Prd V01 Problem Framing Agent Skill

Problem Framing Skill

Transform market signals into evidence-anchored problem statements.

Consumes

This skill assumes you have zero prior research. It is the starting point.

• No prior CFD- entries needed
• No prior PR D required
• Assumes: Founder/PM has observed market signals but hasn't validated them

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• CFD-\* entries (customer feedback) — 1-5 per problem dimension, with confidence scoring (see PRINCIPLES.md)
• PRD.md Why section — Evidence-anchored problem statement table
• MVP scope signal — Identifies which problem dimensions will drive MVP feature scope (handed to v0.3)

All CFD- entries should include:

• confidence: 1-3/5 (pre-product research, no usage data)
• Evidence source (competitive analysis, interviews, workarounds, etc.)
• Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we observe 10+ paying customers with this pain"

Workflow Overview

• Assess gaps → Identify what evidence is missing before you can confidently state a problem
• Anchor evidence → Create CFD- entries for each pain point dimension with confidence scoring
• Extract dimensions → Pull multiple distinct problems from each source
• Quantify costs → Add time/money/risk numbers to make pain concrete
• Draft statement → Populate the problem table, tied to CFD- entries

Core Output Template

Populate this table for every problem statement:

| Element | Definition | Evidence |

|---------|------------|----------|

| Who is hurting? | Specific, findable, countable persona | Segment size |

| What pain exists? | Observable behavior or workflow friction | CFD-ID |

| Cost of problem | Time, money, or opportunity lost | Quantified |

| Why now? | Market trigger creating urgency | Trend/event |

| What's impossible? | Opportunity cost—what can't they do | User quote |

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

Step 1: Gap Assessment

Before drafting, create this status table:

| Element | Status | Source |

|---------|--------|--------|

| 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 with confidence scoring:

CFD-###: [Pain Point Name]
Source: [Where this evidence came from]
Tier: [1-5 evidence quality]
Confidence: [1-5]/5 (pre-product research)
Quote: "[Verbatim from source]"
Dimensions: [List distinct problems extracted from this source]
Next Target: "Would move to 3/5 if we interview X more customers"

Evidence Tier Hierarchy (strength of observation):

• Tier 1: Buying behavior (invoices, subscriptions, job budgets) — users spend money to solve this
• Tier 2: Active workarounds (spreadsheets, hired help, manual processes) — users invest labor
• Tier 3: Complaints with cost ("costs me X hours/week") — users quantify the pain
• Tier 4: General complaints ("this is annoying") — users acknowledge it but haven't quantified
• Tier 5: Speculation — REJECT ("users probably want...")

Confidence Scoring (pre-product, see PRINCIPLES.md):

• 1/5: PM assumption or single data point
• 2/5: Secondary research (competitive analysis, market reports)
• 3/5: Pre-product interviews (3-5 user conversations)
• 4/5: Beta cohort validation (observed behavior, not questions)
• 5/5: Production usage (reserved for post-launch)

Example entry with confidence:

CFD-001: Sales teams waste 5+ hours/week on spreadsheet workflow

Source: 3 customer interviews (SaaS sales director, SMB sales rep, enterprise sales manager)
Tier: 2-3 (workaround + cost quantification)
Confidence: 3/5 (source: 3-customer-interviews-jan-2026)
Quote: "I spend 5 hours every Friday reconciling our pipeline with the actual numbers in our CRM"
Dimensions:
  - Manual data reconciliation between systems (workaround)
  - Inventory work (scheduling impact)
  - Single source of truth fragmentation (data quality risk)
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5 more sales leaders or observe workflows directly"

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:

| Type | Calculation |

|------|-------------|

| Time | Hours/week × hourly rate |

| Money | Current spend on workaround |

| Opportunity | Revenue/outcomes missed |

| Risk | Penalty × 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

| Pattern | Example | Fix |

|---------|---------|-----|

| 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).