Iterate Pivot Decision
- 488 installs
- 518 repo stars
- Updated August 4, 2026
- product-on-purpose/pm-skills
iterate-pivot-decision is an agent skill that documents pivot-or-persevere decisions with evidence, hypothesis review, and implementation plans for developers and PMs evaluating whether to change product direction after
About
iterate-pivot-decision is a product-on-purpose/pm-skills agent skill (version 2.1.1) that captures the analysis and rationale behind a strategic direction change or a decision to stay the course, based on Lean Startup pivot-or-persevere thinking. The skill walks through seven steps: summarize current state and investment, compile metrics and user feedback, revisit original hypotheses, define at least three options (persevere plus distinct pivots), analyze each against market opportunity and risk, state the chosen direction with dissenting views, and plan implementation with communication steps. Output follows references/TEMPLATE.md with eleven sections including Overview, Executive Summary, Evidence Summary, Options Considered, Decision, and Implementation Plan. Use it after MVP launch, invalidated hypotheses, or strategy reviews—not for experiment-only reports or pre-build scope decisions.
- iterate-pivot-decision
- AI & Agent Building
- AI-coding skill
Iterate Pivot Decision by the numbers
- 488 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +30 installs in the week ending Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #1,796 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills --skill iterate-pivot-decisionAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 488 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 518 |
| Last updated | August 4, 2026 |
| Repository | product-on-purpose/pm-skills ↗ |
How do you document a product pivot decision with evidence?
Helps with ai & agent building tasks.
Who is it for?
Product managers and tech leads at pivot-or-persevere checkpoints who need an evidence-backed decision record after significant validated learning from a shipped product.
Skip if: Teams reporting experiment results without a direction decision, making purely technical architecture choices, or deciding whether to build an unshipped idea at all.
When should I use this skill?
Market feedback or metrics suggest the current product direction may not work and stakeholders need a structured pivot-or-persevere decision document.
What you get
Completed pivot decision document with evidence summary, hypothesis review, options analysis, chosen direction rationale, implementation plan, and communication plan.
- Pivot decision document
- Implementation and communication plans
By the numbers
- Version 2.1.1 documented in skill frontmatter
- Output template includes eleven required document sections
- Workflow defines at least three strategic options before deciding
Files
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->
Pivot Decision
A pivot decision document captures the analysis and rationale behind a strategic direction change.or the decision to stay the course. Based on the Lean Startup concept of "pivot or persevere," this artifact ensures major strategic decisions are made with evidence, communicated clearly, and preserved for organizational learning.
When to Use
- After significant validated learning suggests the current direction may not work
- At planned pivot-or-persevere checkpoints (e.g., after MVP launch)
- When key hypotheses have been invalidated by market feedback
- During strategy reviews when considering major direction changes
- When stakeholders are debating whether to change course
When NOT to Use
- You are reporting experiment results without a direction decision attached -> use
measure-experiment-results - The decision is technical or architectural rather than directional -> use
develop-adr - You want to explore candidate directions before deciding anything -> use
define-opportunity-tree - The team needs the period-end reflection ceremony -> use
iterate-retrospective; a pivot call is a decision document, not a retro - The product is not built yet, and the question is whether to build a new idea, feature, or scope change at all (a build / validate / cut verdict) -> use
foundation-build-risk-review; a pivot call weighs market feedback on something already shipped
Instructions
When asked to document a pivot decision, follow these steps:
1. Summarize Current State Document what you're currently doing, how long you've been doing it, what you've invested, and what results you've achieved. This grounds the decision in reality.
2. Present the Evidence Compile all relevant data: metrics, user feedback, experiment results, market signals. Be comprehensive.include evidence that supports both staying and changing course.
3. Review Hypotheses Revisit the original hypotheses that justified the current direction. Which have been validated? Which have been invalidated? Which remain untested?
4. Define Options Articulate at least three options: persevere (continue current direction), and two or more distinct pivot options. Describe each option concretely.what would change?
5. Analyze Each Option Evaluate options against key criteria: market opportunity, competitive advantage, team capability, resource requirements, and risk. Use evidence, not opinions.
6. Make the Decision State the chosen direction clearly. Explain the rationale, acknowledging trade-offs. If the team disagrees, capture dissenting views.
7. Plan Implementation Outline what happens next: immediate actions, resource needs, success criteria for the new direction, and communication plan.
Output Format
Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md to structure the output. A complete decision document fills every template section: Overview; Executive Summary; Current State; Evidence Summary; Hypothesis Review; Options Considered; Analysis; Decision; Implementation Plan; Communication Plan; and Appendix.
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify:
- [ ] Current state includes honest assessment of results
- [ ] Evidence is comprehensive, not cherry-picked
- [ ] Multiple options are analyzed fairly
- [ ] Decision rationale is clear and evidence-based
- [ ] Implementation plan is actionable
- [ ] Dissenting views are captured
Examples
See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed example.
{
"schema": 1,
"skill": "iterate-pivot-decision",
"runs_per_query": 3,
"trigger_threshold": 0.5,
"queries": [
{
"q": "Document whether we should pivot or persevere on the SMB self-serve motion after the MVP numbers",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Three of our core hypotheses got invalidated by the beta. Put together the direction decision with the evidence and options.",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "We're at the planned post-launch checkpoint. Write the pivot-or-persevere analysis for the marketplace bet.",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Stakeholders are split on abandoning the consumer app to chase enterprise. Build the decision document with the data on both sides.",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Six months in, traction is flat. Lay out persevere plus at least two pivot options and recommend one.",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Market feedback says our wedge feature isn't a wedge. Document the strategic direction change with rationale and an implementation plan.",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Make the case, with evidence, for whether to change course on the freemium pricing strategy or stay put",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "validation"
},
{
"q": "After the failed launch, the founders want a structured pivot analysis: what we invested, what we learned, what the options are",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "validation"
},
{
"q": "We're debating shifting from a horizontal platform to a vertical healthcare focus. Capture the decision and the dissenting views.",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "validation"
},
{
"q": "Write up yesterday's strategy review outcome: we are staying the course, and I want the persevere rationale preserved",
"expect": "trigger",
"split": "validation"
},
{
"q": "The pricing experiment concluded. Write the readout with the stats and learnings, no strategy call attached.",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "train",
"near_miss_of": "measure-experiment-results",
"notes": "Evidence report without a direction decision"
},
{
"q": "Run the end-of-quarter team reflection on what went well and what to change about how we work",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "train",
"near_miss_of": "iterate-retrospective",
"notes": "Period-end ceremony, not a direction decision"
},
{
"q": "Map our desired outcome to candidate opportunities and solutions before we commit to any direction",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "train",
"near_miss_of": "define-opportunity-tree",
"notes": "Exploring candidate directions, nothing being decided yet"
},
{
"q": "Document why we're switching from REST to gRPC for internal services",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Help me debug why the churn model's predictions drifted last week",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "train"
},
{
"q": "Summarize the A/B test on annual-plan messaging: control versus treatment, significance, and what we learned",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "train",
"near_miss_of": "measure-experiment-results",
"notes": "Experiment readout; the evidence, not the call"
},
{
"q": "Record the decision to migrate the monolith to services, with context and consequences",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "validation",
"near_miss_of": "develop-adr",
"notes": "Technical or architectural, not directional"
},
{
"q": "Draft the board update email summarizing this quarter's progress",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "validation"
},
{
"q": "Find me a venue for the company offsite in March",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "validation"
},
{
"q": "Write a problem statement for why activation is stuck at 20%",
"expect": "no-trigger",
"split": "validation"
}
]
}
iterate-pivot-decision - Version History
| Version | Date | Release | Effort | Type | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1.1 | 2026-06-22 | v2.29.0 | F-56 | patch | Reciprocal When NOT to Use cross-link to foundation-build-risk-review (the pre-build risk gate) |
| 2.1.0 | 2026-06-10 | v2.26.0 | F-12-batch-3 | minor | Quality convergence: When NOT to Use + output-contract enumeration (F-12 Batch 3) |
| 2.0.0 | 2026-01-26 | - | - | baseline | Prior published version |
2.1.1 (2026-06-22)
Patch: added a reciprocal "When NOT to Use" pointer to foundation-build-risk-review (the new v2.29.0 pre-build / feature-scope risk gate), completing the bidirectional boundary. No template, example, or behavior changes.
2.1.0 (2026-06-10)
Quality-convergence minor (F-12 Batch 3): added a "When NOT to Use" section with boundary pointers to neighboring skills, and the Output Format now enumerates the template sections a complete artifact fills. No template or example changes.
2.0.0 (2026-01-26)
Baseline row for the prior published version; see git history for its changes.
Pivot Decision: FitTrack App
Overview
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Decision Date | January 14, 2026 |
| Decision Maker(s) | Sarah Kim (CEO), Michael Chen (CPO), Lisa Park (CTO) |
| Product/Initiative | FitTrack - Personal Fitness Tracking App |
| Time in Market | 8 months (launched May 2025) |
| Investment to Date | $1.2M seed funding, 18 months development, 6 FTEs |
---
Executive Summary
Decision: Pivot to B2B Enterprise Wellness (Customer Segment Pivot)
After 8 months in market, our B2C fitness app has achieved 5,000 users but only 2% paid conversion, well below the 8% needed for sustainability. User interviews revealed strong interest from corporate wellness buyers, with 3 companies already asking about enterprise licensing. We're pivoting from B2C consumer to B2B enterprise wellness, targeting HR departments at companies with 500+ employees.
---
Current State
What We're Doing Now
FitTrack is a B2C mobile app that helps individuals track workouts, nutrition, and sleep. We monetize through a freemium model: free basic tracking, $9.99/month premium for advanced analytics and coaching. Our target customer is health-conscious individuals aged 25-45.
Key Metrics
| Metric | Current | Target | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Users | 5,200 | 50,000 | -90% |
| Paid Conversion | 2.1% | 8% | -74% |
| Monthly Revenue | $1,100 | $25,000 | -96% |
| 30-Day Retention | 18% | 40% | -55% |
| CAC | $12 | $8 | +50% |
Timeline of Events
| Date | Milestone | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| May 2025 | App Store launch | 500 downloads first week |
| July 2025 | Paid tier launch | 1.8% conversion |
| Sept 2025 | Marketing push | CAC increased, conversion flat |
| Nov 2025 | Added social features | Slight retention improvement |
| Dec 2025 | 3 enterprise inquiries received | Unexpected inbound interest |
| Jan 2026 | Pivot evaluation | This document |
Resources Invested
| Resource | Amount |
|---|---|
| Time | 18 months (10 months dev, 8 months in market) |
| Budget | $1.2M of $1.5M seed funding |
| Team | 6 people × 18 months |
| Opportunity cost | Could have tested B2B earlier based on signals |
---
Evidence Summary
Data That Triggered This Evaluation
1. Conversion rate stuck at 2% despite multiple pricing tests, feature additions, and marketing campaigns. The B2C fitness app market is brutally competitive.
2. Three unsolicited enterprise inquiries in Q4 from HR leaders who found our app and wanted to license it for their companies. We weren't pursuing this market.
3. User interviews revealed job context: When we asked converted users why they paid, 60% mentioned their employer either reimbursed it or they wished they would. The "fitness-conscious individual" is often a "wellness-benefit-seeking employee."
4. Competitive analysis: Direct B2C competitors (MyFitnessPal, Strava) have massive scale advantages. B2B wellness (Wellable, Virgin Pulse) is more fragmented with higher switching costs.
Customer/User Feedback
What Users Are Saying:
- "I'd use this more if my company offered it as a benefit" - User interview, P7
- "My HR team is always looking for wellness solutions. You should talk to them." - User interview, P12
- "The app is good, but I have too many fitness apps already. If work paid for it, that'd change things." - User interview, P3
What Enterprise Buyers Are Saying:
- "We spend $400/employee on wellness benefits and have no idea if they work. Your analytics could show ROI." - Inbound inquiry, HR Director at 800-person company
- "Our current vendor is enterprise software from 2010. Your UX is 10 years better." - Inbound inquiry, Wellness Coordinator
User Behavior Patterns:
- Power users (top 10%) often share app to colleagues.word of mouth within companies
- Highest engagement on Monday mornings.suggests workplace wellness routines
- Most churned users cite "too many apps" as reason.commodity market problem
Market Signals
- Corporate wellness market: $56B globally, growing 7% annually
- Post-COVID: Employers competing for talent via wellness benefits
- HR buyers increasingly have budget authority for wellness tools
- Enterprise wellness has 3-5 year contracts (sticky revenue)
Internal Learnings
- Our analytics dashboard is more sophisticated than we realized.enterprise buyers loved it
- We underestimated how much we compete with free (Apple Health, Google Fit) in B2C
- The team has more B2B experience than B2C (3 of 6 came from enterprise SaaS)
---
Hypothesis Review
Original Hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Health-conscious 25-45 year olds will pay $10/mo for premium fitness tracking | Invalidated | 2% conversion despite targeting; market saturated with free options |
| Social features will drive retention | Partially Invalidated | Minor lift (18% → 22% retention), not enough to change trajectory |
| We can achieve $8 CAC through organic + content marketing | Invalidated | CAC stuck at $12; paid channels even worse ($18) |
| Premium analytics differentiate us from free alternatives | Validated | Users who convert cite analytics as reason; enterprise buyers excited by this |
Key Learnings from Validation
- Analytics capability is real and valued.just by wrong customer segment
- B2C fitness is a commodity market with winner-take-all dynamics
- Corporate buyers have budget and willingness to pay for wellness
- Our team's B2B DNA may be better suited to enterprise selling
---
Options Considered
Option 1: Persevere (Stay B2C Course)
Description: Continue B2C focus. Double down on marketing, add more viral features, explore influencer partnerships, and try to break through conversion ceiling.
What Changes:
- Hire growth marketer to optimize funnel
- Build more social/viral features
- Explore additional monetization (ads, affiliate)
Rationale for Considering:
- We have some users who love the product
- Pivoting means wasted B2C investment
- B2C success could be massive scale if it works
Risks:
- Continuing to burn cash on a market that may not work
- 3-6 more months of runway ($300K) needed to know
- Team morale already suffering from flat metrics
Resource Requirements: $300K additional runway, 3-6 months
---
Option 2: Pivot to B2B Enterprise Wellness (Customer Segment Pivot)
Description: Reposition FitTrack as an enterprise wellness platform. Target HR departments at companies with 500+ employees. Shift from freemium to enterprise licensing ($3-5/employee/month).
What Changes:
- Add admin dashboard for HR buyers
- Build team analytics and reporting
- Enterprise SSO and security features
- Hire 1-2 B2B sales/partnerships roles
- Remove B2C freemium focus
Rationale for Considering:
- Inbound demand already exists (3 inquiries)
- Higher contract values ($50-200K/year vs $120/user/year)
- Longer retention cycles (3-year contracts)
- Better competitive position (fragmented market, inferior UX)
Risks:
- Longer sales cycles (3-6 months enterprise)
- Need to build sales capability
- May lose current B2C users
- Compliance requirements (SOC 2, GDPR)
Resource Requirements: $150K for MVP enterprise features, 2-3 months to market
---
Option 3: Pivot to Platform/API (Technology Pivot)
Description: Stop being an app. Become the analytics layer that other fitness apps and devices integrate with. License our analytics engine to Apple Health, Garmin, etc.
What Changes:
- Sunset consumer app
- Build API-first platform
- Partner with device manufacturers
- B2B2C model
Rationale for Considering:
- Our analytics are genuinely good
- Avoids both B2C competition and B2B sales complexity
- Potential massive scale through partnerships
Risks:
- Long partnership cycles with big tech
- No existing relationships with potential partners
- Commoditization risk if analytics become table stakes
- Requires different team skills
Resource Requirements: $400K, 6-9 months, uncertain outcome
---
Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
| Criterion | Weight | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Market Opportunity | High | Size and growth of addressable market |
| Competitive Advantage | High | Our defensibility and differentiation |
| Team Capability | Medium | Alignment with team skills and experience |
| Resource Requirements | Medium | Cash and time needed |
| Risk Level | Medium | Likelihood of failure |
Options Comparison
| Criterion | Persevere (B2C) | B2B Enterprise | Platform/API |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market Opportunity | Low (saturated) | High ($56B, growing) | Medium (uncertain) |
| Competitive Advantage | Low (commodity) | High (UX, analytics) | Medium (commoditization risk) |
| Team Capability | Medium (learning) | High (B2B DNA) | Low (no partnerships exp) |
| Resource Requirements | Medium ($300K) | Low ($150K) | High ($400K) |
| Risk Level | High (flat metrics) | Medium (new sales) | Very High (uncertain) |
| Overall | 2/5 | 4/5 | 2.5/5 |
---
Decision
Chosen Direction: Pivot to B2B Enterprise Wellness
Decision Statement: FitTrack will pivot from B2C consumer fitness app to B2B enterprise wellness platform, targeting HR departments at companies with 500+ employees. We will sunset B2C marketing, build enterprise features, and hire B2B sales capability.
Rationale
1. Evidence of demand: We have 3 inbound enterprise inquiries without trying. This is the strongest market signal we've received.
2. Better unit economics: Enterprise contracts ($50-200K) are 400-1600x higher LTV than B2C ($120/year). Even with longer sales cycles, the math works better.
3. Team-market fit: Our team has B2B DNA. Three of six team members have enterprise SaaS backgrounds. We've been fighting against our strengths.
4. Competitive positioning: B2B wellness is fragmented with legacy UX. Our consumer-grade design is a genuine differentiator. In B2C, we're one of hundreds of "good enough" apps.
5. Resource efficiency: B2B pivot requires $150K and 2-3 months.our most capital-efficient option.
Trade-offs Accepted
| Trade-off | Impact | Why Acceptable |
|---|---|---|
| Lose 5,000 B2C users | Community we built, brand awareness | Users weren't converting; sunk cost fallacy otherwise |
| Longer sales cycles | Cash flow delays 3-6 months | Enterprise contracts have upfront payments; VC can bridge if needed |
| Need to learn enterprise sales | New capability to build | Team has transferable skills; can hire experienced seller |
| Compliance requirements | Time and cost for SOC 2, etc. | Enterprise willingness to pay covers these costs |
Dissenting Views
Michael (CPO): Concerned about abandoning B2C entirely. Suggested maintaining a small B2C presence for brand awareness and potential B2B2C. Decision: We'll keep the app available but stop active B2C investment. Enterprise employees can still use it individually.
---
Implementation Plan
Immediate Actions (Next 30 Days)
| Action | Owner | Due Date |
|---|---|---|
| Contact 3 inbound enterprise leads | Sarah (CEO) | Jan 17 |
| Scope admin dashboard MVP | Michael (CPO) | Jan 21 |
| Draft enterprise pricing model | Sarah + Michael | Jan 21 |
| Pause B2C marketing spend | Lisa (CTO) | Jan 15 |
| Begin SOC 2 readiness assessment | Lisa | Jan 28 |
| Create enterprise sales one-pager | Sarah | Jan 21 |
| Post B2B account executive job listing | Sarah | Jan 24 |
Resource Requirements
| Resource | Current | Needed | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Runway | $300K (8 months) | $300K (12 months) | Bridge round or faster revenue |
| Headcount | 6 | 7-8 (add sales) | Hire 1-2 in Q1 |
| Technology | B2C app | Enterprise features | $150K development |
Success Criteria
How we'll know if this is working:
| Metric | 30-Day Target | 90-Day Target |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise pipeline | 5 qualified opportunities | 15 qualified opportunities |
| Signed LOIs/pilots | 1 | 3 |
| Contract revenue (signed) | $0 | $75K ARR |
| Pilot feedback score | N/A | 4+/5 |
Checkpoint Schedule
| Date | Checkpoint | Decision Point |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 14 | 30-day review | Do we have pipeline? Continue or reconsider? |
| Apr 14 | 90-day review | Do we have contracts? Scale or iterate? |
---
Communication Plan
Internal Communication
| Audience | Message | Channel | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full team | Pivot decision and rationale | All-hands meeting | Jan 15 |
| Board | Pivot strategy and funding needs | Board deck + call | Jan 17 |
| Advisors | Strategy shift, ask for B2B intros | Individual emails | Jan 20 |
External Communication
| Audience | Message | Channel | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| B2C users | "We're focusing on helping companies..." | In-app + email | Jan 22 |
| Inbound leads | "We're building this.let's talk" | Personal outreach | Jan 17 |
| Tech press | Not yet | N/A | After first contract |
---
Appendix
Supporting Documents
- Enterprise market sizing analysis (internal doc)
- User interview synthesis (enterprise quotes) (internal doc)
- Competitive analysis: B2B wellness (internal doc)
- SOC 2 readiness checklist (security doc)
Pivot Type Reference
This is a Customer Segment Pivot: Same core product (fitness tracking + analytics), different customer (enterprises vs. individuals). This is one of the lower-risk pivot types because it leverages existing product capabilities.
Other pivot types considered but rejected:
- Platform Pivot: Too resource-intensive, uncertain outcome
- Value Capture Pivot: Tried different pricing in B2C, didn't work
- Zoom-in Pivot: Analytics alone aren't compelling without the tracking
---
Decision documented on January 14, 2026. 30-day review scheduled for February 14, 2026.
Pivot Decision: [Product/Initiative Name]
Overview
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Decision Date | [Date] |
| Decision Maker(s) | [Names and roles] |
| Product/Initiative | [Name] |
| Time in Market | [Duration since launch] |
| Investment to Date | [Time, money, resources] |
---
Executive Summary
Decision: [Persevere / Pivot to X]
[2-3 sentence summary of the decision and primary rationale]
---
Current State
What We're Doing Now
[Description of current product/strategy/approach]
Key Metrics
| Metric | Current | Target | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Metric 1] | [Value] | [Value] | [+/-X%] |
| [Metric 2] | [Value] | [Value] | [+/-X%] |
| [Metric 3] | [Value] | [Value] | [+/-X%] |
| [Metric 4] | [Value] | [Value] | [+/-X%] |
Timeline of Events
| Date | Milestone | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| [Date] | [Event] | [Result] |
| [Date] | [Event] | [Result] |
| [Date] | [Event] | [Result] |
Resources Invested
| Resource | Amount |
|---|---|
| Time | [X months] |
| Budget | [$X] |
| Team | [X people × Y months] |
| Opportunity cost | [What else we could have done] |
---
Evidence Summary
Data That Triggered This Evaluation
<!-- What signals suggested we should reconsider our direction? -->
1. [Evidence point 1] 2. [Evidence point 2] 3. [Evidence point 3]
Customer/User Feedback
What Users Are Saying:
- "[Quote 1]" - [Source]
- "[Quote 2]" - [Source]
- "[Quote 3]" - [Source]
User Behavior Patterns:
- [Behavioral observation 1]
- [Behavioral observation 2]
Market Signals
- [Market observation 1]
- [Market observation 2]
- [Competitive development]
Internal Learnings
- [Learning 1]
- [Learning 2]
---
Hypothesis Review
Original Hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| [Hypothesis 1] | Validated / Invalidated / Untested | [Brief evidence] |
| [Hypothesis 2] | Validated / Invalidated / Untested | [Brief evidence] |
| [Hypothesis 3] | Validated / Invalidated / Untested | [Brief evidence] |
| [Hypothesis 4] | Validated / Invalidated / Untested | [Brief evidence] |
Key Learnings from Validation
- [What we learned from validated hypotheses]
- [What we learned from invalidated hypotheses]
---
Options Considered
Option 1: Persevere (Stay the Course)
Description: [What continuing current direction looks like]
What Changes: [Adjustments to current approach]
Rationale for Considering:
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
Risks:
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
Resource Requirements: [What it takes to continue]
---
Option 2: [Pivot Type - e.g., Customer Segment Pivot]
Description: [What this pivot looks like]
What Changes:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]
Rationale for Considering:
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
Risks:
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
Resource Requirements: [What this pivot requires]
---
Option 3: [Pivot Type - e.g., Platform Pivot]
Description: [What this pivot looks like]
What Changes:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]
Rationale for Considering:
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
Risks:
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]
Resource Requirements: [What this pivot requires]
---
Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
| Criterion | Weight | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Market Opportunity | [High/Med/Low] | [How we evaluate] |
| Competitive Advantage | [High/Med/Low] | [How we evaluate] |
| Team Capability | [High/Med/Low] | [How we evaluate] |
| Resource Requirements | [High/Med/Low] | [How we evaluate] |
| Risk Level | [High/Med/Low] | [How we evaluate] |
Options Comparison
| Criterion | Persevere | Pivot Option 2 | Pivot Option 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market Opportunity | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] |
| Competitive Advantage | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] |
| Team Capability | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] |
| Resource Requirements | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] |
| Risk Level | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] |
| Overall | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] |
---
Decision
Chosen Direction: [Option Name]
Decision Statement: [Clear statement of what we're doing]
Rationale
[Detailed explanation of why this option was chosen over alternatives]
Trade-offs Accepted
| Trade-off | Impact | Why Acceptable |
|---|---|---|
| [Trade-off 1] | [Impact] | [Justification] |
| [Trade-off 2] | [Impact] | [Justification] |
Dissenting Views
<!-- Capture disagreement for the record -->
[Who disagreed and their reasoning]
---
Implementation Plan
Immediate Actions (Next 30 Days)
| Action | Owner | Due Date |
|---|---|---|
| [Action 1] | [Name] | [Date] |
| [Action 2] | [Name] | [Date] |
| [Action 3] | [Name] | [Date] |
Resource Requirements
| Resource | Current | Needed | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |
| Headcount | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |
| Technology | [X] | [Y] | [Z] |
Success Criteria
How we'll know if this is working:
| Metric | 30-Day Target | 90-Day Target |
|---|---|---|
| [Metric 1] | [Value] | [Value] |
| [Metric 2] | [Value] | [Value] |
| [Metric 3] | [Value] | [Value] |
Checkpoint Schedule
| Date | Checkpoint | Decision Point |
|---|---|---|
| [Date] | [30-day review] | [What we'll evaluate] |
| [Date] | [90-day review] | [What we'll evaluate] |
---
Communication Plan
Internal Communication
| Audience | Message | Channel | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Team] | [Key message] | [How] | [When] |
| [Leadership] | [Key message] | [How] | [When] |
| [Broader org] | [Key message] | [How] | [When] |
External Communication
| Audience | Message | Channel | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Customers] | [Key message] | [How] | [When] |
| [Partners] | [Key message] | [How] | [When] |
---
Appendix
Supporting Documents
- [Link to detailed analysis]
- [Link to customer research]
- [Link to financial model]
Pivot Type Reference
<!-- For context on pivot types -->
Common pivot types (Lean Startup):
- Zoom-in Pivot: Single feature becomes the whole product
- Zoom-out Pivot: Product becomes a feature of larger product
- Customer Segment Pivot: Same product, different customer
- Customer Need Pivot: Same customer, different problem
- Platform Pivot: Change from application to platform or vice versa
- Business Architecture Pivot: High margin/low volume ↔ low margin/high volume
- Value Capture Pivot: Change how you monetize
- Engine of Growth Pivot: Viral ↔ paid ↔ sticky
- Channel Pivot: Change distribution mechanism
- Technology Pivot: Same solution, different technology
---
Decision documented on [date]. Review scheduled for [date].
Related skills
Setup Matt Pocock SkillsScaffold the per-repo configuration that Matt Pocock’s engineering agent skills rely on so they understand the issue tracker, triage labels, and domain documentation la495k196k
Lark AppsConnect Claude, Cursor or custom agents directly to Lark (Feishu) for messaging, document automation, approval workflows and enterprise data access.402k
CavemanSlash token usage by roughly 75% while keeping every technical detail intact when working with Claude Code, Cursor or similar agents.391k94.7k
Lark Skill MakerQuickly turn any Lark/Feishu OpenAPI call or multi-step workflow into a reusable agent skill with its own SKILL.md.386k16k
Running Claude Code Via Litellm CopilotRun Claude Code at a fraction of the cost by routing requests through LiteLLM to the GitHub Copilot Chat API.270k72
Codex PetGenerate a complete Codex Pet spritesheet and metadata from one reference image without needing an OpenAI key or Codex Pro.246k10How it compares
Use iterate-pivot-decision for direction-change decisions after shipping; use measure-experiment-results when you only need to report experiment outcomes without a pivot call.
FAQ
What artifact does iterate-pivot-decision produce?
iterate-pivot-decision produces a pivot decision document with eleven sections—Overview, Executive Summary, Current State, Evidence Summary, Hypothesis Review, Options Considered, Analysis, Decision, Implementation Plan, Communication Plan, and Appendix—following the repo TEMPLAT
When should teams use iterate-pivot-decision?
Teams should use iterate-pivot-decision after significant validated learning, MVP launch checkpoints, or invalidated hypotheses when debating a major direction change—not for experiment-only reports or pre-build scope reviews.
How many strategic options must iterate-pivot-decision analyze?
iterate-pivot-decision requires at least three options: persevere on the current direction plus two or more distinct pivot alternatives, each evaluated against market opportunity, team capability, resources, and risk.