How to use
- Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
- Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
- Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/magnus919/agent-skills --skill product-shapingBefore you start
- Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
- Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.
Product Shaping
Pre-commitment methodology for product and engineering work, adapted from Ryan Singer's Shape Up (free edition at basecamp.com/shapeup), extended for teams whose builders include AI agents.
The loop: shape a raw idea into a bounded pitch → bet a fixed appetite on it → build by discovering scopes and hammering scope to fit the box → move on, letting post-ship feedback re-enter as raw ideas.
The core moves
- Set boundaries — choose the appetite ("how much is this worth?") and narrow the
problem to one specific story. Kill grab-bags ("redesign X", "X 2.0").
- Find the elements — sketch the solution rough, solved, and bounded: breadboards
for flows, fat-marker fidelity for visual problems, components-and-contracts for non-UI work.
- Patch rabbit holes — attack your own sketch; settle hard decisions now, declare
out-of-bounds cases, cut what the appetite can't afford.
- Write the pitch — problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gos.
- Bet — commit the box uninterrupted, downside capped. No finish, no extension by
default: the circuit breaker routes failure back to shaping.
- Build — one integrated slice first, then discovered scopes tracked as
uphill→downhill states; sequence scariest-first; compare down to baseline when deciding to stop.
- Move on — scope cuts are not quality cuts; new feedback needs shaping, not
instant yes.
Reference files
Load only what the current step needs:
| Reference | Load when |
|---|---|
| references/principles.md | You need the why: appetite vs estimate, fixed-time-variable-scope, rough/solved/bounded, evidence boundaries, lineage |
| references/shaping.md | Shaping steps 1–4 in detail, including shaping non-UI/backend/infrastructure work |
| references/betting.md | Bets vs backlogs, circuit breaker mechanics, cycles as optional scaffolding, handling defects between bets |
| references/building.md | Hand-over-responsibility, one-piece-done, scope mapping, hill-state tracking, deciding when to stop |
| references/hybrid-adaptation.md | Any bet involving AI-agent builders: budget currencies, batched steering, verification cost inside scope, kill criteria for non-converging loops |
| references/anti-patterns.md | Before betting anything that matters — documented field failures and their mitigations |
Templates
| Template | Purpose |
|---|---|
| templates/PITCH.md | Fillable five-ingredient pitch document |
| templates/SCOPE_MAP.md | Fillable scope table with hill states, chowder list, and breaker check |
Entry points
| Situation | Start here |
|---|---|
| Raw idea or request arrived | references/shaping.md step 1 |
| Idea is validated but unbounded | references/shaping.md |
| Ready to write up the concept | templates/PITCH.md |
| Deciding what gets the next box | references/betting.md |
| Bet placed, starting the build | references/building.md |
| Builders are AI agents | references/hybrid-adaptation.md |
| Project keeps not finishing / loops won't converge | references/anti-patterns.md, then hybrid-adaptation kill criteria |
When not to use
- The problem itself isn't validated yet →
product-discovery. Shaping narrows
validated problems; it does not investigate whether the problem is real.
- The question is strategic (positioning, market entry, portfolio weight across
quarters) → product-strategy or product-roadmapping-and-portfolio. This skill packages a single bet — one bounded commitment with an appetite and circuit breaker; roadmapping sequences many such bets across cycles with continue/pause/kill criteria.
- The bet is already placed and the work needs a formal spec → `spec-driven-
development` consumes shaped output when formal specification is warranted.
- Comparing unrelated feature proposals by score →
product-methodology(RICE/
MoSCoW). Appetite replaces scoring inside this skill's scope; use one system, not both on the same decision.
- An epic resists decomposition because nobody can define done → route BACK here:
that is an unshaped project, and force-splitting it produces disconnected tasks.
- The work is small, routine, and fully understood — skip shaping overhead; just do
it.
- The bet is placed and you need intent-to-delivery control — classification,
five-field intent contracts, autonomy gating, failure routing, and resumable status across the run. Route to bmad. Shaping ends at the bet; bmad carries the placed intent through bounded, inspectable, resumable agent work.
Related skills
product-discovery— upstream: validates the problem before narrowing beginsproduct-strategy,product-roadmapping-and-portfolio— strategic context above betsproduct-methodology— downstream consumer of a won bet (prioritization, spec drafting)spec-driven-development— optional formal specification of shaped output post-betimplementation-planning,subagent-driven-development— execution after the bet;
decompose only downhill work, never pre-shred a pitch
bmad— intent-to-delivery control-plane protocol once the bet is placed:
classification, five-field intent contracts, autonomy gating, failure routing, resumable spec status
work-tracking— where scope/hill state lives during the buildqa-methodology— edge-case QA as late-cycle level-up, not gate
Evidence note
Every practice claim originates from one company's account (Basecamp, 2019). Independent team records through 2026 show real adaptations and documented abandonments; read references/anti-patterns.md before betting anything that matters, and treat six-week cycles as tunable scaffolding rather than doctrine.
