opportunity-solution-tree▌
deanpeters/product-manager-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Structure vague product requests into validated opportunities and testable solutions before building.
- ›Guides teams through a five-question discovery process: extract desired outcome, identify customer problems (opportunities), generate solution ideas, evaluate feasibility and impact, and select a proof-of-concept to test first
- ›Prevents \"feature factory\" syndrome by forcing divergence across multiple opportunities and solutions before converging on what to build
- ›Outputs a structured
Purpose
Guide product managers through creating an Opportunity Solution Tree (OST) by extracting target outcomes from stakeholder requests, generating opportunity options (problems to solve), mapping potential solutions, and selecting the best proof-of-concept (POC) based on feasibility, impact, and market fit. Use this to move from vague product requests to structured discovery, ensuring teams solve the right problems before jumping to solutions—avoiding "feature factory" syndrome and premature convergence on ideas.
This is not a roadmap generator—it's a structured discovery process that outputs validated opportunities with testable solution hypotheses.
Key Concepts
What is an Opportunity Solution Tree (OST)?
An OST is a visual framework (Teresa Torres, Continuous Discovery Habits) that connects:
- Desired Outcome (business goal or product metric)
- Opportunities (customer problems, needs, pain points, or desires that could drive the outcome)
- Solutions (ways to address each opportunity)
- Experiments (tests to validate solutions)
Structure:
Desired Outcome (1)
|
+-----------+-----------+
| | |
Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity (3)
| | |
+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+
| | | | | | | | |
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 (9 total solutions)
Why This Works
- Outcome-driven: Starts with business goal, not feature requests
- Divergent before convergent: Explores multiple opportunities before picking solutions
- Problem-focused: Opportunities are problems, not solutions disguised as problems
- Testable: Each solution maps to experiments, not just "build it and ship"
- POC selection: Evaluates feasibility, impact, market fit before committing resources
Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- Not a feature list: Opportunities are problems customers face, not "we need dark mode"
- Not solution-first: Don't start with "we should build X"—start with "customers struggle with Y"
- Not waterfall planning: OST is a discovery tool, not a project plan
- Not a one-time exercise: OSTs evolve as you learn from experiments
When to Use This
- Stakeholder requests a feature or product initiative
- Starting discovery for a new product area
- Clarifying vague OKRs or strategic goals
- Prioritizing which problems to solve first
- Aligning team on what outcomes you're driving
When NOT to Use This
- When the problem is already validated (move to solution testing)
- For tactical bug fixes or technical debt (no discovery needed)
- When stakeholders demand a specific solution (address alignment issues first)
Facilitation Source of Truth
Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
- session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
- one-question turns with plain-language prompts
- progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)
- interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
- numbered recommendations at decision points
- quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include
Other (specify)when useful)
This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
Application
Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.
This interactive skill follows a two-phase process:
Phase 1: Generate OST (extract outcome, identify opportunities, map solutions) Phase 2: Select POC (evaluate solutions, recommend best starting point)
Step 0: Gather Context (Before Questions)
Agent suggests:
Before we create your Opportunity Solution Tree, let's gather context:
Stakeholder Request or Product Initiative:
- What did the stakeholder ask for? (Feature request, product idea, strategic goal)
- Any existing materials: PRD drafts, OKR documents, strategy memos, meeting notes
- Problem statements, customer complaints, or research findings
Product Context (if available):
- Website copy, positioning statements, product descriptions
- Competitor materials, customer reviews (G2, Capterra), community discussions
- Usage data, support tickets, churn reasons
You can paste this content directly, or describe the request briefly.
Phase 1: Generate Opportunity Solution Tree
Question 1: Extract Desired Outcome
Agent asks: "What's the desired outcome for this initiative? (What business or product metric are you trying to move?)"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
- Revenue growth — "Increase ARR, expand revenue from existing customers, new revenue streams" (Common for scaling products)
- Customer retention — "Reduce churn, increase activation, improve engagement/stickiness" (Common for established products with retention issues)
- Customer acquisition — "Increase sign-ups, trial conversions, new user growth" (Common for early-stage or growth products)
- Product efficiency — "Reduce support costs, decrease time-to-value, improve operational metrics" (Common for mature products optimizing operations)
Or describe your specific desired outcome (be measurable: e.g., "Increase trial-to-paid conversion from 15% to 25%").
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent extracts and confirms:
- Desired Outcome: [Specific, measurable outcome]
- Why it matters: [Rationale from stakeholder request or context]
Question 2: Identify Opportunities (Problems to Solve)
Agent generates 3 opportunities based on the desired outcome and context provided.
Agent says: "Based on your desired outcome ([from Q1]) and the context you provided, here are 3 opportunities (customer problems or needs) that could drive this outcome:"
Example (if Outcome = Increase trial-to-paid conversion):
-
Opportunity 1: Users don't experience value during trial — "New users sign up but don't complete onboarding, never reach 'aha moment,' abandon before seeing core value"
- Evidence: [From context: onboarding analytics, support tickets, exit surveys]
-
Opportunity 2: Pricing is unclear or misaligned — "Users unsure if paid plan is worth it; don't understand what they get for the price; pricing page confusing"
- Evidence: [From context: conversion funnel drop-off at pricing page, sales objections]
-
Opportunity 3: Free plan is 'good enough' — "Users stay on free tier indefinitely because it meets their needs; no compelling reason to upgrade"
- Evidence: [From context: freemium user retention data, support tickets asking for workarounds]
Agent asks: "Which opportunity feels most critical to explore first, or would you like to modify/add opportunities?"
User response: [Selection or custom]
Question 3: Generate Solutions for Selected Opportunity
Agent generates 3 solution ideas for the selected opportunity.
Agent says: "For Opportunity [X]: [Name], here are 3 potential solutions to test:"
Example (if Opportunity 1 selected: Users don't experience value during trial):
-
Solution 1: Guided onboarding checklist — "Interactive checklist that walks users through core workflows step-by-step (e.g., 'Create your first project,' 'Invite a teammate,' 'Complete a task')"
- Hypothesis: Structured guidance increases completion rate
- Experiment: A/B test checklist vs. no checklist, measure activation rate
-
Solution 2: Time-to-value triggers — "Automatically prompt users when they're stuck (e.g., 'You haven't created a project yet—here's a template to get started')"
- Hypothesis: Proactive nudges prevent drop-off
- Experiment: Track engagement with prompts, measure trial-to-paid lift
-
Solution 3: Human-assisted onboarding — "Offer 15-min onboarding call with CSM for high-value trial users (enterprise, team plans)"
- Hypothesis: Personal touch increases conversion for high-intent users
- Experiment: Offer to 50 trial users, measure conversion vs. control group
Agent asks: "Would you like to explore solutions for another opportunity, or move to POC selection?"
User response: [Selection or custom]
Phase 2: Select Proof-of-Concept (POC)
After generating solutions, the agent helps select which solution to test first.
Question 4: Evaluate Solutions (Feasibility, Impact, Market Fit)
Agent says: "Let's evaluate your solutions to pick the best starting point. I'll score each solution on Feasibility (how hard to build), Impact (how much it could move the outcome), and Market Fit (how well it aligns with customer needs)."
Agent generates evaluation table:
| Solution | Feasibility (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Market Fit (1-5) | Total Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solution 1: Guided onboarding checklist | 4 | 4 | 5 | 13 | High feasibility (UI pattern), proven impact (industry standard), strong market fit (users expect onboarding) |
| Solution 2: Time-to-value triggers | 3 | 3 | 4 | 10 | Medium feasibility (requires analytics integration), moderate impact (depends on trigger quality), good market fit |
| Solution 3: Human-assisted onboarding | 5 | 5 | 3 | 13 | High feasibility (no dev work), high impact (personal touch), lower market fit (doesn't scale, high-touch only) |
Scoring criteria:
- Feasibility: 1 = months of work, 5 = days/weeks
- Impact: 1 = minimal outcome movement, 5 = major outcome shift
- Market Fit: 1 = customers don't care, 5 = customers actively request this
Agent recommends:
Recommended POC: Solution 1 (Guided onboarding checklist)
Why this POC:
- Balances feasibility (can build in 2-4 weeks) with impact (proven pattern)
- Strong market fit (users expect onboarding guidance)
- Testable hypothesis: "If we guide users through core workflows, activation rate will increase from X% to Y%"
Alternative POC: Solution 3 (Human-assisted onboarding)
- If you want to learn fast with no dev work, start here
- Test manually with 20-50 trial users, gather qualitative feedback
- Use learnings to inform automated solution (Solution 1)
Not recommended for POC: Solution 2 (Time-to-value triggers)
- Requires more upfront investment
- Impact depends on trigger quality (needs experimentation to get right)
- Better as follow-up after validating core onboarding flow
Question 5: Define Experiment
Agent asks: "How will you test this solution? What's the experiment?"
Offer 3 enumerated options:
- A/B test — "Build MVP, show to 50% of trial users, compare conversion vs. control" (Best for: Quantitative validation, requires traffic)
- Prototype + usability test — "Create clickable prototype, watch 10 users attempt onboarding, gather qualitative feedback" (Best for: Early-stage validation, low traffic)
- Manual concierge test — "Run the solution manually with 20 users (e.g., personally walk them through onboarding), measure outcomes" (Best for: Learning fast, no dev work)
Or describe your experiment approach.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Output: Opportunity Solution Tree + POC Plan
After completing the flow, the agent outputs:
# Opportunity Solution Tree + POC Plan
## Desired Outcome
**Outcome:** [From Q1]
**Target Metric:** [Specific, measurable goal]
**Why it matters:** [Rationale]
---
## Opportunity Map
### Opportunity 1: [Name]
**Problem:** [Description]
**Evidence:** [From context]
**Solutions:**
1. [Solution A]
2. [Solution B]
3. [Solution C]
---
### Opportunity 2: [Name]
**Problem:** [Description]
**Evidence:** [From context]
**Solutions:**
1. [Solution A]
2. [Solution B]
3. [Solution C]
---
### Opportunity 3: [Name]
**Problem:** [Description]
**Evidence:** [From context]
**Solutions:**
1. [Solution A]
2. [Solution B]
3. [Solution C]
---
## Selected POC
**Opportunity:** [Selected opportunity]
**Solution:** [Selected solution]
**Hypothesis:**
- "If we [implement solution], then [outcome metric] will [increase/decrease] from [X] to [Y] because [rationale]."
**Experiment:**
- **Type:** [A/B test / Prototype test / Concierge test]
- **Participants:** [Number of users, segment]
- **Duration:** [Timeline]
- **Success criteria:** [What validates the hypothesis]
**Feasibility Score:** [1-5]
**Impact Score:** [1-5]
**Market Fit Score:** [1-5]
**Total:** [Sum]
**Why this POC:**
- [Rationale 1]
- [Rationale 2]
- [Rationale 3]
---
## Next Steps
1. **Build experiment:** [Specific action, e.g., "Create onboarding checklist wireframes"]
2. **Run experiment:** [Specific action, e.g., "Deploy to 50% of trial users for 2 weeks"]
3. **Measure results:** [Specific metric, e.g., "Compare activation rate: checklist vs. control"]
4. **Decide:How to use opportunity-solution-tree on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add opportunity-solution-tree
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches opportunity-solution-tree from GitHub repository deanpeters/product-manager-skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate opportunity-solution-tree. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /opportunity-solution-tree) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.6★★★★★45 reviews- ★★★★★Valentina Dixit· Dec 28, 2024
Registry listing for opportunity-solution-tree matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Dec 16, 2024
Keeps context tight: opportunity-solution-tree is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Maya Abbas· Dec 8, 2024
opportunity-solution-tree reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Kiara Nasser· Nov 27, 2024
We added opportunity-solution-tree from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Yusuf Torres· Nov 19, 2024
Keeps context tight: opportunity-solution-tree is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Rahul Santra· Nov 15, 2024
We added opportunity-solution-tree from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Nov 7, 2024
Registry listing for opportunity-solution-tree matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Mateo Chen· Nov 7, 2024
opportunity-solution-tree fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Shikha Mishra· Oct 26, 2024
opportunity-solution-tree reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Valentina Desai· Oct 26, 2024
We added opportunity-solution-tree from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
showing 1-10 of 45