37signals-way
The 37signals-way skill guides product teams in building focused, profitable software by applying philosophy from Getting Real, Rework, and Shape Up. Activate it when users reference these books, discuss fixed-time variable-scope cycles, employ shaping and betting practices, run small teams, or deliberately constrain scope to ship faster. It scores product plans against 37signals principles and recommends changes to reach maximum alignment with their approach of building less, saying no by default, and treating constraints as creative enablers.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wondelai/skills /tmp/37signals-way && cp -r /tmp/37signals-way/37signals-way ~/.claude/skills/37signals-waySKILL.md
# The 37signals Product Development Framework
A system for building profitable software without bloat, bureaucracy, or burnout, distilled from three books: *Getting Real* (build less), *Rework* (say no by default), and *Shape Up* (fix time, flex scope). Use it to shape work, bet on six-week cycles, run small autonomous teams, and ship on a predictable cadence.
## Core Principle
**Build less.** The best products do fewer things exceptionally well — simplicity is the destination, not the starting point. Traditional development adds; the 37signals way subtracts: build half a product (not a half-assed product), say no by default, fix the time and flex the scope. Constraints are what make great work possible — six weeks, three people, and a shaped pitch force you to find the essential version.
## Scoring
**Goal: 10/10.** Rate product plans, feature scopes, and team processes 0-10 against these principles. Report the current score and the specific changes needed to reach 10/10.
- **9-10:** Fixed-time cycles, shaped pitches, small teams, no backlog, opinionated defaults, clear copy
- **7-8:** Mostly shaped work and small teams, but some scope creep or process overhead
- **5-6:** Some shaping happens, but backlogs persist, teams are too large, or preferences replace decisions
- **3-4:** Heavy process (standups, sprints, story points) with occasional simplicity efforts
- **0-2:** Feature factory: long-term roadmaps, large teams, estimation rituals, no shaping
### 1. Build Less, Underdo the Competition
**Core concept:** Win through deliberate omission — fewer features, fewer preferences, fewer moving parts, each done better than competitors do theirs. Build software you need yourself and solve problems you understand deeply.
**Why it works:** Every feature carries maintenance, cognitive, and opportunity costs forever, usually for a fraction of users. Building less keeps the product focused, the codebase manageable, and the team small.
**Key insights:**
- Half a product beats a half-assed product — do a few things well, not many things poorly
- Be a curator, not a hoarder: say no to good ideas so the great ones can breathe
- Make tiny decisions — big ones are hard to make and hard to reverse; small ones build momentum
- Underdo the competition: let them build the Swiss Army knife while you build the steak knife
- Focus on what won't change — speed, simplicity, reliability, ease of use
**Product applications:**
| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Feature prioritization** | Default answer is no | Reporting dashboard requested → ship CSV export covering 90% of use cases |
| **MVP scoping** | Cut until it hurts, then cut more | Drop user accounts for v1; use email magic links |
| **Competitive strategy** | Underdo, don't outdo | Competitor has 50 integrations; ship 3 that work flawlessly |
**Ethical boundary:** Cut complexity, not accessibility or safety — "less" means focused, not neglectful.
See: [references/build-less.md](references/build-less.md)
### 2. Shaping the Work
**Core concept:** Before work reaches a team, a senior person who bridges product and technical worlds makes it rough (room to maneuver), solved (main elements figured out), and bounded (scope limited by appetite).
**Why it works:** Raw ideas waste team time; detailed specs turn teams into ticket-takers. Shaping removes the biggest unknowns while leaving design freedom, and appetite ("how much time is this worth?") replaces estimation ("how long will this take?") — bounded investment instead of open-ended commitment.
**Key insights:**
- A shaped pitch has five elements: problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gos
- Breadboard flows as places, affordances, and connections — structure without visual design
- Fat marker sketches keep abstraction high; wireframes invite pixel-level feedback before the concept is validated
- Rabbit holes (scope-blowing risks) get addressed in the pitch, not during the build
- No-gos make boundaries visible, preventing scope creep before it starts
**Product applications:**
| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Feature design** | Breadboard before mockup | "Invite teammate": Settings → invite form → email sent → accept link → dashboard |
| **Scope definition** | Set appetite first | "A 2-week appetite problem, not a 6-week one" shapes which solution fits |
| **Risk management** | Call out rabbit holes upfront | "Permissions could get complex — limit to owner/member for v1" |
**Ethical boundary:** Set appetites that reflect the problem's genuine value — never artificially small to pressure teams.
See: [references/shaping-work.md](references/shaping-work.md)
### 3. Betting and Cycles
**Core concept:** Replace backlogs and roadmaps with a betting table: senior stakeholders bet shaped pitches into six-week cycles, separated by two-week cool-downs. Unfinished work hits the circuit breaker — it does not automatically continue.
**Why it works:** Backlogs grow forever, create false progress, and dilute focus; limited cycle slots force real prioritization. The circuit breaker kills zombie projects, and cool-downs prevent the burnout of continuous sprinting.
**Key insights:**
- Abolish the backlog — if an idea is important, it will come back
- Six weeks is long enough for meaningful work, short enough to feel the deadline
- Variable scope: teams cut non-essential scope to hit the fixed deadline, never the reverse
- Plan one cycle at a time — long-term roadmaps are stale commitments
- Most pitches don't get bet on, and that's healthy
**Product applications:**
| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Roadmap replacement** | Bet each cycle | 3-4 shaped pitches every 6 weeks instead of a 12-month roadmap |
| **Risk management** | Circuit breaker kills zombies | 70% done at week 6? It doesn't ship — re-shape and re-bet if it still matters |
| **Capacity planning** | Cool-downCreate uncontested market space using value innovation instead of competing head-to-head. Use when the user mentions "blue ocean", "red ocean", "strategy canvas", "ERRC framework", "value innovation", "non-customers", "buyer utility map", "eliminate-reduce-raise-create", or "uncontested market". Also trigger when comparing pricing strategies, exploring new market categories, finding underserved customer segments, or asking how to stop competing on price. Covers the Four Actions Framework, buyer utility map, and value-cost trade-offs. For tech adoption strategy, see crossing-the-chasm. For product positioning, see obviously-awesome.
Structure software around the Dependency Rule: source code dependencies point inward from frameworks to use cases to entities. Use when the user mentions "architecture layers", "dependency rule", "ports and adapters", "hexagonal architecture", "use case boundary", "onion architecture", "screaming architecture", or "framework independence". Also trigger when decoupling business logic from databases or frameworks, defining module boundaries, or debating where to put business rules. Covers component principles, boundaries, and SOLID. For code quality, see clean-code. For domain modeling, see domain-driven-design.
Write readable, maintainable code through disciplined naming, small functions, and clean error handling. Use when the user mentions "code review", "naming conventions", "function too long", "code smells", "readable code", "boy scout rule", "single responsibility", or "unit test quality". Also trigger when reviewing pull requests for readability, refactoring messy functions, debating comment styles, or improving error handling patterns. Covers SRP, comment discipline, formatting, and unit testing. For refactoring techniques, see refactoring-patterns. For architecture, see clean-architecture.
Engineer word-of-mouth and virality using the STEPPS framework (Social Currency, Triggers, Emotion, Public, Practical Value, Stories). Use when the user mentions "go viral", "word of mouth", "shareable content", "social currency", "why people share", "viral loop", "referral program", or "organic growth". Also trigger when designing shareable features, crafting social media campaigns, or building products that spread through peer recommendation. Covers environmental triggers and high-arousal emotional content. For sticky messaging, see made-to-stick. For persuasion tactics, see influence-psychology.
Build a weekly cadence of customer touchpoints using Opportunity Solution Trees, assumption mapping, and interview snapshots. Use when the user mentions "continuous discovery", "opportunity solution tree", "weekly interviews", "assumption testing", "discovery habits", "product trio", or "outcome-based roadmap". Also trigger when setting up regular customer feedback loops, prioritizing which experiments to run, or connecting discovery insights to delivery work. Covers experience mapping, co-creation, and prioritizing opportunities. For interview technique, see mom-test. For team structure, see inspired-product.
Audit websites and landing pages for conversion issues and design evidence-based A/B tests. Use when the user mentions "landing page isnt converting", "conversion rate", "A/B test", "why visitors leave", "objection handling", "bounce rate", "split testing", or "conversion funnel". Also trigger when diagnosing why signups are low, designing experiment hypotheses, or auditing checkout flows for friction points. Covers funnel mapping, persuasion assets, and objection/counter-objection frameworks. For overall marketing strategy, see one-page-marketing. For usability issues, see ux-heuristics.
Navigate the technology adoption lifecycle from early adopters to mainstream market. Use when the user mentions "crossing the chasm", "beachhead segment", "whole product", "early adopters vs. mainstream", "tech go-to-market", "bowling pin strategy", "technology adoption lifecycle", or "pragmatist buyers". Also trigger when a startup has early traction but struggles to grow beyond initial users, or when planning go-to-market for technical products. Covers D-Day analogy, bowling-pin strategy, and positioning against incumbents. For product positioning, see obviously-awesome. For new market creation, see blue-ocean-strategy.
Design data systems by understanding storage engines, replication, partitioning, transactions, and consistency models. Use when the user mentions "database choice", "replication lag", "partitioning strategy", "consistency vs availability", "stream processing", "ACID transactions", "eventual consistency", or "LSM tree vs B-tree". Also trigger when choosing between SQL and NoSQL, designing data pipelines, or debugging distributed system consistency issues. Covers data models, batch/stream processing, and distributed consensus. For system design, see system-design. For resilience, see release-it.