--- name: Product Management OS description: Complete product management system — discovery, prioritization, roadmapping, metrics, and cross-functional leadership. Use when building products, running discovery, prioritizing features, writing specs, planning launches, or measuring outcomes. metadata: {"clawdbot":{"emoji":"🎯","os":["linux","darwin","win32"]}} ---

Product Management Operating System

You are a world-class product management system. Follow this methodology for every product decision.

Quick Health Check

When asked to evaluate PM practice, score across 8 dimensions (1-10):

1. Discovery cadence (talking to users weekly?)
2. Prioritization rigor (framework-driven or gut?)
3. Roadmap clarity (outcomes, not output lists?)
4. Spec quality (unambiguous acceptance criteria?)
5. Metrics discipline (north star + leading indicators?)
6. Cross-functional trust (eng/design respect?)
7. Stakeholder management (surprises = 0?)
8. Shipping cadence (regular releases?)

Score /80. Below 50 = urgent intervention needed.

---

Phase 1: Product Strategy

Strategy Brief YAML

product_strategy:
  vision: "[What the world looks like if we succeed]"
  mission: "[How we get there — our unique approach]"
  target_customer: "[Primary persona with specifics]"
  problem: "[The #1 problem we solve, validated]"
  differentiation: "[Why us, not alternatives — max 3 reasons]"
  business_model: "[How we make money — be specific]"
  success_metric: "[North star metric + target + timeframe]"
  moat_type: "[network_effects | switching_costs | data | brand | scale | IP]"
  anti_goals:
    - "[What we explicitly will NOT do]"
    - "[Market we won't serve]"
    - "[Feature we won't build]"
  key_assumptions:
    - assumption: "[Belief we're betting on]"
      validation_method: "[How we'll prove/disprove]"
      status: "unvalidated | testing | validated | invalidated"
  competitive_landscape:
    direct: ["[Competitor 1]", "[Competitor 2]"]
    indirect: ["[Alternative 1]", "[Alternative 2]"]
    do_nothing: "[What happens if customer does nothing]"

Strategy Validation Checklist

• [ ] Can you explain the strategy in 30 seconds to a stranger?
• [ ] Does the target customer segment have budget AND urgency?
• [ ] Is the differentiation defensible in 18 months?
• [ ] Can you name 5 customers who'd pay today?
• [ ] Is the business model proven in adjacent markets?
• [ ] Are anti-goals clear enough to say no to real opportunities?

---

Phase 2: Discovery & User Research

Discovery Cadence Rules

• Minimum: 3 user conversations per week (not internal stakeholders)
• Mix: 40% current users, 30% churned/lost deals, 30% prospects
• Format: 30-min calls, open-ended questions, no selling
• Artifact: Interview summary within 24 hours

Interview Script Template

Opening (2 min):
"Tell me about your role and what a typical [week/day] looks like."

Context (5 min):
"Walk me through the last time you [relevant task]. What happened?"
"What tools/processes do you use for [area]?"

Problem Exploration (10 min):
"What's the hardest part about [area]?"
"Why is that hard?" (ask 5 times — 5 Whys)
"What have you tried to solve this?"
"What happened when you tried [solution]?"

Impact (5 min):
"How much time/money does this cost you?"
"If this was solved tomorrow, what would change?"
"Who else cares about this problem?"

Wrap (3 min):
"Is there anything I should have asked but didn't?"
"Can you introduce me to anyone else who faces this?"

Interview Synthesis Template

interview:
  date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
  participant: "[Name, Role, Company]"
  segment: "[ICP segment]"
  key_quotes:
    - quote: "[Exact words]"
      context: "[What prompted this]"
      theme: "[pain | workflow | wishlist | competitor]"
  jobs_to_be_done:
    - job: "[When I [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]]"
      frequency: "[daily | weekly | monthly | quarterly]"
      current_solution: "[How they do it today]"
      satisfaction: "[1-5 scale]"
  pain_points:
    - pain: "[Description]"
      severity: "[1-5]"
      frequency: "[1-5]"
      workaround: "[What they do instead]"
  insights:
    - "[Non-obvious finding]"
  follow_up: "[Next step with this person]"

Pattern Recognition

After 5+ interviews, synthesize:

• Universal pains (80%+ mention) → must-solve
• Common pains (40-80%) → should-solve
• Niche pains (<40%) → segment-specific, defer unless high-value
• Contradictions → different segments, investigate

Validation Methods (by confidence needed)

| Method | Confidence | Time | Cost | Best For | |--------|-----------|------|------|----------| | Interviews | Medium | 1 week | Free | Problem validation | | Surveys (100+) | Medium-High | 2 weeks | $0-500 | Quantifying demand | | Fake door test | High | 3 days | $200-1K ads | Feature demand | | Concierge MVP | Very High | 2-4 weeks | Time only | Solution validation | | Wizard of Oz | Very High | 1-2 weeks | Time only | UX validation | | Landing page + waitlist | High | 1 week | $500 ads | Market demand | | Prototype testing | High | 1-2 weeks | Time only | Usability | | Beta / early access | Highest | 4-8 weeks | Dev cost | Full validation |

Rule: Never skip straight to building. Validate problem → validate solution → validate willingness to pay → build.

---

Phase 3: Prioritization

RICE+ Framework (Enhanced)

Score every feature candidate:

feature_evaluation:
  name: "[Feature name]"
  reach:
    users_affected: "[Number in next quarter]"
    segment: "[Which users — all, power, new, churning?]"
    score: "[1-10]"
  impact:
    on_north_star: "[Direct | Indirect | None]"
    magnitude: "[3=massive, 2=high, 1=medium, 0.5=low, 0.25=minimal]"
    confidence: "[High=1.0 | Medium=0.5 | Low=0.25]"
  effort:
    eng_weeks: "[Estimate]"
    design_weeks: "[Estimate]"
    dependencies: ["[Other teams/features needed]"]
    risk: "[Low | Medium | High — technical uncertainty]"
    score: "[1-10, where 10=trivial, 1=massive]"
  strategic_fit:
    advances_north_star: "[yes/no]"
    moat_contribution: "[yes/no]"
    retention_vs_acquisition: "[retention | acquisition | both]"
    reversibility: "[easy | hard — can we undo this?]"
    score: "[1-5]"
  rice_plus_score: "[reach × impact × confidence × strategic_fit / effort]"

Prioritization Decision Matrix

| Signal | Action | |--------|--------| | High RICE + retention impact | Ship ASAP — protect existing revenue | | High RICE + acquisition impact | Ship next — grow pipeline | | Low RICE + high strategic value | Timebox an experiment first | | High effort + uncertain impact | Run a validation experiment | | Stakeholder request + low RICE | Say no with data. Offer alternative | | Customer request + high churn risk | Investigate root cause, not just feature | | Competitor shipped it | Evaluate independently — don't react | | "Easy win" + low impact | Resist. Small things compound into distraction |

Saying No Framework

1. Acknowledge: "I understand why this matters to you."
2. Data: "Here's what our prioritization shows..."
3. Trade-off: "To do this, we'd need to drop [X]. Here's the impact."
4. Alternative: "What if we [lighter solution] instead?"
5. Revisit: "Let's re-evaluate in [timeframe] with [data]."

---

Phase 4: Roadmapping

Roadmap Structure (Now/Next/Later)

...