layers-product-strategy
Skill307 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Techniques for connecting user opportunities to business outcomes and solution bets, and testing the riskiest assumptions cheaply
3 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- pengGgxp/skillsword for word, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- miovrag/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Jun 12, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- miovrag/claude-skills★ 1100% same
- pengGgxp/skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 1
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 014% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- layers-conceptual-modelSkill
- layers-domainSkill
- layers-interaction-flowSkill
- layers-introSkill
- layers-observed-behaviourSkill
- layers-orientSkill
- layers-surfaceSkill
- layers-user-needsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
If the outcome and the bets are already clear, don't rebuild the tree for its own sake.
- Distinctive: line 30
Every opportunity connects to the outcome: If serving it wouldn't move the outcome, it doesn't belong in this tree.
- Very specific: line 55
When you build the tree as a diagram (graph TD): outcome at the top, branching down through opportunities grouped by journey moment, then …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
/layers-product-strategy
Assumes /layers-intro has been loaded. This skill is a library of techniques, not a script — see "How to use these skills" there.
Strategy is the first layer of the solution space — where problem-space understanding converts into deliberate decisions about scope and direction. It is about choices: which user needs to serve, and which business outcomes to target.
The decisions this layer makes
- The business outcome this work serves
- Which user opportunities (needs, pains, desires) genuinely connect to that outcome
- What solution bets we're placing on those opportunities
- How to test the riskiest assumptions cheaply
- Which bets to pursue first, and why
If the outcome and the bets are already clear, don't rebuild the tree for its own sake.
Disciplines — what keeps strategy honest
- The outcome is measurable, meaningful, and bounded. Not "grow the product" but "increase users who activate in the first 30 days." One outcome per tree.
- Opportunities are customer needs/pains/desires — anchored to a journey moment. First-person, problem-space statements ("I don't know which streaming service has this movie"), not job stories and not features. Apply the flip test: if you can restate it as a feature, it's a solution in disguise. Keep them specific, not generic. Group opportunities by journey moment — the forcing function that exposes vague opportunities and surfaces moments left unaddressed. (Teresa Torres.)
- Every opportunity connects to the outcome. If serving it wouldn't move the outcome, it doesn't belong in this tree.
- Every bet names its riskiest assumption, and there's more than one bet per opportunity — resist early convergence.
- Every experiment is the cheapest way to test the core assumption — days, not months.
Techniques
The Opportunity Solution Tree is the default; the rest serve particular strategic questions.
| Technique | Use it when |
| Opportunity Solution Tree (Teresa Torres) | Default. Makes outcome → opportunity → solution → experiment explicit. Good for ongoing discovery. |
| Solution bets | For a chosen opportunity: "We could [solution], which we believe would [serve the opportunity] because [reasoning]." Generate several; name each one's key assumption. |
| Experiments | Cheapest test of a bet's core assumption — prototype, fake door, concierge, a targeted interview, data analysis. |
| Impact mapping (Gojko Adzic) | B2B with multiple stakeholders who each must change behaviour. |
| Jobs portfolio mapping | Many job stories — decide which to target by frequency, severity, strategic fit. |
| Now / Next / Later roadmap | The team needs a shared timeline view of bets. |
| Kano analysis | Sort candidate features into hygiene, performance, and delight. |
| HEART / North Star (Google / Amplitude) | Choosing the outcome metric. HEART structures the choice; North Star distils to one. |
| Wardley mapping | Positioning depends on where capabilities sit on the evolution curve; build/buy/partner. |
| Bundling / unbundling (Christensen) | Should this product own more of the workflow, or one job precisely? |
| NPE Canvas | Consumer products: Narrative, Primitive, Enablers. |
| Critical User Journeys (Google / Reforge) | Which flows to prioritise — the minimal path to core value (high-traffic, high-revenue, or metric-critical). |
When you build the tree as a diagram (graph TD): outcome at the top, branching down through opportunities grouped by journey moment, then bets, then experiments. Top-to-bottom reads as dependency, not sequence.
Working with the designer
Settle the desired outcome first, pushing for specificity. Then map the opportunities that connect to it (applying the disciplines above), generate bets for the ones worth pursuing, and identify the cheapest experiment for the most promising. Prioritise by opportunity size, assumption risk, effort, and reversibility — start with high size, manageable risk, and a clear experiment path, not necessarily the most ambitious.
Offer the technique that fits the question — an OST to connect things end to end, Kano or jobs-portfolio to choose among many candidates, Wardley or bundling for positioning. Don't run them all.
Capture only the residue: the outcome, the opportunity tree (opportunities grouped by journey moment), the top 2–3 bets with their experiments, deferred bets worth returning to, and the open questions (untested assumptions, ungrounded needs). If the needs underneath were weak or assumed, say plainly that the strategy is a bet on assumptions.
The bets chosen here define what needs designing next — the objects, relationships, and vocabulary those solutions work with: /layers-conceptual-model.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.