git:20260729.4a3a4d0 to git:20260729.8dd5ad0

---

name: method-pm-audit

description: "Playbook for auditing PM-health across 15 dimensions (Discovery, Strategy, Prioritization, Roadmap, Specs, Metrics, Launch, Measure, Comms, Decisions, Pricing, Competitive, Feedback, AI-PM, Governance) and producing a structured report. The brain behind pm-auditor."

---

## Codex host binding

- Treat references to Claude slash workflows as the equivalently named Codex skill.

- Before delegating to any specialist, read the `great-pm-runtime` skill and the selected packaged role file.

- Treat "invoke", "assign", "delegate", "spawn", and source Agent-tool instructions as a required Codex `spawn_agent` call with that role and a bounded assignment.

- Store every returned agent identifier. Never call a wait tool until a spawn has returned an identifier, and wait only on identifiers returned by successful spawns.

- If `spawn_agent` is unavailable or a spawn fails, report BLOCKED; do not impersonate the specialist or wait on an empty agent set.

- Resolve bundled paths from the installed GreatPM plugin root.

- Ignore Claude-only model aliases, colors, turn limits, and tool allowlists.

- Preserve GreatPM human gates, governance, state, and reporting contracts.

# PM-Audit — the 15-dimension rubric

Assess PM maturity honestly. False alarms are not insights. A clean "this is

healthy" verdict is a real outcome.

## Severity scale

| | Meaning |

|---|---|

| 🟥 **Critical** | Actively breaks product quality, security, or commitments. Fix now. |

| 🟧 **High** | Material gap that compounds — fix this cycle. |

| 🟨 **Medium** | Worth fixing but not blocking. Quick-win or scheduled. |

| 🟦 **Info** | Context for the founder. No action required. |

Reserve 🟥 for genuine emergencies — misuse poisons future audits.

## PM-maturity fingerprint — set the stage FIRST

| Stage | Markers |

|---|---|

| **Discovery** | No PMF yet; pre-paid users; multiple pivots in play. PRDs and tight metrics are inappropriate now. |

| **Pre-PMF** | Some paid users / strong intent; product still finding its shape. Lightweight PRDs OK. |

| **Scaling** | PMF reached; growth pressure. Full PRDs, A/B tests, OKRs expected. |

| **Optimization** | Mature product. Heavy metrics, tight launch hygiene, ADR discipline. |

Set the stage FIRST. Then judge dimensions against that stage's expectations.

A "no PRDs" finding is 🟦 in Discovery but 🟧 in Scaling. Severity is

stage-relative.

## The 15 dimensions

### 1. Discovery

- Real user interviews documented? When was the last one?

- JTBD named (job + trigger + current alternative)?

- Problem validated or assumed?

- Personas based on data or imagination?

🟥 Building without ever talking to a user. 🟧 No interviews in 3+ months at

Scaling. 🟨 JTBD undocumented. 🟦 Light at Discovery stage.

### 2. Strategy

- Vision in one honest sentence?

- Differentiation thesis is structural (not a feature list)?

- 2–3 multi-quarter bets named?

- Build-vs-buy direction stated?

🟥 No strategy at Scaling+. 🟧 Strategy that says "everything to everyone".

🟨 Differentiation is a feature list. 🟦 Strategy in flux at Discovery.

### 3. Prioritization

- Scoring method used (RICE / ICE / Kano / WSJF / etc.)?

- Inputs to scores sourced (data) or guessed (assumption)?

- Ranked backlog exists?

🟧 Backlog ordered by gut. 🟨 Mixed sourced/guessed without labels. 🟦

Method-light at Discovery.

### 4. Roadmap

- Now / Next / Later structure?

- OKRs tied to strategy?

- Themes (not just feature lists)?

- Capacity check done?

🟧 Overstuffed "Now" with no capacity reality. 🟨 OKRs without measurable

KRs ("increase delight"). 🟦 Roadmap fluid at Discovery.

### 5. Specs / PRDs

- For shipped features, do PRDs exist?

- Non-goals listed? Acceptance criteria testable?

🟧 Major features shipped without a spec. 🟨 PRDs exist but have TBDs / vague

adjectives. 🟦 Light at Discovery.

### 6. Metrics

- North Star defined and tied to a strategy bet?

- Leading + lagging KPIs?

- Events instrumented and verified firing?

- Success thresholds set as NUMBERS (not "improve")?

🟥 No instrumentation in a Scaling product. 🟧 No North Star. 🟧 Thresholds

are aspirations, not numbers. 🟨 Some KPIs missing.

### 7. Launch

- Phased rollouts or big-bang?

- Rollback criteria as specific signals (numbers)?

- Beta cohorts with feedback loops?

🟥 No rollback path for a high-traffic feature. 🟧 Big-bang launches with no

canary. 🟨 Beta cohort without a feedback channel.

### 8. Measure / Learn

- Post-launch read-outs happening?

- Funnels + retention cohorts reviewed?

- NPS verbatims read (not just scores)?

🟧 Ship-and-forget pattern. 🟨 Read-out happens but no next-Discover

questions surfaced.

### 9. Stakeholder comms

- Regular exec / team / investor updates?

- Same facts in every framing (not different facts)?

🟧 Long silences between updates. 🟨 Updates skip risks. 🟦 Solo founder

context allows lighter cadence.

### 10. Decision history

- ADR / decision log / lessons.md present?

- Critical calls have a written rationale?

🟧 Architectural decisions made invisibly. 🟨 No log of why things were

chosen.

### 11. Pricing

- Model documented (subscription / usage / freemium / one-time / hybrid)?

- Willingness-to-pay rationale cites a method (not just a number)?

🟧 No pricing model defined post-PMF. 🟨 WTP is a guess unlabelled as one.

🟦 Pricing TBD at Discovery.

### 12. Competitive

- Recent teardown of competitors?

- Market sized with a stated method?

🟨 No teardown in 6+ months. 🟨 Market size cited without method. 🟦 Light

at Discovery.

### 13. Feedback intake

- Support / review / survey channels exist?

- Themes synthesized regularly?

🟧 Feedback pile unread. 🟨 Themes identified but no action loop.

### 14. AI-PM (if `ai_pm_pack: true`)

Six additional sub-dimensions:

- Eval set defined, with golden examples?

- Reliability guardrails (hallucination mitigation, grounding)?

- Cost-per-inference tracked?

- Hallucination rate measured?

- Responsible-AI audit (bias, EU AI Act if applicable)?

- Human-in-the-loop design — confidence thresholds, escalation, review queues?

🟥 Shipping an AI feature with no evals. 🟧 No hallucination rate measured.

🟧 No cost-per-inference tracking. 🟨 Eval set thin.

### 15. Governance

- Critical-decision review cadence?

- Gates honoured (pm-reviewer's verdict travels to the human)?

- Read-only audits run regularly?

🟧 Gates routinely passed without pm-reviewer attention. 🟨 No quarterly

strategy review.

## Output sections — every audit has all of these

1. **Executive summary** (1 paragraph).

2. **PM-maturity fingerprint** (the stage).

3. **15-dimension status table** (🟩 / 🟨 / 🟧 / 🟥 per dimension).

4. **Findings** sorted by severity, each with source + fix + cost.

5. **Top 5 if-you-fix-nothing-else** — genuinely top 5, not "everything is top".

6. **Quick wins** — each under 1 hour.

7. **Things-that-look-bad-but-fine** — honest false-positive list. Trust-builder.

8. **Open questions for the founder** — unknowns only they can answer.

9. **Remediation plan** — concrete next steps (filed as Beads tasks unless

`--read-only`).

## Anti-patterns — never do these

- Inflating severity to sound impactful.

- Padding sections with manufactured concerns.

- Judging Discovery-stage products against Scaling-stage expectations.

- Inventing findings without a source.

- Skipping the "things-look-bad-but-fine" section (it's the trust-builder).

- Re-doing PM work in the audit (you assess; you do not replace).

## Output shape

The report uses `templates/PM-AUDIT-template.md`. Fill it; do not invent your

own structure. Consistency across audits matters more than creativity.