what-to-build
Decide what to build using YC's six forcing questions and the four CEO scope modes. Use before any new feature, product bet, or GTM angle.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Decide what to build using YC's six forcing questions and the four CEO scope modes. Use before any new feature, product bet, or GTM angle.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Working with AI coding agents — User Sovereignty, agreement-as-signal, Karpathy/Willison framing, per-model overlays, and the rule to measure your prompt nudges.
Estimate work and scope decisions in the AI-coding era. Boil the Lake, AI compression ratios, three-layer search before building.
Compound knowledge across sessions. Plan-tune dual-track psychographic profile (declared vs behavior), retro philosophy that demotes LOC, the keep-or-toss test for learnings.
Code review, debugging, and incident discipline. Confidence calibration, root-cause iron law, alert-on-changes rule, the pre-existing blame protocol.
When to ship vs not ship. The single ship gate, six auto-decision principles for plan reviews, and the Confusion Protocol for when to stop and ask.
UX quality bar — Krug's three laws of usability, the eight DevEx first principles, time-to-hello-world tiers, the Goodwill Reservoir, the Pit of Success.
| name | what-to-build |
| author | 0xabrar |
| description | Decide what to build using YC's six forcing questions and the four CEO scope modes. Use before any new feature, product bet, or GTM angle. |
Frameworks for deciding what deserves to be built. Use before any new feature, product bet, or GTM angle.
Source: gstack office-hours/SKILL.md, plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.
Smart-routed by stage:
Ask one at a time. Push for specificity. Wait for the answer before asking the next.
"What's the strongest evidence you have that someone actually wants this — not 'is interested,' not 'signed up for a waitlist,' but would be genuinely upset if it disappeared tomorrow?"
Push until you hear: specific behavior. Someone paying. Someone expanding usage. Someone building their workflow around it. Someone who would scramble if you vanished.
Red flags: "People say it's interesting." "We got 500 waitlist signups." "VCs are excited about the space." None of these are demand.
"What are your users doing right now to solve this problem — even badly? What does that workaround cost them?"
Push until you hear: a specific workflow. Hours spent. Dollars wasted. Tools duct-taped together. People hired to do it manually.
Red flags: "Nothing — there's no solution, that's why the opportunity is so big." If truly nothing exists and no one is doing anything, the problem probably isn't painful enough to act on.
"Name the actual human who needs this most. What's their title? What gets them promoted? What gets them fired? What keeps them up at night?"
Push until you hear: a name. A role. A specific consequence. Ideally something the founder heard directly from that person's mouth.
Red flags: Category-level answers. "Healthcare enterprises." "SMBs." "Marketing teams." These are filters, not people. You can't email a category.
"What's the smallest possible version of this that someone would pay real money for — this week, not after you build the platform?"
Push until you hear: one feature. One workflow. Maybe a weekly email or a single automation. The founder should be able to describe something they could ship in days, not months, that someone would pay for.
Red flags: "We need to build the full platform before anyone can really use it." Sign the founder is attached to architecture, not value.
Bonus push: "What if the user didn't have to do anything at all to get value? No login, no integration, no setup. What would that look like?"
"Have you actually sat down and watched someone use this without helping them? What did they do that surprised you?"
Push until you hear: a specific surprise. Something the user did that contradicted the founder's assumptions.
Red flags: "We sent out a survey." "We did some demo calls." "Nothing surprising, it's going as expected." Surveys lie. Demos are theater. "As expected" means filtered through assumptions.
The gold: users doing something the product wasn't designed for. That's often the real product trying to emerge.
"If the world looks meaningfully different in 3 years — and it will — does your product become more essential or less?"
Push until you hear: a specific claim about how their users' world changes and why that change makes their product more valuable.
Red flags: "The market is growing 20% per year." Growth rate is not a vision. "AI will make everything better." That's not a product thesis.
Never say during diagnosis:
Always:
Vague market → force specificity
Social proof → demand test
Platform vision → wedge challenge
Growth stats → vision test
Undefined terms → precision demand
Specificity is the only currency. Vague answers get pushed. "Enterprises in healthcare" is not a customer. "Everyone needs this" means you can't find anyone.
Interest is not demand. Waitlists, signups, "that's interesting" — none of it counts. Behavior counts. Money counts. Panic when it breaks counts.
The user's words beat the founder's pitch. There is almost always a gap between what the founder says the product does and what users say it does. The user's version is the truth.
Watch, don't demo. Guided walkthroughs teach you nothing about real usage. Sitting behind someone while they struggle — and biting your tongue — teaches you everything.
The status quo is your real competitor. Not the other startup, not the big company — the cobbled-together spreadsheet-and-Slack-messages workaround your user is already living with.
Narrow beats wide, early. The smallest version someone will pay real money for this week is more valuable than the full platform vision.
Pick a mode before reviewing the plan. Drifting between modes is the anti-pattern.
| Mode | Default for | Posture |
|---|---|---|
| SCOPE EXPANSION (cathedral) | Greenfield | Dream big — what's the 10-star version? |
| SELECTIVE EXPANSION | Enhancement | Hold scope, cherry-pick high-leverage expansions |
| HOLD SCOPE | Bugfix / refactor | Maximum rigor on what's there |
| SCOPE REDUCTION (surgeon) | Auto-suggest if >15 files | Strip to essentials |
"You have permission to say 'scrap it and do this instead.'"
Not a checklist — "thinking instincts" to apply when reviewing scope:
(Plus eleven more in the original plan-ceo-review skill.)
"The best tools solve your own problem. gstack exists because its creator wanted it. Every feature was built because it was needed, not because it was requested... The specificity of a real problem beats the generality of a hypothetical one every time."
Inverts standard customer-development orthodoxy. The strongest builders solve their own pain first; the market follows.
Only allow a full skip if the user provides:
Even then, still run premise-challenge and alternatives review.
If the user expresses impatience ("just do it," "skip the questions"):