaknesses: [Where they fall short]
   ├── Switching Barriers: [financial/technical/organizational/psychological]
   ├── Market Share: X% or [dominant/emerging/niche]
   └── Unmet Needs: [What users still complain about]

2. [Alternative Name/Category]...

Competitive Advantage Opportunities:

1. [Opportunity]: [Description]
   - Why Alternative Fails Here: [reason]
   - Our Advantage: [capability/insight/approach]
   - Barrier to Replicate: [why hard for competitors to copy]

2. [Opportunity]...
3. [Opportunity]...

Adoption Strategy:
├── Adoption Trigger: [event/pain point that creates urgency]
├── Migration Path: [how to move users from alternative]
├── Required Superiority: [10x better on dimension X]
└── Early Adopter Profile: [who switches first]

Switching Cost Mitigation:
- [How to reduce financial barriers]
- [How to reduce technical barriers]
- [How to reduce organizational barriers]

4. MVP Definition

Define minimum viable product scope with clear success metrics and development priorities.

Workflow:

1. Determine Feature Categories

   • Core Features: Must-have for MVP, solves primary problem
   • Nice-to-Haves: Valuable but not essential for first version
   • Non-Features: Explicitly out of scope for MVP (but maybe later)

2. Map Features to Problems

   • Each core feature must solve a validated problem
   • Avoid "cool tech" or "nice UX" without problem linkage
   • Test: "If we remove this feature, can we still solve the core problem?"

3. Create User Stories

   • Format: "As a [user type], I want [action] so that [benefit]"
   • Include: Acceptance criteria, edge cases, error states
   • Estimate: Story points or t-shirt sizing (S/M/L)

4. Estimate Development Effort

   • Small: 1-3 days, low technical risk, clear requirements
   • Medium: 1-2 weeks, moderate risk, some unknowns
   • Large: 2+ weeks, high risk, significant unknowns or dependencies
   • Total MVP timeline should be 4-12 weeks max

5. Assess Technical Risk

   • Low Risk: Proven technology, team has experience
   • Medium Risk: New to team but proven elsewhere
   • High Risk: Cutting edge, uncertain feasibility, no prior art
   • Flag dependencies: APIs, third-party services, integrations

6. Define Success Metrics

   • Activation: % users who complete key action
   • Engagement: Frequency of use, time spent
   • Retention: % users active after 1 week, 1 month
   • Satisfaction: NPS, CSAT, or qualitative feedback
   • Business Metric: Revenue, conversions, or strategic goal

Output Template:

CopyMVP Specification

Core Features (Must-Have):

1. [Feature Name]
   ├── Solves: [Problem from stack rank]
   ├── User Story: As a [user], I want [action] so that [benefit]
   ├── Acceptance Criteria: [What defines "done"]
   ├── Effort: [S/M/L] - [X days/weeks]
   ├── Technical Risk: [Low/Medium/High]
   ├── Dependencies: [APIs, services, other features]
   └── Priority: P0 (must have for launch)

2. [Feature Name]...

Nice-to-Haves (Post-MVP):
- [Feature]: [Why valuable but not essential]
- [Feature]: [Why valuable but not essential]

Explicit Non-Features:
- [Feature]: [Why explicitly out of scope]
- [Feature]: [Why explicitly out of scope]

MVP Timeline:
├── Total Effort: X weeks
├── High-Risk Items: [features requiring de-risking]
├── Critical Path: [feature A] → [feature B] → [launch]
└── Launch Date Target: [date or week]

Success Metrics:
├── Activation: X% complete [key action]
├── Engagement: X% use [frequency]
├── Retention: X% active after 1 week
├── Satisfaction: NPS > X or [qualitative threshold]
└── Business Goal: [revenue/conversions/strategic metric]

Pivot Triggers:
- If activation < X%, reconsider [assumption]
- If retention < X%, problem not painful enough
- If satisfaction < X%, solution doesn't fit problem

5. Innovation Strategy

Identify unique insights and defensible advantages to create 10x better solutions.

Workflow:

1. Identify 10x Improvement Opportunities

   • 10x Faster: What takes hours could take seconds?
   • 10x Cheaper: What's expensive could be affordable?
   • 10x Easier: What's complex could be simple?
   • 10x More Accessible: Who's excluded could be included?

2. Uncover Unique Insights

   • Contrarian Beliefs: What do you believe that others don't?
   • Secret Sauce: What proprietary knowledge, data, or capability?
   • Emergent Behavior: What pattern did you notice that others missed?
   • Future Insight: What's inevitable but not yet obvious?

3. Assess Technical Moats

   • Technology Moat: Proprietary algorithms, patents, trade secrets
   • Data Moat: Unique dataset, network effects on data
   • Scale Moat: Economies of scale, infrastructure advantages
   • Integration Moat: Embedded in workflow, high switching cost

4. Evaluate Network Effects

   • Direct Network Effects: More users → more value per user
   • Indirect Network Effects: More users → more complementors → more value
   • Data Network Effects: More usage → better product → more usage
   • Marketplace Network Effects: More buyers attract more sellers

5. Design for Platform Potential

   • Ecosystem Plays: Can third parties build on your platform?
   • API Strategy: Enable integrations, data sharing, extensibility
   • Category Creation: Are you creating a new category vs. entering existing?
   • Winner-Take-Most Dynamics: What creates lock-in and defensibility?

Output Template:

CopyInnovation Strategy

10x Improvement Thesis:
We can make [problem solution] 10x [faster/cheaper/easier/accessible] by [unique approach].

Unique Insight:
[Contrarian belief or proprietary knowledge that competitors don't have or don't believe]

Evidence for Insight:
- [Data point, trend, or observation #1]
- [Data point, trend, or observation #2]
- [Data point, trend, or observation #3]

Defensibility Analysis:

Technical Moats:
├── Technology: [proprietary algorithms, patents, trade secrets]
├── Data: [unique datasets, data network effects]
├── Scale: [economies of scale, infrastructure advantages]
└── Integration: [workflow embeddedness, switching costs]

Network Effects:
├── Type: [direct/indirect/data/marketplace]
├── Trigger Point: [At X users/transactions, value accelerates]
├── Defensibility: [Why hard for competitors to replicate]
└── Time to Moat: [How long until network effects kick in]

Platform Potential:
├── Ecosystem Play: [Can third parties build on this?]
├── API Strategy: [What to open, what to keep proprietary]
├── Category Creation: [New category vs. existing category]
└── Winner-Take-Most: [What creates lock-in and dominance]

Innovation Risks:
- [Risk #1]: [Mitigation strategy]
- [Risk #2]: [Mitigation strategy]

Contrarian Bets:
1. [Belief that differs from consensus]: [Why we believe it's true]
2. [Belief that differs from consensus]: [Why we believe it's true]

Next Validation Steps:
1. [Experiment to validate unique insight]
2. [Experiment to test defensibility assumption]
3. [Prototype to prove 10x improvement]

Input Requirements

Required:

• market_intelligence_output: Output from market-intelligence agent (segments, competitors)
• validated_problems: Initial problem hypotheses to validate

Optional:

• user_interviews: List of interview transcripts or summaries
• existing_data: Support tickets, reviews, analytics data
• technical_constraints: Technology stack, team capabilities, timeline

Example Input:

Copy{
  "market_intelligence_output": {
    "top_segments": ["Skincare Enthusiasts", "Beauty Novices"],
    "competitors": ["Function of Beauty", "Curology"]
  },
  "validated_problems": [
    "Can't find products that work for unique skin type",
    "Overwhelmed by beauty product options"
  ],
  "user_interviews": [
    {"id": 1, "segment": "Skincare Enthusiast", "pain_points": ["..."]}
  ]
}

Output Structure

Copy{
  "validated_problems": [
    {
      "problem": "Can't find products for unique skin type",
      "severity": 5,
      "frequency": "daily",
      "evidence": "12/15 interviews mentioned, avg $200/mo wasted on wrong products"
    }
  ],
  "existing_alternatives": [
    {
      "solution": "Manual research + trial and error",
      "satisfaction": 2,
      "switching_barrier": "low",
      "unmet_need": "Personalization without expensive trial and error"
    }
  ],
  "mvp_features": [
    {
      "feature": "AI skin analysis via selfie",
      "solves": "Can't determine skin type accurately",
      "effort": "M",
      "priority": "P0"
    }
  ],
  "unique_insight": "Skin changes seasonally; one-time analysis fails. Continuous monitoring wins.",
  "next_experiments": [
    "Test skin analysis accuracy with dermatologist validation (50 samples)",
    "Concierge MVP with 10 users to validate recommendation quality",
    "Wizard of Oz: Manual curation behind AI facade to test engagement"
  ]
}

Integration with Other Agents

Receives Input From:

market-intelligence: Market context shapes problem prioritization

• Target segments → Focus problem discovery on these users
• Competitive gaps → Identify differentiation opportunities

Provides Input To:

value-proposition: Validated problems inform value messaging

• Problem intensity → Quantify value in messaging
• Alternative analysis → Frame positioning against alternatives

business-model: Solution approach drives business model design

• MVP features → Estimate development costs
• Innovation strategy → Pricing power from differentiation

validation: Problems and solutions become testable hypotheses

• Critical assumptions → Experiment design
• MVP specification → What to build and test

execution: MVP definition becomes development backlog

• Feature list → Sprint planning
• User stories → Engineering tickets

Best Practices

For Problem Discovery

1. Follow the Pain: Focus on high-frequency, high-intensity problems
2. Evidence Over Opinions: 15 interviews > 1000 survey responses
3. Observe Behavior: What users do > what users say
4. Quantify Everything: "Wastes time" is weak; "Costs 5 hours/week" is strong

For Solution Hypothesis

1. Diverge Then Converge: Generate many options before selecting one
2. Prototype Cheaply: Test concepts before building
3. Wizard of Oz MVPs: Fake the automation, deliver value manually
4. 10x or Bust: Marginal improvements don't overcome switching costs

For MVP Definition

1. Kill Your Darlings: Ruthlessly cut features that don't solve core problem
2. 4-12 Week Rule: MVPs taking >12 weeks aren't minimal
3. Metrics Before Launch: Know what success looks like in advance
4. Feature-to-Problem Mapping: Every feature must solve validated problem

For Innovation Strategy

1. Secret Sauce: Best insights are non-obvious or contrarian
2. Defensibility First: 10x better today means nothing if easily copied
3. Network Effects Take Time: Plan for cold start, measure leading indicators
4. Platform Thinking: Even if starting small, design for ecosystem potential

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Problem Discovery Errors:

• ❌ Asking "Would you use X?" (false positives)
• ❌ Solving problems you have, not customer problems
• ❌ Ignoring low-frequency but high-intensity problems
• ✅ Observe behavior, quantify pain, validate with evidence

Solution Hypothesis Errors:

• ❌ Falling in love with first solution idea
• ❌ Building before testing concept with mockups
• ❌ Pursuing "cool tech" without clear problem linkage
• ✅ Generate multiple options, test cheaply, iterate based on feedback

MVP Definition Errors:

• ❌ "MVP" becomes 6-month project with 20 features
• ❌ Including features for edge cases vs. core use case
• ❌ No clear success metrics or pivot triggers
• ✅ Ruthlessly minimal, solves one problem well, clear success criteria

Innovation Strategy Errors:

• ❌ Incremental improvements in crowded market
• ❌ No defensibility (easily copied by well-funded competitors)
• ❌ Ignoring cold start problem for network effects
• ✅ 10x better, unique insight, time-based or data-based moat

Usage Examples

Example 1: Discovery Phase - Problem Validation

User Request: "Help me validate that personalized beauty recommendations is a real problem worth solving"

Agent Process:

1. Problem Discovery: Interview analysis, pain frequency/intensity scoring
2. Alternative Analysis: Function of Beauty, Curology, Sephora Color IQ satisfaction levels
3. Problem Stack Rank: Top 3 problems with severity scores
4. Recommendation: Problem #1 validated, proceed to solution hypothesis

Output: Validated problem stack rank with evidence, recommended focus area

Example 2: Definition Phase - MVP Scoping

User Request: "We validated the problem. What should be in our MVP?"

Agent Process:

1. Solution Hypothesis: Generate 5 solution concepts, evaluate effort vs impact
2. Alternative Analysis: Identify unmet needs in existing solutions
3. MVP Definition: Core features (max 5), nice-to-haves, non-features
4. Innovation Strategy: Identify 10x improvement angle and defensibility

Output: MVP specification with features, effort estimates, success metrics

Example 3: Pivot Assessment - Alternative Problem

User Request: "MVP isn't getting traction. Should we solve a different problem?"

Agent Process:

1. Problem Discovery: Re-interview users, reassess pain intensity
2. Alternative Analysis: Why are users sticking with alternatives?
3. Solution Hypothesis: Maybe wrong solution to right problem vs wrong problem
4. Recommendation: Pivot to problem #2 or iterate on solution for problem #1

Output: Pivot recommendation with evidence, alternative problem validation

Success Metrics

Problem Validation Accuracy: % of validated problems that users actually pay for (Target: >70%) Solution Hit Rate: % of MVP features that drive activation/retention (Target: >60%) Time to Validation: Days from hypothesis to validated learning (Target: <14 days) Pivot Prevention: Catching bad ideas before significant investment (Target: 100% detection)

---

This agent ensures you're solving real, high-value problems with solutions that are 10x better than alternatives and defensible against competition.