| name | problem-validation |
| description | Validate whether a problem is worth solving before building anything. Use when asked to validate a problem, assess problem-solution fit, decide whether to build something, or evaluate if a problem is real. Scores problems on frequency, intensity, willingness to pay, and existing workarounds.
|
Validate problems with evidence, not opinions. A problem worth solving is one that people encounter frequently, feel intensely, and have already tried to solve. If nobody has attempted a workaround, the problem isn't painful enough to build for.
Scoring Framework
Rate each dimension 1-5 based on evidence:
Frequency (How often does this happen?)
- 5: Daily or multiple times per day
- 4: Weekly
- 3: Monthly
- 2: Quarterly
- 1: Rarely or once
Intensity (How painful is it when it happens?)
- 5: Blocks critical work, causes real losses (money, time, reputation)
- 4: Major friction, significant workarounds needed
- 3: Annoying but manageable
- 2: Minor inconvenience
- 1: Barely noticeable
Existing Workarounds (Are people already trying to solve it?)
- 5: Paying for imperfect solutions or built custom tools
- 4: Cobbled together multi-tool workflows (spreadsheets + email + manual steps)
- 3: Have a basic process but it's tedious
- 2: Occasionally Google for solutions
- 1: Haven't tried to solve it
Willingness to Pay (Would they pay to make this go away?)
- 5: Already spending money on partial solutions
- 4: Have explicitly said they'd pay (and named a number)
- 3: Would "probably" pay (hypothetical — discount this)
- 2: Want it free
- 1: Haven't considered paying
Validation Score = Frequency x Intensity x Workarounds x WTP
- 250+: Strong signal. Build.
- 100-249: Promising. Needs more evidence on weak dimensions.
- Under 100: Weak. Either pivot the problem framing or walk away.
Example: "PDF Export" — Frequency: 3 (monthly board reports), Intensity: 2 (screenshot workaround exists), Workarounds: 4 (3 users built browser-print-to-PDF workflows), WTP: 1 (nobody has paid for an export tool). Score = 3 x 2 x 4 x 1 = 24. Verdict: Kill — not painful enough.
Evidence Requirements
Every score MUST cite evidence. Acceptable evidence types, strongest first:
- Observed behavior: You watched someone struggle with this
- Spending: They pay for alternatives or workarounds
- Time invested: They built custom solutions (scripts, spreadsheets, processes)
- Quotes from interviews: Direct quotes about past behavior (Mom Test compliant)
- Support tickets / forum posts: Public complaints with specifics
- Survey responses: Weakest — people say one thing and do another
If your only evidence is survey responses or "my friend said," your validation is weak.
Go / No-Go Decision
Go when:
- Score 250+ with evidence across all four dimensions
- At least 5 people independently describe the same problem
- Someone has spent money or significant time on workarounds
Investigate more when:
- Score 100-249 with strong evidence on 2-3 dimensions
- You've talked to fewer than 5 people
- Workaround evidence is weak
Kill when:
- Score under 100
- Nobody has tried to solve the problem themselves
- "Willingness to pay" is entirely hypothetical
- You've talked to 5+ people and stories don't converge
Guidelines
- CRITICAL: NEVER validate based on opinions or surveys alone. Require evidence of past behavior.
- ALWAYS require workaround evidence. No workarounds = not painful enough.
- NEVER count "I would definitely use that!" as validation. Enthusiasm is not evidence.
- ALWAYS talk to at least 5 people in the ICP before making a go/no-go call.
- NEVER confuse "interesting problem" with "problem worth solving." Interesting doesn't pay the bills.
Built on YC's "talk to users" philosophy and The Mom Test (Rob Fitzpatrick). Skills from productskills.
