Note: This skill is independent analysis and commentary, not a reproduction of any original text. It synthesizes frameworks from multiple books with modern startup practice and routes founders to the right tool for their situation.
Diagnose
"The dangerous moment is when you apply the right framework to the wrong problem."
When to Use This Skill
Do you know exactly what's broken?
|-- YES --> Do you know which framework to use?
| |-- YES --> Go use that skill directly. You don't need this.
| +-- NO --> THIS SKILL. You know the problem, need the tool.
+-- NO --> THIS SKILL. Start here.This skill exists because frameworks are tools, not answers. A hammer doesn't help when the problem is a screw. The first job is diagnosis — figuring out what's actually broken before reaching for any specific framework.
The Five Failure Modes
Every startup problem maps to one of five root causes. Most founders misdiagnose which one they have.
| Failure Mode | What It Looks Like | Common Misdiagnosis |
|---|---|---|
| Product | People try it and stop using it | "We need better marketing" |
| Market | Can't find anyone who cares enough to pay | "We need to build more features" |
| Messaging | Good product, people don't understand what it does | "The product must be wrong" |
| Distribution | People would buy it but never hear about it | "We need a better website" |
| Pricing | People want it but won't pay what you charge | "We need more features to justify the price" |
The Misdiagnosis Problem
Founders almost always misdiagnose their problem by one layer. The pattern:
ACTUAL PROBLEM: WHAT FOUNDERS THINK: WHAT THEY DO:
Product problem → "Marketing isn't working" → Spend on ads (waste)
Market problem → "Need more features" → Build for months (waste)
Messaging problem → "Product must be wrong" → Pivot prematurely (waste)
Distribution → "Need better website" → Redesign 5 times (waste)
Pricing problem → "Need more value" → Add features nobody asked for (waste)The Diagnostic
Answer these honestly. Not what you hope is true — what the evidence says.
Step 1: Do people want this?
Have at least 5 people given you real money (or signed a binding LOI)?
|-- YES --> Go to Step 2.
|-- NO --> Have you talked to 10+ potential customers about their problem
| (not your solution)?
| |-- YES --> Did they describe the problem with emotion and specifics?
| | |-- YES --> You probably have a messaging, pricing, or distribution
| | | problem. Go to Step 2.
| | +-- NO --> You might have a MARKET problem. The problem you're
| | solving may not be painful enough to pay for.
| | → Use mom-test to validate the problem exists.
| | → Use four-steps Customer Discovery process.
| +-- NO --> STOP. You are guessing. Nothing else matters until you
| talk to real people. → Use mom-test.Step 2: Can people understand what you do?
Show your website/pitch to a stranger for 5 seconds. Can they tell you:
1. What you offer?
2. How it makes their life better?
3. What they should do next?
All 3 clear?
|-- YES --> Go to Step 3.
|-- NO --> You have a MESSAGING problem.
| → Use storybrand to restructure your message.
| → Use made-to-stick to make individual messages land.
| → Use obviously-awesome if the confusion is about
| what category you belong in.Step 3: Are the right people finding you?
Are potential customers discovering your product?
|-- YES, enough volume → Go to Step 4.
|-- YES, but wrong people → You have a POSITIONING problem.
| → Use obviously-awesome to redefine your target segment.
| → Use crossing-the-chasm if you're reaching innovators
| but need pragmatists.
|-- NO → You have a DISTRIBUTION problem.
| → Use traction to systematically test channels.
| → Use 100m-leads for tactical execution in chosen channels.Step 4: Are they buying?
People find you, understand you, but don't buy. Why?
|-- "Too expensive" → PRICING problem.
| → Use monetizing-innovation to redesign price+product together.
| → Use 100m-offers to repackage the offer.
|-- "Not sure it'll work for me" → TRUST problem.
| → Use influence (social proof, authority).
| → Use storybrand (guide authority + testimonials).
|-- "I'll think about it" (then ghost) → URGENCY problem.
| → Use 100m-offers (scarcity, urgency, bonuses, guarantees).
| → Use influence (scarcity, commitment/consistency).
|-- "Went with competitor" → POSITIONING problem.
| → Use obviously-awesome to find your unique value.
| → Use blue-ocean-strategy if the market is commoditized.
|-- Signing up but churning → PRODUCT problem.
| → Use lean-startup to measure and iterate.
| → Use mom-test to understand why they leave.Step 5: Is the sales process working?
For B2B / high-touch sales:
|-- Meetings happen but deals stall → SALES PROCESS problem.
| → Use spin-selling for the conversation structure.
| → Use influence for persuasion mechanics.
|-- Can't get meetings → Back to Step 3 (distribution).
|-- Deals close but take too long → Use spin-selling
| (you're probably skipping Implication questions).The One-Skill Rule
Every diagnosis should output: one primary skill, one secondary skill (optional), and one concrete next action the founder can do this week.
Do not stack 3-4 frameworks. Framework stacking creates the illusion of thoroughness while reducing usability. A founder drowning in problems doesn't need four life preservers thrown at once — they need one rope and clear instructions.
If two skills genuinely both apply, sequence them: "Do X first (skill A). Only after you have results, then apply skill B." Never in parallel.
The concrete next action must be something a solo founder can actually do — not "100 outreach attempts per day" but "send 10 DMs to people who posted about this problem on Reddit this week." Precision that sounds good but can't be executed is fake precision.
When No Framework Fits
Sometimes the answer is: none of these frameworks apply to your situation right now.
Signs you should stop using frameworks and just go observe reality:
- You've been through 3+ frameworks and nothing improved. The problem might not be strategic — it might be execution, team, timing, or market conditions no book anticipated.
- Your situation is genuinely novel. Frameworks are built from patterns of past companies. If you're doing something with no precedent, the frameworks become educated guesses at best.
- You're using frameworks to avoid the uncomfortable thing. Usually that's talking to customers, firing someone, admitting the idea doesn't work, or making a decision with incomplete information.
- The frameworks are contradicting each other and neither side is clearly right. Some tensions are real worldview differences (customer-centric vs product-centric, niche vs broad). You pick one and commit. No rubric resolves that for you.
The meta-rule: Frameworks help you think more clearly. They don't think for you. If you scored a 9/10 on a rubric but your gut says something is off, trust the gut and investigate. The rubric caught the easy problems. The hard ones are yours.
Quick Reference: Which Skill for What
| Your Situation | Start With | Then |
|---|---|---|
| "Nobody's buying" | This diagnostic (figure out WHY) | Route to the right skill |
| "I have an idea but haven't talked to anyone" | mom-test | four-steps |
| "People like it but won't pay" | monetizing-innovation | 100m-offers |
| "Our website doesn't convert" | storybrand | made-to-stick |
| "We can't find customers" | traction | 100m-leads |
| "Competitors are eating our lunch" | obviously-awesome | blue-ocean-strategy |
| "Sales calls go nowhere" | spin-selling | influence |
| "We have early users but can't grow past them" | crossing-the-chasm (only if 10+ paying customers) | traction |
| "Should we pivot?" | lean-startup | four-steps |
| "Everything feels broken" | This diagnostic | Then one skill at a time |
Scope and Limitations
What This Diagnostic Does
- Routes you to the right framework faster than guessing
- Catches the most common misdiagnosis patterns
- Tells you when to stop using frameworks entirely
What It Doesn't Do
- It doesn't replace judgment. The diagnostic narrows the options. You still decide.
- It assumes the 14 available skills cover your problem. Some problems (hiring, fundraising, legal, operations) aren't covered here.
- It can't diagnose problems you're not honest about. If you skip the hard questions or answer with what you wish were true, the routing breaks.
- It oversimplifies by design. Real startups have 3 problems at once. This makes you pick one to fix first, which is usually correct but sometimes the problems are entangled and need to be solved together.
The Honest Warning
A diagnostic that always gives an answer is more dangerous than one that sometimes says "I don't know." If your situation doesn't fit any of the decision paths above, that's a signal — not a bug. Go talk to customers, advisors, or anyone who'll give you an honest read on what's happening. Then come back.