Mode	Signal Phrases	Reference
SPEC	write spec, PRD, feature requirements, acceptance criteria, user stories	`references/spec-writing.md`
ROADMAP	roadmap, prioritize, Now/Next/Later, reprioritize, timeline, OKR alignment	`references/roadmap-planning.md`
STAKEHOLDER	stakeholder update, status report, executive brief, launch announcement	(inline templates)
RESEARCH	synthesize research, interview analysis, user feedback, personas, thematic analysis	`references/research-synthesis.md`
COMPETITIVE	competitive brief, competitor analysis, battle card, positioning, win/loss	(inline templates)
METRICS	metrics review, KPI, funnel analysis, retention, cohort, dashboard, OKR scoring	`references/metrics-review.md`
SPRINT	sprint planning, backlog grooming, capacity, sprint goal, carryover	(inline templates)
BRAINSTORM	brainstorm, explore problem, stress-test idea, thinking partner, assumption testing	(Socratic — see below)

If the request spans modes, pick the primary mode and note the secondary.

Workflow by Mode

SPEC Mode

Load: references/spec-writing.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md

Understand — Accept any input: feature name, problem statement, user request, vague idea.
Gather context — Ask conversationally (not a wall of questions):
- User problem and who experiences it
- Target users / segments
- Success metrics (how will we know it worked?)
- Constraints: technical, timeline, regulatory, dependencies
- Prior art: attempted before? Existing solutions?
Generate PRD with these sections:

Section	Content
Problem Statement	2-3 sentences. Who, how often, cost of not solving. Grounded in evidence.
Goals	3-5 measurable outcomes. Outcomes not outputs.
Non-Goals	3-5 explicit exclusions with rationale.
User Stories	"As a [specific type], I want [capability] so that [benefit]." Group by persona. Include edge cases.
Requirements	P0 (must-have), P1 (nice-to-have), P2 (future). Each with acceptance criteria.
Success Metrics	Leading (days-weeks) and lagging (weeks-months). Specific targets with measurement method.
Open Questions	Tagged by owner (eng, design, legal, data). Blocking vs non-blocking.
Timeline	Hard deadlines, dependencies, phasing.

Review — Offer iteration, expansion, follow-up artifacts (design brief, ticket breakdown).

Acceptance criteria format: Given/When/Then or checklist. Cover happy path, error cases, edge cases. No ambiguous words ("fast", "intuitive") without concrete definitions.

Scope management: Write explicit non-goals. Any scope addition requires a scope removal or timeline extension. Separate v1 from v2. Time-box investigations.

ROADMAP Mode

Load: references/roadmap-planning.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md

Current state — Get existing roadmap (paste, describe, or build from scratch).
Determine operation:

Operation	Inputs	Key Actions
Add item	Name, priority, effort, timeframe, owner, dependencies	Suggest placement based on priorities and capacity
Update status	Item + new status (not started / in progress / at risk / blocked / completed / cut)	For at-risk/blocked: require blocker + mitigation
Reprioritize	What changed (strategy shift, new data, resource change)	Apply framework (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Value/Effort). Show before/after.
Move timeline	Why (scope change, dependency slip, resource constraint)	Identify downstream impacts. Flag hard-deadline conflicts.
Create new	Timeframe, format preference, initiative list	Use Now/Next/Later unless user specifies otherwise

Generate — Status overview, items grouped by timeframe/theme, risks/dependencies, change summary.
Follow up — Offer audience-specific formatting, change communication drafts.

Capacity rule: When adding to roadmap, always ask "What comes off?" Roadmaps are zero-sum against capacity.

STAKEHOLDER Mode

Update type: Weekly / Monthly / Launch / Ad-hoc
Audience detection:

Audience	Frame	Length
Executives	Outcome-focused, G/Y/R status, strategic alignment	< 300 words
Engineering	Technical detail, links to PRs/tickets, decisions needed with options	As needed
Cross-functional	Impact on their team, asks with deadlines, input opportunities	Medium
Customers	Benefits-focused, no jargon, honest timelines	Short
Board	Metrics-driven, risk-focused, strategic	Very concise

Generate using audience-appropriate template.
Risk communication — Use ROAM framework (Resolved, Owned, Accepted, Mitigated). Every risk comes with: clear statement, quantified impact, likelihood with evidence, mitigation plan, specific ask.

Executive update rule: Lead with conclusion, not journey. "We shipped X and it moved Y" not "we had 14 standups." Status color reflects reality, not optimism.

Gate: Update draft exists. Audience-appropriate framing verified (no engineering jargon in exec updates, no hand-waving in engineering updates). Every risk has a ROAM classification.

RESEARCH Mode

Load: references/research-synthesis.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md

Gather inputs — Accept any combination: pasted text, uploaded files, described findings.
Process — For each source extract: observations, verbatim quotes, behaviors (vs stated preferences), pain points, positive signals, context.
Thematic analysis:
- Familiarize -> Initial coding -> Theme development -> Theme review -> Theme refinement -> Report
- Affinity mapping: one observation per note, let clusters emerge, split large clusters.
- Triangulation: methodological, source, temporal. Findings supported by multiple sources are stronger.
Priority matrix:

	High Impact	Low Impact
High Frequency	Top priority	Quality-of-life
Low Frequency	Segment-specific	Note and deprioritize

Generate synthesis: Research overview, 5-8 key findings (with evidence, frequency, impact, confidence), user segments/personas, opportunity areas, actionable recommendations, open questions.

Critical rule: Distinguish behaviors from stated preferences. Behavioral data always outweighs what users say they want. Quote attribution uses participant type ("Enterprise admin, 200-person team"), never names.

COMPETITIVE Mode

Scope — Which competitor(s)? Full comparison or specific area? What decision does this inform?
Research — Product pages, pricing, changelogs, customer reviews (G2, Capterra), job postings (strategic signals), community discussions.
Generate brief:
- Competitor overview (company, positioning, momentum)
- Feature comparison matrix (Strong/Adequate/Weak/Absent ratings)
- Positioning analysis (For [target] who [need], [Product] is a [category] that [benefit])
- Honest strengths and weaknesses
- Opportunities and threats
- Strategic implications: build/accelerate/deprioritize, differentiate vs parity, positioning adjustments
Competitive set levels: Direct (same problem, same way), Indirect (same problem, different way), Adjacent (could expand into your space), Substitute (entirely different approach including "do nothing").

Honesty rule: Dismissing competitors makes analysis useless. Rate based on real product experience and customer feedback, not marketing claims. Be honest about where competitors lead.

Gate: Competitive brief exists with feature matrix, positioning analysis, and strategic implications. At least one honest "they lead here" finding present.

METRICS Mode

Load: references/metrics-review.md, references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md

Gather data — Get metrics with comparison data (previous period, targets). Ask about known events (launches, incidents, seasonality).
Organize — Use metrics hierarchy:

Level	Purpose	Examples
North Star	Core value delivered	WAU completing core workflow
L1 (Health)	Lifecycle stages	Acquisition, Activation, Engagement, Retention, Monetization, Satisfaction
L2 (Diagnostic)	Drill-down	Funnel steps, feature adoption, segment breakdowns, performance

Analyze — For each metric: current value, trend, vs target, rate of change, anomalies. Identify correlations, leading indicators, segment-driven aggregate trends.
Generate review: Summary (2-3 sentences), scorecard table, trend analysis, bright spots, areas of concern, recommended actions, caveats.
Goal-setting support: OKRs (2-3 objectives, 2-4 KRs each, outcomes not outputs, 70% completion = target for stretch). Target-setting: baseline -> benchmark -> trajectory -> effort -> confidence.

Context rule: Absolute numbers without comparison are useless. Always show vs previous period, vs target, vs benchmark. Small fluctuations are noise — focus on meaningful changes.

SPRINT Mode

Gather: Team roster + availability, sprint length, prioritized backlog, carryover, dependencies.
Capacity calculation: Available days minus overhead (meetings, on-call, PTO). Rule of thumb: 60-70% of time on planned work.
Allocation: 70% planned features, 20% tech health, 10% unplanned buffer.
Generate sprint plan:
- Sprint goal (one sentence)
- Capacity table (person, available days, allocation, notes)
- Sprint backlog (P0 must-ship, P1 should-ship, P2 stretch)
- Planned capacity vs sprint load (target 70-80%)
- Risks with impact and mitigation
- Definition of done
- Key dates (start, mid-sprint check, demo, retro)
Carry over honestly — If something did not ship, understand why before re-committing.

Gate: Sprint plan exists with goal, capacity table, prioritized backlog, and load vs capacity check showing 70-80% target.

BRAINSTORM Mode (Socratic)

This mode is fundamentally different. The PM does not get a deliverable. They get a thinking partner. Be opinionated. Push back. Bring unexpected angles. Challenge assumptions.

Session principles:

Apply frameworks to the specific problem at hand
Generate, evaluate, then discuss before handing over
Challenge ideas actively — push back with reasons
Hold divergent exploration open before converging
Explore multiple directions before committing

Sub-modes — Detect which fits and shift as conversation evolves:

Sub-mode	When	Approach
Problem Exploration	PM has a problem area, not a defined problem	Ask "who has this problem?" and "what are they doing today?" Map the ecosystem. Distinguish symptoms from root causes.
Solution Ideation	Problem is well-defined, need options	Generate 5-7 distinct approaches before evaluating. Include one "do the opposite" and one "remove something." Resist early convergence.
Assumption Testing	PM has a direction, needs stress-testing	List every assumption (stated + unstated). Find the riskiest one. Suggest the cheapest test. Play devil's advocate.
Strategy Exploration	Big bets, positioning, direction	Map possible moves. Think in bets (odds, payoff). Consider second-order effects and competitive responses.

Session rhythm: Frame -> Diverge -> Provoke -> Converge -> Capture.

Ideation techniques:

Constraint removal: "What if no technical/budget/political constraints?"
Analogies: "How does [another industry] solve this?"
Inversion: "How would we make this worse?" Then reverse.
Decomposition: Break into subproblems, solve independently, recombine.
User hat-switching: Power user? New user? Admin? Someone who hates the product?

Frameworks as thinking tools (use when they help, not as templates):

Framework	Structure	Failure Mode
HMW	"How might we [outcome] for [user] without [constraint]?"	Too broad ("improve onboarding") or too narrow ("add tooltip to step 3")
JTBD	"When [situation], I want to [motivation] so I can [outcome]."	Functional jobs are easy; emotional and social jobs are often more powerful. Ask "what did they fire?"
Opportunity Solution Tree	Outcome -> Opportunities (from research) -> Solutions (multiple per opportunity) -> Experiments (cheapest test)	Opportunities must trace to evidence, not imagination. One solution per opportunity = not enough exploration.
First Principles	State assumption -> Break to fundamentals -> Question each -> Rebuild	Use when team is stuck in incrementalism
OODA	Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act -> loop	Most teams get stuck in Orient. OODA says: orient with what you have, act, let next cycle correct.
Reverse Brainstorming	"How to make this worse?" -> List -> Reverse each	When team is stuck; people are better at identifying wrong than imagining right.

Provocation prompts:

"What is the strongest argument against this?"
"Who would hate this and why?"
"What are we not seeing?"
"What if the opposite were true?"
"What is the 10x more ambitious version?"

Gate: Session produced at least one challenge the PM hadn't considered. Captured decisions/next-steps documented. Frameworks used as thinking tools, not dumped as checklists.

LLM Failure Modes in PM Work

See references/llm-pm-failure-modes.md for the complete failure mode catalog (vague specs, fabricated research, generic competitive analysis, metrics without context, happy-path-only specs, framework regurgitation, scope creep enablement). Universal failure modes in skills/shared-patterns/llm-domain-failure-modes-base.md.

Prioritization Frameworks (Cross-Mode Reference)

Used in SPEC, ROADMAP, and SPRINT modes.

Framework	Formula / Method	Best For
RICE	(Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort	Large backlog, quantitative comparison
ICE	Impact x Confidence x Ease (1-10 each)	Quick prioritization, early-stage
MoSCoW	Must / Should / Could / Won't	Scoping a release, forcing prioritization conversations
Value vs Effort	2x2 matrix: Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fill-ins, Money Pits	Visual prioritization in team sessions

Failure modes: Using a framework as a rubber stamp for a decision already made. If the RICE score does not match intuition, investigate why — do not just adjust the inputs until it does.

Output Conventions

Markdown with clear headers. Scannable. Busy stakeholders read headers and bold text.
Tables for comparisons, scorecards, feature matrices.
Status labels: Done, On Track, At Risk, Blocked, Not Started.
Executive content: < 300 words. Engineering content: as detailed as needed.
Every recommendation is specific enough to act on. "Improve onboarding" is not actionable. "Add progress indicator to setup flow" is.

product-management

Product Management

Reference Loading Table