Skip to main content
ClaudeWave
ES, Spanish
Skill755 estrellas del repoactualizado 8d ago

tool-foundation-sprint-approach-options

This Foundation Sprint skill structures Day 2 morning ideation by forcing teams to generate 3 to 7 distinct one-page approach summaries before converging on a single strategic direction. Each summary names the approach, explains why it serves the chosen differentiators, and includes a simple visual, with a comparison table enabling rapid evaluation. Use it after Day 1 deliverables are locked but before afternoon evaluation through Magic Lenses, preventing premature anchoring on the first idea generated.

Instalar en Claude Code
Copiar
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills /tmp/tool-foundation-sprint-approach-options && cp -r /tmp/tool-foundation-sprint-approach-options/skills/tool-foundation-sprint-approach-options ~/.claude/skills/tool-foundation-sprint-approach-options
Después abre una sesión nueva de Claude Code; el skill carga automáticamente.

SKILL.md

<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

# Foundation Sprint Approach Options

Day 2 morning of a Foundation Sprint. The team forces itself to generate multiple plausible approaches before committing to one. The skill enforces a minimum of 3 approaches; anchoring on a single approach is the most common Day 2 failure mode.

Family contract: [`docs/reference/skill-families/foundation-sprint-skills-contract.md`](../../docs/reference/skill-families/foundation-sprint-skills-contract.md). This skill is a member of `foundation-sprint-skills`.

## When to Use

- Day 2 morning of a Foundation Sprint.
- Day 1 is signed; the Mini Manifesto, decision principles, and differentiation chart are committed.
- The team is ready to generate candidate approaches before evaluating them through Magic Lenses in the afternoon.

## When NOT to Use

- Day 1 is unresolved. Approach Options without differentiation context produces approaches that miss the strategic position.
- The team has only one approach in mind and is unwilling to generate alternatives. The skill forces minimum 3; if the team refuses, the issue is sprint discipline, not tooling.
- More than 7 approaches are emerging organically. The skill caps generation at 7; beyond that the team is generating features, not strategic approaches.

## What This Skill Produces

A single bundled artifact containing:

1. **3 to 7 one-page approach summaries**, each with:
   - Name and label (color, letter, ID)
   - One-sentence "what it is"
   - "Why it's a good idea" rationale (1 short paragraph)
   - Simple doodle or textual visual description
   - How the approach serves the two chosen differentiators
2. **Approach set summary table** comparing all approaches at a glance (label, name, capture mechanism, recall mechanism, primary trade-off).

See `references/TEMPLATE.md` for the canonical structure and `references/EXAMPLE.md` for the Brainshelf example.

## Sequence (75 minutes)

### Step 1: Frame the approach space (5 min)

The facilitator restates the differentiation: "We are committing to [differentiator 1] and [differentiator 2]. Approaches that fail either of these are out of scope." This sets the boundary; the team generates inside it, not outside it.

### Step 2: Silent ideation (15-20 min)

Each team member generates 2-4 candidate approaches silently. Cluster duplicates. Surface 8-12 candidates.

### Step 3: Cluster and select 3-7 (15-25 min via Decider call)

The team clusters similar approaches and the Decider narrows to 3-7 candidates that will be one-page-summarized. The 3-minimum is enforced; if the team produces 2 candidates after clustering, push the team back to ideation to generate at least one more.

### Step 4: One-page summarize each approach (25-40 min)

Each team member takes 1-2 approaches and writes the one-page summary. Each summary names:

- **Label**: a color, letter, or short identifier (Yellow, Blue, Approach A, etc.)
- **What it is**: one sentence the customer would understand
- **Why it's a good idea**: short paragraph naming the customer value and the team's ability to deliver
- **Visual**: a simple doodle or textual description of what the customer sees or does
- **How it serves the differentiators**: one or two lines per chosen differentiator

### Step 5: Cross-summary review (5-10 min)

The team reviews the full set, flagging summaries that don't fit the differentiators or that overlap so heavily with another approach that they're duplicates. The Decider approves the set advancing to Magic Lenses.

## Approach Generation Discipline

The skill enforces five rules at decision-point:

1. **Minimum 3, maximum 7.** Fewer than 3 means the team is anchored on one idea; more than 7 means the team is generating features.
2. **Each approach must be a strategic path, not a feature.** "Add a settings screen" is a feature; "make capture the home screen" is a strategic path.
3. **Each approach must serve both chosen differentiators (not just one).** An approach that wins on differentiator 1 but fails differentiator 2 should be either revised or dropped.
4. **Each approach must be visually describable.** If the team can't draw it on a card, the approach is too abstract for the sprint.
5. **No first-idea bias.** The first approach the team thought of should be included only if it survives the differentiation check; many teams find their initial idea is not the strongest after generating alternatives.

## Inference Inputs

| Input | What the skill does with it |
|---|---|
| Basics bundled artifact | Reads target customer to ensure approaches are designed for them, not for an adjacent customer |
| Differentiation bundled artifact | Reads the 2 chosen differentiators and the 2x2 position; flags approaches that miss either differentiator |
| Approach candidates (optional) | If pre-supplied, pre-populates the silent ideation board; team adds and refines rather than starting cold |

## Common Pitfalls

- **Generating features instead of approaches.** "Add notifications" is not an approach; it's a feature. The skill enforces strategic-path framing.
- **Too few options.** Stopping at 2 approaches because "those are obviously the choices" anchors the team. Force a third even if it's intentionally weaker; it surfaces the trade-offs.
- **Approaches that fail one differentiator.** An approach that beats differentiator 1 but loses differentiator 2 has rejected the Day 1 strategic commitment. Either drop it or revise it.
- **Skipping the visual.** "I can describe it in prose" defeats the purpose. The visual forces concreteness.
- **Overlap masquerading as distinct approaches.** Two summaries that differ only in implementation detail are one approach. Cluster them.

## Decider Role

The Decider's job during Approach Options:

1. Restate the differentiation boundary at the start.
2. Narrow the clustered candidates to 3-7 for one-page summary.
3. Approve the final set advancing to Magic Lenses; reject summaries that dr
chainSlash Command

Run an ad-hoc ordered chain of pm-skills with shared context (ephemeral; routes to the pm-workflow-orchestrator)

define-hypothesisSkill

Defines a testable hypothesis with clear success metrics and a validation approach. Use when forming assumptions to test or aligning a team on what success looks like, before any experiment is designed. To design the A/B test or experiment that will validate the hypothesis, use measure-experiment-design.

define-jtbd-canvasSkill

Creates a Jobs to be Done canvas capturing the functional, emotional, and social dimensions of a customer job. Use when deeply understanding customer motivations, designing for jobs, or reframing product positioning.

define-opportunity-treeSkill

Creates an opportunity solution tree connecting a desired outcome to customer opportunities and candidate solutions, preventing solution-first jumps in continuous discovery. Use when structuring scattered feature ideas or communicating how the roadmap traces to outcomes. For ranking an existing flat list of candidates, use define-prioritization-framework instead; this skill discovers the list, it does not score one.

define-prioritization-frameworkSkill

Run applicable prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Weighted Scoring, Kano) against a list of features or initiatives. Produces a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge across frameworks, and an executive summary with recommendation. Framework applicability is filtered by data availability; Kano requires customer research. Refuses to fabricate scores; produces an estimation scaffold when input data is missing.

define-problem-statementSkill

Creates a clear problem framing document with user impact, business context, and success criteria. Use when starting a new initiative, realigning a drifted project, or communicating up to leadership.

deliver-acceptance-criteriaSkill

Generates structured Given/When/Then acceptance criteria for a user story or feature slice, covering the happy path, key failure scenarios, and non-functional expectations in testable form. Use when turning requirements into verifiable scenarios for engineering handoff and QA sign-off. For a dedicated catalog of boundary conditions, error states, and recovery paths across a feature, use deliver-edge-cases; to write the stories themselves, use deliver-user-stories.

deliver-edge-casesSkill

Documents edge cases, error states, boundary conditions, race conditions, and recovery paths for a feature - the systematic catalog of what can go wrong and the failure modes to design for. Use during specification to map the failure surface and ensure comprehensive coverage, or during QA planning to identify boundary and limit scenarios to test. Distinct from deliver-acceptance-criteria, which writes story-level Given/When/Then checks; this skill produces the whole-feature edge-case catalog.