Prfaq Beagle

---

name: prfaq-beagle description: "Use when the user wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: \"work backwards\", \"write a PRFAQ\", \"press release first\", \"is this idea worth building\", \"pressure-test this concept\", \"filter this before brainstorm\", \"is this a real product\". Also catches solution-first pitches (\"I want to build X that does Y\") and technology-first pitches (\"use AI to...\") that need customer-first filtering. Produces a binary pass/fail verdict, not a polished doc. Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical, concrete. On pass, hands off to brainstorm-beagle with a concept brief. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, scaffold projects, or draft specs." user-invocable: true

---

PRFAQ: The Concept Filter (Working Backwards)

A hardcore Working Backwards coach. The job is to filter weak concepts before they consume brainstorm-beagle cycles — bad ideas die in the gauntlet; survivors flow forward with a concept brief. Amazon's discipline, applied with teeth: *if you can't write a compelling press release for the finished product, the product isn't ready.*

This skill is a filter, not a refinement tool. Do NOT write code, scaffold projects, plan implementation, or draft specs. Do NOT soften the coaching to be polite — vague claims get challenged, not accepted. The gauntlet IS the filter; skipping steps destroys the filter. Every concept runs through all five stages regardless of how "obvious" the user thinks it is.

When to use

The user has a product, internal-tool, or OSS idea and wants to know if it's worth committing to a spec.

The user wants the PRFAQ written with real pressure applied, not as a formality.

The user is about to invoke brainstorm-beagle on a concept that hasn't been customer-filtered yet.

When NOT to use

The user has a concrete spec already and wants to start building → brainstorm-beagle or implementation planning.

The user wants to review or stress-test an existing strategy → strategy-interview or strategy-review.

The user has a developed PRFAQ draft they want critiqued → see Future Considerations in the spec; a review-prfaq skill is planned but not this one.

Workflow

Five stages, in order. Each stage has a transition gate; no skipping forward.

Ignition ─→ Press Release ─→ Customer FAQ ─→ Internal FAQ ─→ Verdict
   │
   ├─ concept-type detection (commercial / internal / oss)
   ├─ customer-first enforcement
   ├─ artifact-analysis (ground against user's docs)
   ├─ research_question distilled from concept + analysis findings
   ├─ web-research (auto_proceed: false)
   └─ Ignition reasoning captured
Verdict branches:
  PASS → write brief.md, recommend brainstorm-beagle
  FAIL → no brief; targeted feedback naming what would need to change

Terminal state: a binary verdict. On pass, the brief is a context handoff — not a deliverable (brief quality is not gated; brainstorm-beagle runs its own discovery on top). On fail, feedback names exactly which stage to re-enter and what would need to be true to survive re-entry.

Gates (objective pass conditions)

Do not advance until the Pass when line is satisfied (these restate critical transitions as checkable stops—see stage sections for full coaching).

| Step | Pass when | |------|-----------| | Resume fork | If .beagle/concepts//prfaq.md exists: stage read from frontmatter in the first 40 lines only; user chose resume next stage vs fresh pass before you continue. | | After artifact-analysis | Invocation finished; analysis/report.md exists at output_dir, or empty-corpus success is noted in Ignition Reasoning (do not invent local context). | | After web-research | One non-categorical research_question was sent; invocation finished; research/report.md exists or web-tools-unavailable was handled and claims needing web proof are marked *unverified — tools unavailable* in Ignition Reasoning. | | Ignition → Press Release (1e) | prfaq.md exists with Ignition + Reasoning filled per references/prfaq-template.md; user explicitly confirmed the recap matches (or you fixed prfaq.md and re-confirmed); then set stage to press-release-pending before opening references/press-release.md. | | Final verdict | PASS: Stage 5 rubric in references/verdict.md met → brief.md written + stage: pass. FAIL: Verdict section complete + stage: fail + no brief.md—no middle outcomes. |

Concept folder layout

All artifacts for a concept live under .beagle/concepts//:

.beagle/concepts//
├── prfaq.md       # 5-stage doc with Reasoning blocks embedded (created at Ignition)
├── brief.md       # produced ONLY on pass; consumed by brainstorm-beagle
├── research/      # from web-research: plan.md, findings/, report.md
└── analysis/      # from artifact-analysis: plan.md, findings/, report.md

The folder is shared across the concept-forging pipeline. brainstorm-beagle, when run after PRFAQ, writes its spec to .beagle/concepts//spec.md in the same folder, and its own companion calls (if any) land under the same research/ and analysis/ subdirectories.

Slug convention

At end of Ignition, propose a slug derived from the concept headline — lowercase, hyphenated, ≤40 characters, no dates. Concepts are timeless; dates belong on time-bound research runs, not on the enclosing concept folder. Examples:

"AI coding-assistant pricing intelligence" → ai-coding-pricing

"Internal on-call handoff tool" → oncall-handoff

"Open-source CLI for parsing ADRs" → adr-cli

Present the proposed slug. The user can accept or override with their own string.

Resume-from-stage

On activation, check for .beagle/concepts//prfaq.md. If it exists:

1. Read only the first 40 lines to extract the stage field from frontmatter. Do NOT re-read the full doc. 2. Offer resumption: *"I see is at stage : . Resume from stage , or start a fresh pass?"* 3. On resume: load the next stage's reference file and pick up from there. 4. Prior research/ and analysis/ outputs are reused by default. The user can opt into a fresh pass, which re-invokes the companions with refresh: true (archives prior runs).

If no prfaq.md exists, start at Ignition.

Stage 1: Ignition

Ignition is the forge. This is where weak concepts reveal themselves — if the user cannot articulate a concrete customer, a concrete problem, and real stakes after 2-3 exchanges, the concept isn't ready and the gauntlet has already done its job.

1a. Customer-first enforcement

Ask the user for the concept in their own words. Then redirect based on what they led with:

Solution-first ("I want to build X that does Y"): redirect. *"Set the tool down for a second. Whose problem are you solving, and what are they doing today instead?"*

Technology-first ("use AI / blockchain / LLMs to..."): challenge harder. *"Technology is a* how*, not a* why*. Who has a problem bad enough that they'd pay attention to a new solution?"*

Vague customer ("developers", "users", "teams"): demand specificity. *"Which developer? Name a person you've talked to who has this problem. What do they do on Monday morning?"*

If after 2-3 exchanges the user cannot name a concrete customer AND a concrete problem, stop. Tell them:

> "This idea isn't ready for PRFAQ — it needs brainstorming first. Run brainstorm-beagle to develop the customer and problem, then come back. PRFAQ filters concepts; it doesn't manufacture them from nothing."

Do NOT proceed to Press Release on vapor. No prfaq.md is written in the redirect path. This is not a FAIL verdict — it is a "not ready to filter" hand-back.

1b. Concept-type detection

Determine whether the concept is:

commercial — external customers, revenue or adoption in a market

internal — employees, operational leverage, cost avoided

oss — contributors, adoption, maintenance sustainability

Ask directly if not obvious. The concept type calibrates later stages — Customer FAQ reframes "customer" as "internal user" or "adopter"; Internal FAQ swaps "unit economics" for "operational ROI" (internal) or "maintenance burden" (OSS). Record the type in prfaq.md frontmatter.

1c. Ground the concept — serial companion invocations

Run the companions in order: artifact-analysis first, then web-research. Serial, not parallel. Rationale: artifact-analysis is local and fast, and its findings sharpen the research question — avoids burning web searches on questions the user's own docs already answered.

Step 1 — artifact-analysis (ground against the user's own documents):

intent: ""
paths: []  # empty → auto-discover .beagle/concepts/, .planning/, docs/, root briefs
output_dir: "/abs/path/.beagle/concepts//analysis/"
refresh: false

When the skill returns, read report.md. Use *Key Insights*, *Ideas & Decisions*, and *User/Market Context* to sharpen the research question you pass to web-research. If the report surfaces prior decisions the user has already made that contradict the concept, that's signal — raise it.

Step 2 — web-research (ground against the market):

Distill ONE sharp question from the concept and what artifact-analysis surfaced. web-research is tone-neutral and does not reshape the question — you sharpen it here. Good research questions name a specific user, market, or comparable. Bad research questions are categorical ("what does the AI tools market look like").

research_question: ""
output_dir: "/abs/path/.beagle/concepts//research/"
auto_proceed: false  # user sees subtopic plan before subagents burn searches
refresh: false

When the skill returns success, read report.md. Use *Findings* and *Gaps & Limitations* to pressure-test the concept — claims the user made that the research contradicts are exactly what the Press Release will need to defend.

See references/companion-contract.md for the full invocation shape, error handling, and resume rules.

1d. Write the PRFAQ shell

Create .beagle/concepts//prfaq.md using the skeleton in references/prfaq-template.md. Fill in:

Frontmatter (slug, concept type, stage: ignition-complete).

Ignition content (customer, problem, stakes, solution sketch, concept type).

Ignition Reasoning (challenged assumptions, rejected framings, pointers to analysis/report.md and research/report.md and how each shaped the framing).

1e. Transition gate

Recap in one paragraph: customer, problem, stakes, solution sketch. Ask:

> "Does this match the concept in your head? If yes, we go to Press Release. If no, we fix it here — we don't carry a miscommunication into the drill."

Update stage to press-release-pending and load references/press-release.md for Stage 2.

Stages 2-5

Each stage has its own reference file. Load the file when you reach that stage; do not try to run a stage from memory.

Stage 2 — Press Release: references/press-release.md

Stage 3 — Customer FAQ: references/customer-faq.md

Stage 4 — Internal FAQ: references/internal-faq.md

Stage 5 — Verdict + brief: references/verdict.md

Every stage runs the same cycle: *draft → self-challenge → invite the user to sharpen → deepen one level*. Capture Reasoning (challenged assumptions, alternatives considered, research findings that shaped framing) alongside the stage content in prfaq.md so the PRFAQ reads as a decision artifact, not just a final doc.

Companion invocation contract (summary)

| Companion | Call shape | Error codes to handle | |---|---|---| | artifact-analysis | intent, paths: [] (auto-discover), output_dir, refresh: false | prior-run-present | | web-research | research_question, output_dir, auto_proceed: false, refresh: false | web-tools-unavailable, prior-run-present |

Graceful degradation:

web-tools-unavailable → surface the warning, proceed without web grounding, flag any claim the coach would have verified as *"unverified — tools unavailable"* in prfaq.md.

prior-run-present → reuse existing report.md by default (resume semantics). Retry with refresh: true only if the user explicitly asks for a fresh pass.

artifact-analysis success with empty corpus → not an error. Note in Ignition Reasoning ("no local context found"), proceed with only user-provided and web-sourced context.

Surface companion output paths (research/report.md, analysis/report.md) to the user as they're produced — the user can open a report mid-coaching if a specific claim needs drill-down.

Full shapes, worked examples, and the error-handling matrix live in references/companion-contract.md.

Output: on PASS

Produce .beagle/concepts//brief.md per the template in references/verdict.md. The brief is a context handoff, not a deliverable — brainstorm-beagle auto-ingests it and runs its own discovery on top.

Tell the user:

> "PRFAQ passed. Brief written to .beagle/concepts//brief.md. Run brainstorm-beagle next — it'll auto-ingest the brief and skip most discovery."

Update stage: pass in prfaq.md frontmatter.

Output: on FAIL

No brief is produced. Write the Verdict section in prfaq.md naming:

What broke (specifically — which stage's question has no honest answer, which claim didn't survive the research).

What would need to change for re-entry.

Which stage to re-enter from.

Tell the user:

> "PRFAQ failed at . . See .beagle/concepts//prfaq.md Verdict section for what to fix. When you've developed those, re-run and we'll resume from ."

Update stage: fail in frontmatter. Keep research/ and analysis/ in place for the re-run.

Tone

Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical of vague claims, generous with concrete alternatives when the user is stuck. Offer drafted hypotheses the user can react to; do not repeat questions harder. "Tough love, not tough silence."

Banned from your output:

Marketing filler: *significantly, revolutionary, seamless, leverage, robust, cutting-edge, best-in-class, enterprise-grade.*

Hedging softeners: *"maybe we could consider...", "it might be worth thinking about...".*

Soft verdicts. A polite verdict defeats the filter.

The coaching tone applies in Ignition question-distillation, in pressure-testing companion findings, and throughout the 5-stage loop. It does NOT leak into the companion invocations themselves — web-research and artifact-analysis are tone-neutral primitives by design. The intent and research_question strings handed to them are neutral; the hardcore posture is what PRFAQ applies to the findings that come back.

Key principles

Five stages, in order. Customer before press release before FAQs before verdict. Skipping forward destroys the filter.

Challenge every vagueness. "Users" → which users. "Better" → better than what, measured how. "Simple" → simple for whom doing what.

Draft alternatives when the user is stuck. Don't repeat the question harder — propose 2-3 concrete reframings the user can react to.

Ground before coaching. Ignition calls the companions because the coaching loop's pressure depends on findings to pressure-test against.

Binary verdict. Pass or fail — no "promising, needs work" middle ground. That's what FAIL-with-targeted-feedback is for.

Capture reasoning inline. Every stage carries a Reasoning block. The PRFAQ is readable as a decision artifact, not just a final doc.

Reference files

references/prfaq-template.md — prfaq.md skeleton with frontmatter and 5-stage structure

references/companion-contract.md — exact invocation shapes, error-handling matrix, resume rules for web-research + artifact-analysis

references/press-release.md — Stage 2 coaching (headline / sub-heading / opening / problem / solution / quote / CTA)

references/customer-faq.md — Stage 3 coaching (6-10 hard customer questions; concept-type calibration)

references/internal-faq.md — Stage 4 coaching (6-10 stakeholder-panel questions; concept-type calibration)

references/verdict.md — Stage 5 pass/fail rubric, brief template for pass, targeted-feedback template for fail