home / skills / mattgierhart / prd-driven-context-engineering / prd-v01-user-value-articulation

prd-v01-user-value-articulation skill

/.claude/skills/prd-v01-user-value-articulation

This skill converts validated pain points into evidence-anchored user value statements for PRD v0.1 Spark.

npx playbooks add skill mattgierhart/prd-driven-context-engineering --skill prd-v01-user-value-articulation

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (4)
SKILL.md
4.8 KB
---
name: prd-v01-user-value-articulation
description: >
  Transform validated pain points into articulated user value statements for PRD v0.1 Spark.
  Triggers on completing problem framing, defining user outcomes, articulating value propositions,
  or requests like "what value do users get", "define outcomes", "articulate the benefit",
  "finish v0.1", "pain to value", "what do they gain". Outputs CFD- entries tagged as value
  hypotheses with evidence tiers. Follows Problem Framing skill in workflow.
---

# User Value Articulation Skill

Transform validated pain points into evidence-anchored value statements.

## Workflow Position

```
Problem Framing → User Value Articulation → v0.2 Market Definition
     (pain)              (value)                  (who cares most)
```

**Input:** CFD-IDs from Problem Framing (pain points)
**Output:** CFD-IDs tagged as value hypotheses

## Workflow Overview

1. **Receive pain points** → Read CFD-IDs from Problem Framing
2. **Identify value unit** → Time / Money / Risk / Capability
3. **Transform pain → value** → Apply transformation pattern
4. **Anchor to evidence** → What proof users want this outcome?
5. **Create CFD entry** → Tag as value hypothesis with tier

## Core Output Template

| Element | Definition |
|---------|------------|
| **Pain (source)** | CFD-ID from Problem Framing |
| **Value Statement** | One sentence: what user gains |
| **Value Unit** | Time / Money / Risk / Capability |
| **Quantification** | Number with unit |
| **Framing Type** | Negative Removal / Positive Gain / Capability Unlock / Risk Reduction |
| **Evidence Tier** | 1-5 per hierarchy |
| **Supporting CFD** | New CFD-ID for value hypothesis |

See `assets/value-statement.md` for copy-paste template.

## Pain → Value Transformation

| Pain Pattern | Value Pattern |
|--------------|---------------|
| "Costs X time" | "Reclaim X time for [higher-value work]" |
| "Costs $X" | "Save $X [or redirect to growth]" |
| "Risks $X penalty" | "Eliminate $X exposure" |
| "Cannot do X" | "Now able to X when [trigger]" |
| "Takes X steps" | "Complete in Y steps" |
| "Manual process" | "Automatic + verifiable" |

## Framing Type Selection

| Type | When to Use |
|------|-------------|
| **Negative Removal** | Pain is acute, quantified loss; "hate", "wasting", "losing" |
| **Positive Gain** | Opportunity cost clear; "I wish I could..." |
| **Capability Unlock** | Something impossible, not just hard; "We can't..." |
| **Risk Reduction** | Regulatory/compliance; penalty amounts cited |

## Value Evidence Tier Hierarchy

| Tier | Description | Weight |
|------|-------------|--------|
| **1** | User already paying for this value elsewhere | ✅ Highest |
| **2** | User actively trying to achieve this outcome | ✅ Strong |
| **3** | User articulates wanting this (unprompted) | ✅ Acceptable |
| **4** | User agrees when prompted | ⚠️ Weak |
| **5** | Builder assumes value | ❌ Reject |

**Gate rule:** ≥1 value statement must have Tier 1-3 evidence before v0.2.

## CFD Entry Format

```
CFD-###: Value Hypothesis — [Title]
Type: Value Hypothesis
Source Pain: CFD-###
Evidence Tier: [1-5]

Value Statement: "[User gains X measured in Y]"
Transformation: [Pain] → [Value]
Framing Type: [Type]
Quantification: [Number with unit]
```

See `references/transformation-examples.md` for worked examples.

## Quality Gates

### Pass Checklist
- [ ] Every pain point has corresponding value statement
- [ ] ≥1 value statement has Tier 1-3 evidence
- [ ] All values quantified (time, money, risk, capability)
- [ ] No feature-as-value statements
- [ ] Value unit matches pain unit

### Testability Check
- [ ] Can explain value in <10 seconds to prospect?
- [ ] Can test with landing page headline?
- [ ] Value statement contains no features (no "dashboard", "tool")?

## Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Signal | Fix |
|---------|--------|-----|
| Feature as value | "Dashboard", "tool", "feature" in statement | Rewrite as outcome |
| Unmeasurable | "Better", "improved" without number | Add quantity |
| Disconnected | Pain unit ≠ value unit | Match units |
| Round inflation | "Save 10 hours" no source | Require calculation |
| No evidence | No CFD-ID for user desire | Downgrade tier |
| Solution creep | HOW (feature) not WHAT (outcome) | Remove implementation |

## Bundled Resources

- **`references/transformation-examples.md`** — 3 worked examples from real PRDs with step-by-step transformation process.
- **`references/research-prompts.md`** — Deep research templates when value evidence is Tier 4-5.
- **`assets/value-statement.md`** — Copy-paste template for value tables and CFD entries.

## Handoff

Value articulation complete when quality gates pass. Combined with Problem Framing, v0.1 Spark is ready.

Next: v0.2 Market Definition (Who cares MOST about this value? Who pays FIRST?)

Overview

This skill transforms validated pain points into concise, evidence-anchored user value statements for PRD v0.1 Spark. It converts CFD pain IDs into tagged value hypotheses with quantified outcomes and evidence tiers. It runs after Problem Framing and prepares inputs for v0.2 Market Definition.

How this skill works

The skill reads CFD-IDs produced by Problem Framing, identifies the appropriate value unit (time, money, risk, capability), and applies a transformation pattern to turn pains into outcomes. Each output is formatted as a CFD entry tagged as a value hypothesis, includes quantification, framing type, and an evidence tier (1–5). A pass checklist enforces at least one Tier 1–3 evidence item before moving to v0.2.

When to use it

  • After completing Problem Framing and generating CFD pain IDs
  • When asked to articulate the user benefit from validated pains (e.g., "what value do users get")
  • Before finalizing PRD v0.1 Spark to ensure measurable outcomes
  • When you need value hypotheses to test on landing pages or research
  • When preparing handoff to Market Definition to identify who cares most

Best practices

  • Map each pain CFD-ID to exactly one value hypothesis to avoid duplication
  • Match value unit to the original pain unit (time↔time, dollars↔money)
  • Quantify outcomes with realistic numbers and units—no vague "better" claims
  • Select Framing Type deliberately: Negative Removal, Positive Gain, Capability Unlock, or Risk Reduction
  • Ensure ≥1 value hypothesis has Evidence Tier 1–3 before advancing

Example use cases

  • Transform "Costs 3 hours per week" pain into "Reclaim 3 hours/week for high-value work" with Tier 2 evidence
  • Convert "Risk of compliance fines" into "Reduce exposure by $X per quarter" framed as Risk Reduction
  • Turn "Cannot export data quickly" into "Export in under 30s on demand" as a Capability Unlock
  • Create a testable landing-page headline from a quantified value statement for early user validation

FAQ

What is an Evidence Tier and why does it matter?

Evidence Tiers rank proof that users value the outcome; tiers 1–3 are required to move forward because they show strong user demand or willingness to pay.

How do I avoid writing features instead of values?

Focus on what the user gains, measured and testable, and remove implementation terms ("dashboard", "tool"); if it mentions how, rewrite to the outcome.