Psf Review

---
name: psf-review
description: Loop 1 — Problem-Solution Fit review. Runs when willingness-to-pay from the interviews is below the 30% bar; guides a surgical revision of ICP, value proposition and problem statement before pricing.
---

## What this skill does (L2 — Loop 1: PSF Review)

This is **Loop 1** of the L2 iteration cycle — the most critical loop. It runs
after the Problem-Solution Fit interviews when the objective signal is weak: the
**willingness-to-pay rate is below 30%** (fewer than ~3 in 10 interviewees would
pay). The point is NOT to start over — it is a **surgical, delta revision** of
the three things a weak PSF invalidates, *before* the founder invests in pricing
and the financial model (Phase 2):

1. **ICP (target market)** — are we interviewing the wrong segment? A low WTP
   often means the pain is real but the buyer isn't. Who WOULD pay for this?
2. **Value proposition** — is the promise landing? Did interviewees light up at
   a different benefit than the one we lead with?
3. **Problem statement** — is the problem we're solving actually a top-3,
   "hair-on-fire" problem for this segment, or a nice-to-have?

## How to run it

You are given the interview evidence (pain points, urgency, the WTP numbers) and
the current ICP / value proposition / problem statement. Do NOT re-derive the
whole canvas. Instead:

- **Diagnose** which of the three is most likely the cause of the low WTP, using
  the interview evidence — cite the pattern ("4 of 6 named the same pain but
  balked at price → the value framing, not the problem, is the issue").
- **Propose ONE focused revision** per affected dimension, phrased as a concrete
  change the founder can approve (e.g. "shift ICP from 'amateur clubs' to
  'semi-pro clubs with a paid coach' — they have a budget line").
- **Recommend the micro-iteration**: which 3-5 NEW interviews would test the
  revised hypothesis (who to talk to, the one question that decides it).

Be honest and non-sycophantic. If the evidence says the idea itself is weak (low
pain AND low WTP across a good sample), say so plainly — that is what the
escalation cap and the eventual GO/PIVOT/STOP verdict are for. Do not
manufacture a positive read.

## Output

A tight PSF review: the diagnosis (which dimension, with interview evidence), one
concrete proposed revision per affected dimension, and the next micro-iteration
of interviews to run. Keep it decision-oriented — this is a loop review, not an
essay.

<!-- sources-required-block -->
## Source Requirements

Ground every claim in the founder's own interview evidence (`type: 'internal'`)
or what the founder said (`type: 'user'`). Do not invent interview quotes,
segments, or numbers.