Back to list
mattgierhart

prd-v01-problem-framing

by mattgierhart

PRD-driven Context Engineering: A systematic approach to building AI-powered products using progressive documentation and context-aware development workflows

9🍴 2📅 Jan 24, 2026

SKILL.md


name: prd-v01-problem-framing description: > Transform vague product ideas into evidence-anchored problem statements for PRD v0.1 Spark. Triggers on starting new products/features, validating market opportunities, drafting PRD Why sections, or requests like "frame the problem", "define pain points", "write problem statement", "start v0.1", "what problem are we solving". Outputs structured problem tables with CFD evidence IDs.

Problem Framing Skill

Transform market signals into evidence-anchored problem statements.

Workflow Overview

  1. Assess gaps → Identify what evidence is missing
  2. Anchor evidence → Create CFD-IDs for each pain point
  3. Extract dimensions → Pull multiple problems from each source
  4. Quantify costs → Add time/money/risk numbers
  5. Draft statement → Populate the problem table

Core Output Template

Populate this table for every problem statement:

ElementDefinitionEvidence
Who is hurting?Specific, findable, countable personaSegment size
What pain exists?Observable behavior or workflow frictionCFD-ID
Cost of problemTime, money, or opportunity lostQuantified
Why now?Market trigger creating urgencyTrend/event
What's impossible?Opportunity cost—what can't they doUser quote

See assets/problem-statement.md for copy-paste template.

Step 1: Gap Assessment

Before drafting, create this status table:

ElementStatusSource
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:

CFD-###
Source: [Platform/Person]
Tier: [1-5]
Quote: "[Verbatim]"
Dimensions: [List problems extracted]

Evidence Tier Hierarchy:

  • Tier 1: Buying behavior (invoices, subscriptions, job budgets)
  • Tier 2: Active workarounds (spreadsheets, hired help)
  • Tier 3: Complaints with cost ("costs me X hours")
  • Tier 4: General complaints ("this is annoying")
  • Tier 5: Speculation — REJECT

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:

TypeCalculation
TimeHours/week × hourly rate
MoneyCurrent spend on workaround
OpportunityRevenue/outcomes missed
RiskPenalty × 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

PatternExampleFix
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).

Score

Total Score

75/100

Based on repository quality metrics

SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20
LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10
説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

+10
人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15
最近の活動

1ヶ月以内に更新

+10
フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5
Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5
言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5
タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

+5

Reviews

💬

Reviews coming soon