37signals-way

Files (8)

• SKILL.md
• betting-cycles.md · references/
• build-less.md · references/
• case-studies.md · references/
• opinionated-software.md · references/
• shaping-work.md · references/
• small-teams-execution.md · references/
• ux-ui-copy.md · references/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# The 37signals Product Development Framework

A system for building profitable software without bloat, bureaucracy, or burnout, distilled from three books: *Getting Real* (build less), *Rework* (say no by default), and *Shape Up* (fix time, flex scope). Use it to shape work, bet on six-week cycles, run small autonomous teams, and ship on a predictable cadence.

## Core Principle

**Build less.** The best products do fewer things exceptionally well — simplicity is the destination, not the starting point. Traditional development adds; the 37signals way subtracts: build half a product (not a half-assed product), say no by default, fix the time and flex the scope. Constraints are what make great work possible — six weeks, three people, and a shaped pitch force you to find the essential version.

## Scoring

**Goal: 10/10.** Rate product plans, feature scopes, and team processes 0-10 against these principles. Report the current score and the specific changes needed to reach 10/10.

- **9-10:** Fixed-time cycles, shaped pitches, small teams, no backlog, opinionated defaults, clear copy
- **7-8:** Mostly shaped work and small teams, but some scope creep or process overhead
- **5-6:** Some shaping happens, but backlogs persist, teams are too large, or preferences replace decisions
- **3-4:** Heavy process (standups, sprints, story points) with occasional simplicity efforts
- **0-2:** Feature factory: long-term roadmaps, large teams, estimation rituals, no shaping

### 1. Build Less, Underdo the Competition

**Core concept:** Win through deliberate omission — fewer features, fewer preferences, fewer moving parts, each done better than competitors do theirs. Build software you need yourself and solve problems you understand deeply.

**Why it works:** Every feature carries maintenance, cognitive, and opportunity costs forever, usually for a fraction of users. Building less keeps the product focused, the codebase manageable, and the team small.

**Key insights:**
- Half a product beats a half-assed product — do a few things well, not many things poorly
- Be a curator, not a hoarder: say no to good ideas so the great ones can breathe
- Make tiny decisions — big ones are hard to make and hard to reverse; small ones build momentum
- Underdo the competition: let them build the Swiss Army knife while you build the steak knife
- Focus on what won't change — speed, simplicity, reliability, ease of use

**Product applications:**

| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Feature prioritization** | Default answer is no | Reporting dashboard requested → ship CSV export covering 90% of use cases |
| **MVP scoping** | Cut until it hurts, then cut more | Drop user accounts for v1; use email magic links |
| **Competitive strategy** | Underdo, don't outdo | Competitor has 50 integrations; ship 3 that work flawlessly |

See [references/build-less.md](references/build-less.md) when deciding what to cut — curation tactics, the constraints-as-feature argument, and worked scope-cut examples.

### 2. Shaping the Work

**Core concept:** Before work reaches a team, a senior person who bridges product and technical worlds makes it rough (room to maneuver), solved (main elements figured out), and bounded (scope limited by appetite).

**Why it works:** Raw ideas waste team time; detailed specs turn teams into ticket-takers. Shaping removes the biggest unknowns while leaving design freedom, and appetite ("how much time is this worth?") replaces estimation ("how long will this take?") — bounded investment instead of open-ended commitment.

**Key insights:**
- A shaped pitch has five elements: problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gos
- Breadboard flows as places, affordances, and connections — structure without visual design
- Fat marker sketches keep abstraction high; wireframes invite pixel-level feedback before the concept is validated
- Rabbit holes (scope-blowing risks) get addressed in the pitch, not during the build
- No-gos make boundaries visible, preventing scope creep before it starts

**Product applications:**

| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Feature design** | Breadboard before mockup | "Invite teammate": Settings → invite form → email sent → accept link → dashboard |
| **Scope definition** | Set appetite first | "A 2-week appetite problem, not a 6-week one" shapes which solution fits |
| **Risk management** | Call out rabbit holes upfront | "Permissions could get complex — limit to owner/member for v1" |

**Ethical boundary:** Set appetites that reflect the problem's genuine value — never artificially small to pressure teams.

See [references/shaping-work.md](references/shaping-work.md) when drafting a pitch — the five-element pitch format, a worked breadboard, fat-marker rules, the rabbit-hole pattern table, good/bad no-go examples, and a 6-step shaping procedure.

### 3. Betting and Cycles

**Core concept:** Replace backlogs and roadmaps with a betting table: senior stakeholders bet shaped pitches into six-week cycles, separated by two-week cool-downs. Unfinished work hits the circuit breaker — it does not automatically continue.

**Why it works:** Backlogs grow forever, create false progress, and dilute focus; limited cycle slots force real prioritization. The circuit breaker kills zombie projects, and cool-downs prevent the burnout of continuous sprinting.

**Key insights:**
- Abolish the backlog — if an idea is important, it will come back
- Six weeks is long enough for meaningful work, short enough to feel the deadline
- Variable scope: teams cut non-essential scope to hit the fixed deadline, never the reverse
- Plan one cycle at a time — long-term roadmaps are stale commitments
- Most pitches don't get bet on, and that's healthy

**Product applications:**

| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Roadmap replacement** | Bet each cycle | 3-4 shaped pitches every 6 weeks instead of a 12-month roadmap |
| **Risk management** | Circuit breaker kills zombies | 70% done at week 6? It doesn't ship — re-shape and re-bet if it still matters |
| **Capacity planning** | Cool-down between cycles | Two weeks for bugs, tech debt, exploration, recovery |

**Ethical boundary:** Apply the circuit breaker honestly — to kill zombies, not politically inconvenient projects; the point is focus, not unsustainable pressure.

See [references/betting-cycles.md](references/betting-cycles.md) when running a betting table or planning a cycle — how the table decides, structuring the six-week/two-week rhythm, applying the circuit breaker, and the case against backlogs.

### 4. Small Teams and Execution

**Core concept:** Three-person teams (one designer, one or two programmers) work a shaped pitch autonomously — no standups, no PMs hovering. They discover their own tasks and track progress on hill charts.

**Why it works:** Three people can have a conversation; ten need a meeting. Teams that discover tasks from a shaped pitch develop real problem understanding, and hill charts tell the truth: uphill = still figuring out, downhill = executing known work.

**Key insights:**
- Scopes replace tasks — group related work into named slices that move independently on the hill
- Meetings are toxic: write it up instead
- Get real: working HTML with real data on day 2 beats a Figma mockup on day 5
- Launch now, iterate later — software in users' hands beats plans in a deck
- Design and programming integrate from day one — no handoff phases

**Product applications:**

| Context | Application | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Team structure** | Three people max, no PM | One designer + two programmers per 6-week bet |
| **Progress tracking** | Hill charts, not burndowns | "Invitations" uphill (permissions unclear); "Email templates" downhill (executing) |
| **Communication** | Async-first, write it up | A written update or 5-minute video instead of a 30-minute meeting |

**Ethical boundary:** Autonomy requires genuinely manageable scope — if a team consistently works overtime to hit six weeks, fix the shaping, not the team.

See [references/small-teams-execution.md](references/small-teams-execution.md) when a team is mid-build — reading and updating hill charts, slicing scopes, async communication norms, and getting real with working HTML.

### 5. Opinionated Software and Clear Communication

**Core concept:** Great software makes choices instead of burying users in preferences — every preference is a decision the team could not or would not make. The same honesty applies to copy: say what you mean, skip buzzwords, teach what you know openly.

From DevRik99/forge-mcp, MIT.

More from DevRik99/forge-mcp