prd-v04-persona-definition

# Persona Definition

Position in workflow: v0.3 Feature Value Planning → **v0.4 Persona Definition** → v0.4 User Journey Mapping

Personas are not demographic profiles—they are behavioral models synthesized from evidence. Every persona must trace back to CFD- research, BR- targeting rules, and FEA- features they care about.

## Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.1-v0.3:

- **CFD-\* problem statements and pain points** (from v0.1 Problem Framing) — Behavioral signals about what users struggle with
- **CFD-\* value hypotheses** (from v0.1 User Value Articulation) — Evidence about what users want to accomplish
- **CFD-\* competitive intelligence and segment gaps** (from v0.2 Competitive Landscape) — Market segmentation and underserved signals
- **BR-\* targeting rules** (from v0.3 Moat Definition) — Constraints on which segments to pursue (switchers vs. new-to-category, etc.)
- **BR-\* product type classification** (from v0.2 Product Type Classification) — Determines which personas matter (Clone = feature parity users; Undercut = price-sensitive niche)
- **FEA-\* entries** (from v0.3 Features Value Planning) — Feature list to validate which features each persona cares about
- **MVP-SCOPE artifact** (from v0.3 Features Value Planning) — The explicit list of features defining MVP; personas map to MVP feature set only

This skill assumes v0.1-v0.3 work is complete.

## Produces

This skill creates/updates:

- **PER-\* entries** (persona definitions, confidence 2-3/5) — Behavioral profiles tied to CFD/BR/FEA evidence with acquisition channels and pricing sensitivity
- **Persona coverage artifact** — Map of which personas are Primary/Secondary and which product type segments they represent

All PER- entries should include:
- `confidence: 2-3/5` (based on evidence tier from CFD interviews and BR targeting decisions)
- Evidence source citations (CFD-ID references + BR-ID targeting rules)
- Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate persona behaviors with 5+ actual customers"

Example PER- entry with confidence:
```markdown
PER-001: The Overwhelmed Ops Manager
Source IDs: CFD-003 (pain: manual tracking), CFD-012 (value: automation), BR-041 (targeting: switchers at renewal)
Type: Primary
Confidence: 3/5 (source: 4-customer-interviews-jan-2026 + competitive-landscape confirms segment underserved)
Segment: SMB SaaS companies (10-50 employees)

Demographics:
  Role: Operations Manager / Head of Ops
  Context: Growing startup, wearing multiple hats, no dedicated tools budget
  Technical Level: Intermediate (comfortable with SaaS, not a developer)

Behavioral Profile:
  Goals: Reduce time spent on manual reporting (CFD-012)
  Frustrations: Current tools require too much setup (CFD-003)
  Decision Factors: Ease of use > feature count, must show ROI to CEO (CFD-025)
  Current Workflow: Spreadsheets + manual data entry + weekly report compilation

Product Relationship:
  Primary Value: CFD-012 ("Save 5 hours/week on reporting")
  Key Features: FEA-001 (auto-sync), FEA-003 (one-click reports), FEA-007 (dashboard) — all in MVP-SCOPE
  Pricing Sensitivity: BR-030 (SMB tier ≤$50/mo)
  Acquisition Channel: BR-041 (target at contract renewal of competing tools)

Marketing Hook: "Stop building reports. Start using them."
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if 5+ actual SMB ops managers validate this behavior in paid usage"
```

## Core Constraint

**Maximum 5 personas. Most products need 1-2.**

If you have more than 3, you're likely over-segmenting by demographics instead of behavior. Consolidate ruthlessly.

## Persona Types

| Type | Definition | When to Create |
|------|------------|----------------|
| **Primary** | Core user, drives most revenue | Always (at least 1) |
| **Secondary** | Important but not primary buyer | If distinct needs exist |
| **Negative** | Who we explicitly exclude | If exclusion is strategic |
| **Aspirational** | Future target, not current focus | Only for roadmap planning |

**Rule**: Primary personas must link to primary revenue KPI-. If a persona doesn't influence revenue, question whether it's truly primary.

## Evidence Requirements

Every persona field must link to prior stage evidence:

| Persona Field | Must Link To | Source Stage |
|---------------|--------------|--------------|
| Goals | CFD- value hypothesis | v0.1 User Value Articulation |
| Frustrations | CFD- pain points | v0.1 Problem Framing |
| Decision Factors | CFD- competitive research | v0.2 Competitive Landscape |
| Key Features | FEA- entries | v0.3 Feature Value Planning |
| Pricing Sensitivity | BR- pricing rules | v0.3 Pricing Model |
| Acquisition Channel | BR- targeting rules | v0.3 Moat Definition |

**No link = No claim.** If you can't cite evidence, the attribute is assumption, not fact.

## Synthesis Process

1. **Pull USER TYPE** from v0.1 Problem Framing (CFD-)
   - These are your candidate personas

2. **Pull SEGMENTS** from v0.2 Market Definition (CFD-, BR-)
   - How is the market divided? Which segments are we targeting?

3. **Pull TARGETING RULES** from v0.3 Moat Definition (BR-)
   - New-to-category vs. Switchers? Trigger moments?

4. **Synthesize behavioral patterns** from all CFD- evidence
   - What goals unite this segment?
   - What frustrations are consistent?

5. **Map FEA- features** to each persona
   - Which features matter most to each?
   - This informs journey mapping

6. **Create PER- entries** with full traceability

## PER- Output Template

```
PER-XXX: [Persona Name]
Source IDs: [CFD-XXX, CFD-YYY, BR-ZZZ that inform this persona]
Type: [Primary | Secondary | Negative | Aspirational]
Segment: [From v0.2 market segment]

Demographics:
  Role: [Job title / function]
  Context: [Company size, industry, team structure]
  Technical Level: [Novice | Intermediate | Expert]

Behavioral Profile:
  Goals: [What they're trying to achieve — link to CFD- value]
  Frustrations: [Current pain points — link to CFD- pain]
  Decision Factors: [What influences their choices — link