From bette-think
Guides 4-step Shape Up process to shape work into pitches for betting. Supports established (fixed time, variable scope) and new product modes for cycle planning and PM coaching.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/bette-think:shape-upThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
**Fixed time, variable scope.**
Fixed time, variable scope.
Shape Up inverts traditional estimation:
Shaped work has three properties:
The shaper's job: Define work at the right abstraction level - neither too vague (leaves team lost) nor too detailed (constrains team creativity).
See: skills/shape-up/references/methodology.md for the full philosophy.
When this skill is invoked, start with:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SHAPE UP
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
What are you working on?
1. Shape new work
→ Walk through the 4-step process
→ Output: Pitch ready for betting
2. Review an existing pitch
→ Challenge boundaries, rabbit holes, no-gos
→ Output: Feedback and improvements
3. Quick pitch (I know what I want)
→ Skip the coaching, just format
→ Output: Pitch document
4. Not sure where to start
→ Tell me about the raw idea
→ I'll help figure out if it's ready to shape
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Parse intent from context:
--pitch flag → Flow 3 (Quick Pitch)Command-line shortcuts:
/shape → Show entry point/shape "feature idea" → Start Flow 1 with context/shape --review → Start Flow 2/spec --pitch → Start Flow 3 (quick pitch format only)/shape --established → Flow 1 with established product mode/shape --new-product → Flow 1 with new product modeBefore starting the shaping workflow, determine the context:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PRODUCT MODE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Which mode are you in?
A. Established product
→ Core features, existing users
→ Fixed time, variable scope (full rigor)
→ Circuit breaker applies
B. New product / exploration
→ Validating concepts, finding fit
→ Looser constraints, faster iteration
→ Goal: learn, not ship
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Mode affects rigor:
| Aspect | Established | New Product |
|---|---|---|
| Appetite | Strict (1-2 weeks or 6 weeks) | Flexible ("a few days to explore") |
| Rabbit holes | Must be identified and patched | Flag but accept more unknowns |
| No-gos | Explicit and enforced | Directional, may evolve |
| Output | Pitch ready for betting table | Pitch as working document |
Ask about appetite first:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
STEP 1: Set Boundaries
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
How much time is this problem worth?
• Small batch (1-2 weeks)
→ Well-understood, limited scope
→ Quick win or focused fix
• Big batch (6 weeks)
→ New capability, more unknowns
→ Meaningful user value
What's your appetite?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Then dig into the problem:
Questions to ask:
Challenge weak problem definitions:
Capture:
Guide through solution sketching:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
STEP 2: Find the Elements
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Now let's sketch the solution. Keep it rough.
Questions:
• Where does this fit in the existing product?
• How do users access it?
• What are the main elements/components?
• How do they connect?
Would you like to:
1. Breadboard it (workflow/screens)
2. Fat marker sketch it (visual layout)
3. Just describe it (I'll help structure)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
If breadboarding: Help structure as: Places → Affordances → Connections
If sketching: Remind: Keep it rough. Thick lines. No details.
Challenge over-specification:
Capture:
Walk through de-risking:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
STEP 3: Address Risks
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Let's find the rabbit holes before they find you.
Walk me through the solution step by step:
• What happens first?
• Then what?
• What could go wrong?
• What's the riskiest part technically?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Questions to probe:
For each risk identified:
Challenge "it'll be fine" thinking:
Capture:
Compile the 5 ingredients:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
STEP 4: Write the Pitch
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Let me compile everything into a pitch.
The 5 ingredients:
1. Problem - Why this matters
2. Appetite - How much time it's worth
3. Solution - What we'll build (rough)
4. Rabbit Holes - Known risks
5. No-Gos - What we're NOT doing
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Generate pitch using template from: skills/shape-up/references/pitch-template.md
Output the pitch, then ask:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PITCH READY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Generated pitch document]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
What's next?
• Copy to your pitch doc
• Create Linear issue from this pitch
• Review and refine further
• Shape another feature
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
When user provides a pitch to review:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PITCH REVIEW
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
I'll review this pitch against Shape Up principles.
Checking:
☐ Problem - Is the friction specific and real?
☐ Appetite - Is time budget explicit?
☐ Solution - Rough but solved?
☐ Rabbit Holes - Are risks identified?
☐ No-Gos - Are boundaries explicit?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Review criteria:
| Element | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | Specific friction, named users, evidence | Vague "customers want X" |
| Appetite | Explicit time budget (1-2 weeks or 6 weeks) | No time constraint or "ASAP" |
| Solution | Breadboard/sketch, elements connected | Wireframes OR just words |
| Rabbit Holes | Technical risks flagged with mitigation | "Should be straightforward" |
| No-Gos | Explicit exclusions listed | Nothing marked as out of scope |
Output review:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
PITCH REVIEW RESULTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Problem: [✓ / ✗] [Brief assessment]
Appetite: [✓ / ✗] [Brief assessment]
Solution: [✓ / ✗] [Brief assessment]
Rabbit Holes:[✓ / ✗] [Brief assessment]
No-Gos: [✓ / ✗] [Brief assessment]
Overall: [Ready for betting / Needs work]
Recommendations:
• [Specific improvement 1]
• [Specific improvement 2]
• [Specific improvement 3]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
For experienced users who know what they want:
Skip the coaching, just ask the minimum questions:
Generate pitch immediately using skills/shape-up/references/pitch-template.md
When the idea isn't ready to shape:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
NOT READY TO SHAPE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
This idea might not be ready to shape yet.
Signs it's too early:
• Can't articulate specific friction
• Don't know who has the problem
• Solution is completely unclear
• No evidence it matters
What would help:
• Talk to users experiencing the friction
• Find evidence (support tickets, analytics, interviews)
• Prototype to learn, not to ship
Would you like to:
1. Dig deeper into the problem now
2. Plan discovery work first
3. Shape anyway (accept higher risk)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
If Linear MCP is available:
If Linear MCP not available:
/spec --pitch → Routes to Flow 3 (Quick Pitch)
/four-risks → Complements Step 3 (rabbit hole identification)
/now-next-later → Betting table output maps to NOW column
| Mistake | Challenge |
|---|---|
| "Customers want X" | "What friction makes them want X?" |
| No appetite stated | "How much time is this worth? Small or big batch?" |
| Detailed wireframes | "This is too concrete. What are the key elements?" |
| "Team will figure it out" | "What specifically will they figure out?" |
| No no-gos | "What are you explicitly NOT building?" |
| "Should be straightforward" | "Walk me through the implementation" |
skills/shape-up/references/methodology.md - Full methodologyskills/shape-up/references/techniques.md - Breadboarding, fat marker, de-riskingskills/shape-up/references/pitch-template.md - 5 ingredients with examplesnpx claudepluginhub breethomas/bette-think --plugin bette-thinkYC Office Hours brainstorming: startup mode with six forcing questions to validate demand, or builder mode for design thinking on side projects. Saves a design doc. Use before planning reviews.
Generates project specs at optimal depth: quick Linear issues for tasks, lite PRDs for features, AI specs with context, evals. Use /spec shortcuts like --quick or --ai.
Assesses task complexity upfront (quick/standard/full) and brainstorms with adaptive depth: ~2 exchanges for bugs, full PRD for complex features. Use for unclear requirements or new ideas.