working-backwards

name

working-backwards

description

Write a PR-FAQ to pressure-test a product idea customer-first — before committing engineering. Use when someone says "write a PR-FAQ", "press release", "working backwards", "PRFAQ", "start from the customer", "what's the press release for this", "before we build this", "is this idea clear enough to build", "draft the launch announcement", or has a fuzzy product idea and wants to force clarity on what to build and why. Amazon's Working Backwards method: define the desired customer experience as a mock press release + FAQ, iterate on the document until the thinking is clear, and kill weak ideas cheaply on paper. Sits between product-thinker (should we?) and shaping-work (what exactly?), alongside product-discovery (will it work?) — this skill answers "what is the customer-facing end-state, stated so plainly that the holes show?" NOT for validating risky assumptions with experiments (use product-discovery), NOT for breaking shaped work into a build plan (use shaping-work / implementation-planning).

Working Backwards

Start from the customer and the desired end-state, write it down, and iterate on the document until the thinking is clear — long before any engineering. The artifact is a PR-FAQ: a one-page mock press release + an FAQ of the hard questions. Most PR-FAQs are never built — killing a weak idea cheaply on paper is the point, not a failure.

Why writing: prose forces clarity that slides and good intentions can't. If you can't write a compelling, honest press release for it, you don't understand it yet — and neither will the customer.

References:

• references/pr-faq-template.md — the press-release + FAQ structure, section by section.
• references/six-page-narrative.md — the prose-memo / silent-read discipline (for proposals & reviews beyond a launch).
• references/input-metrics.md — input-vs-output metrics, DMAIC, the WBR (how you'd measure it once live).

When to use this vs. its neighbors

• product-thinker decided should we? → use Working Backwards to force the customer end-state into focus.
• Idea is fuzzy / stakeholders disagree on what it even is → write the PR-FAQ; the draft surfaces the disagreement.
• The risk is "will this technically/behaviorally work?" → that's product-discovery (experiments), not this.
• The PR-FAQ is approved and clear → hand to shaping-work to define the work.

The method

1. Write the press release first (customer-benefit-first, < 1 page). Use the template. Write it as if it already launched. The customer's problem and the benefit lead — not the technology.
2. Write the FAQ (≤ 5 pages). Put the hard questions in, the ones that could kill it: market size, per-unit economics, dependencies & third-party risk, feasibility, what has to be true. The FAQ is a pre-mortem on your own idea — if you skip the uncomfortable questions, the document is dishonest.
3. Iterate as a document. Circulate; open the meeting with a silent read; take general feedback first, then line-by-line; seniors speak last (no anchoring). Expect 10+ drafts. Revise from the criticism, not around it.
4. Decide: build / kill / keep iterating. A PR-FAQ that can't be made compelling and honest is a cheap save — kill it here, not after a quarter of engineering.

Output

A PR-FAQ (press release + FAQ, from the template) and a clear verdict. Close with the signature block:

`★ Working Backwards View ────────────────────────`
- Customer + benefit: [who, and the one-line win]
- Verdict: [build / kill / iterate] — [why in one line]
- Biggest hole: [the FAQ question most likely to kill it]
`─────────────────────────────────────────────────`

Handoffs

• Verdict = build, but a key assumption is unproven → product-discovery (test it cheaply first).
• Verdict = build, and it's clear → shaping-work (define the work), then implementation-planning.
• Need to re-litigate whether to build at all → product-thinker.
• Offer to publish the PR-FAQ for team review: /tap-skills:render-doc then /tap-skills:dossier-publish (md stays source of truth; republish after edits).