# Problem Score > Use when judging whether a business idea has a market worth building for. Scores whether a business idea can become a viable business, walking the path from 'The Problem' to 'Viable Business Model': one specific target market is Fermi-scored on seven multiplying criteria (Plausible, Self-Aware, Lucrative, Liquid, Eager ×2, Enduring), every optimistic number is challenged unless evidence backs it, and when the verdict is bad, narrower niches are re-scored side by side. Load when the user asks whether their startup or product idea is viable, whether a market really exists for what they want to build, why a product that solves a real problem isn't selling, which of several target markets to pursue, whether to persevere or give up on a product, or says 'score my idea.' Do NOT load for general devil's-advocate stress-testing of plans or pitches without the viability question, for building a full ideal-customer profile, for writing customer-interview questions, or for execution problems like funnel optimization, hiring, or fundraising. ## Facts - Type: Agent skill - Discipline: Product - Author: Jason Cohen (https://github.com/asmartbear) - Upstream: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-problem - Source file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-problem/SKILL.md (29281 bytes, sha256:f8e5aa5098e3a5b50f3467442ee91fdd235edc27ce690d0ab38d99a582525870) - Licence: CC-BY-4.0 - Upstream copy last changed: 2026-09-17 - Status: listed, not yet ruled on by the curator ## Use it I want to use the Problem Score skill by Jason Cohen. This is what it does, in the author's own words: Scores whether a business idea can become a viable business, walking the path from 'The Problem' to 'Viable Business Model': one specific target market is Fermi-scored on seven multiplying criteria (Plausible, Self-Aware, Lucrative, Liquid, Eager ×2, Enduring), every optimistic number is challenged unless evidence backs it, and when the verdict is bad, narrower niches are re-scored side by side. Load when the user asks whether their startup or product idea is viable, whether a market really exists for what they want to build, why a product that solves a real problem isn't selling, which of several target markets to pursue, whether to persevere or give up on a product, or says 'score my idea.' Do NOT load for general devil's-advocate stress-testing of plans or pitches without the viability question, for building a full ideal-customer profile, for writing customer-interview questions, or for execution problems like funnel optimization, hiring, or fundraising. Download the whole folder at https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-problem, SKILL.md and every file beside it, into your skills directory: ~/.claude/skills/asb-problem/ for Claude Code, ~/.agents/skills/asb-problem/ for Codex, ~/.cursor/skills/asb-problem/ for Cursor. Get it from the author's repo, not from startupskills.dev. Then tell me the path you installed it to and how to invoke it. Nothing here is vendored: install from the author's repo, not from this site. A verbatim copy of the author's file follows for reading, under the licence reproduced after it; the current file is in the author's repo. ## Links - Page: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear/asb-problem - Author: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear - Index: https://startupskills.dev/llms.txt ## The file itself --- name: asb-problem description: "Scores whether a business idea can become a viable business, walking the path from 'The Problem' to 'Viable Business Model': one specific target market is Fermi-scored on seven multiplying criteria (Plausible, Self-Aware, Lucrative, Liquid, Eager ×2, Enduring), every optimistic number is challenged unless evidence backs it, and when the verdict is bad, narrower niches are re-scored side by side. Load when the user asks whether their startup or product idea is viable, whether a market really exists for what they want to build, why a product that solves a real problem isn't selling, which of several target markets to pursue, whether to persevere or give up on a product, or says 'score my idea.' Do NOT load for general devil's-advocate stress-testing of plans or pitches without the viability question, for building a full ideal-customer profile, for writing customer-interview questions, or for execution problems like funnel optimization, hiring, or fundraising." --- # Problem Score — from "The Problem" to "Viable Business Model" Here is how companies fail: a founder has a flash of insight — the world has a Problem. Potential customers agree the Problem is real (they're right!). The founder builds a product that truly solves it (it does!). And then sales never materialize, and the company shuts down within a couple of years. Solving a real problem is — perhaps surprisingly — not nearly enough to build a successful company. Between "real problem" and "viable business" sit seven conditions, and founders systematically over-rate themselves on all of them. This skill scores those conditions honestly, one specific target market at a time; the user walks away with a scorecard, a directional verdict, and either a niche that rescues the idea or the clear-eyed conclusion — far cheaper now than in two years — that it isn't viable. ## The mental model ### A series of "ands" — why the scores multiply A sale requires that enough people have the problem AND they know and care AND they have budget AND they can buy now AND they'd buy from you AND they'll stick around. The best case is that all seven hold. Realistically, some will be strong and some weak; the real question is whether the big strengths overcome the few weaknesses. Multiplication answers that question mechanically: compounding "ands" means one near-zero factor drags down the whole product no matter how impressive the rest are — which matches reality. Gut feel is no guide here: every idea feels true to its founder, including the majority that turn out wrong. The multiplication is how the weak link gets seen instead of glossed over. ### Fermi estimation: powers of ten by default Every score is a power of ten (or a fixed coarse value like 0.1 / 0.5 / 1.0) — no in-between numbers, no false precision — with one exception: hard data is used as-is (8 billion humans is 8B, not rounded to 10B; measured 4%/mo churn is 4%). Precision comes from data, never from feel, and since it multiplies with rough estimates, the final score is still only good to a power of ten. The coarseness is what makes the exercise fast and honest: most values are easy to pick because the adjacent choices are absurd ("100k or 1M? — certainly not 10k, certainly not 10M"), and when a value IS controversial, that order-of-magnitude disagreement is genuine strategic uncertainty worth its own conversation, not a rounding argument. Real evidence — the user's own data, or numbers found by quick research — settles a value immediately. Without it, the honest move is the power of ten whose neighbors are clearly wrong, not the flattering one. ### The score is guidance, not analysis This is dangerously close to a silly quiz, and it must be used as guidance, never as precise analysis: a 0.8 is not doom, a 1.2 is not salvation. What the score reliably does is expose the weak links and show whether a different target market changes the answer by a lot — and having to think through the answers and trade-offs is most of the value, more than the final number. The score also deliberately measures only the path from problem to business model. It says nothing about reach, marketing cost, team, skills, or execution — a great score can still fail. ### Optimism is the default failure mode People are almost always too generous with what they can do and what customers will do, think, and pay. Every score therefore gets challenged before it is recorded — a scorecard filled in by unchallenged optimism is worthless; it will say "viable" about anything. ## The seven criteria Score each with respect to ONE specific target market: a specific type of buyer, solving a specific problem, with a product that has made specific trade-offs, at a specific price. The rubric applies to any kind of company — software, services, restaurants, hardware, content — not just tech startups. ### 1. Plausible — do enough people have the problem? **Scale (power of ten only):** `1k`, `10k`, `100k`, `1M`, `10M`, `100M`, `1B` — the number of consumers or businesses that actually have the problem. Why the bar is high: marketing math. Ads convert roughly 1% of impressions to visitors, and a good product site converts roughly 1% of visitors to paying — about 10,000 impressions per customer. A sustainable small company needs on the order of 1,000 customers (at $30–$100/mo; cheaper means more needed), so ~10,000,000 impressions and about two years — a timeline even eventual giants needed for their first 1,000. Consumers: ~10M must have the problem. Businesses pay orders of magnitude more and convert better, so ~100k suffices. **Press on:** counting everyone who *could* theoretically use the product instead of the specific buyer defined above; confusing "has the problem" with "matches my product description." **Exception-with-conditions:** a high-price product in a small niche can be a fine company, and so can a deliberately-small business replacing a salary — but then the other scores must be strong, and the user must genuinely want that path. ### 2. Self-Aware — do they know and care that they have the problem? **Scale:** `0.01` few agree or care · `0.1` thought-leaders care and evangelize · `0.5` industry standard practice · `1.0` almost impossible to find someone who doesn't care. Someone who doesn't believe they have a problem isn't searching for a solution, and won't spend money on one even if they stumble across it. Failure comes in two flavors: ignorance (millions of website owners truly are targets of hackers, yet think "no one would attack little old me," so they never shop for security), and knowing-but-not-caring (nearly everyone agrees an inaccessible website is a problem — and it still never cracks their top three priorities, so nothing happens). Market timing is a version of this: the same idea can fail years before the market is ready and succeed after. **Press on:** "they just don't realize it yet — once we explain, they'll get it." That is a market you must CREATE: difficult, expensive, and slow. **Exception-with-conditions:** a founder who is a natural evangelist on a genuine mission can educate a market into existence — but must truly want years of that work, not merely tolerate the idea of it. ### 3. Lucrative — do they have substantial allocated budget? **Scale (power of ten only, of net revenue):** `$1`, `$10`, `$100`, `$1k`, `$10k`, `$100k`, `$1M` — annual budget actually allocated to this problem. "Net revenue" means your revenue after pass-through costs (an eCommerce platform processing $100 and keeping $10 counts $10) — but do NOT subtract your marketing, support, or infrastructure costs; this measures top-line, not efficiency. Agreeing the problem exists is not the same as having money assigned to solving it. Consumers mostly refuse to pay for software at all — people publicly agonize over $15/year for an app they use daily. Whole customer categories are structurally broke (college students — and therefore also the businesses that sell to them). In large companies, budget only exists for the top few problems of the year, and internal teams already tasked with the problem often fight outside solutions; target the companies that outsource this problem, not the ones that staff it. **Press on:** "they'd definitely pay for this" without a story for whose budget line it comes from and who approves it. Score the budget the market *demonstrably* allocates — what these buyers pay anyone today, with your realistic annual revenue per customer as evidence; when your sticker price and the demonstrated allocation diverge, score the allocation and note the gap. **Exception-with- conditions:** a huge market at a low price can work IF the cost basis is extremely low (self-service, near-zero support, cheap acquisition, a product simple enough to scale unattended) — and then the Plausible number must rise accordingly. ### 4. Liquid — are they willing and able to buy right now? **Scale:** `0.01` a decision made every few years · `0.1` an annual decision · `1.0` always in the market, easy to switch. A customer can love the product, agree it's valuable, have the budget — and still not buy, because buying isn't possible or isn't a priority right now. These forces have nothing to do with your product or its price, which is exactly why they blindside founders: multi-year contracts, "already bundled in the system we pay for anyway," data and integration lock-in, retraining costs, government fiat. And the quieter version: a buyer has two or three top priorities at any moment; if you're priority seven, "call back in nine months" is sincere — and fatal. Moment-in-time products (event websites, load-testing tools) suffer this permanently: before the moment there's no problem, after it no customer. **Press on:** "they'll switch because we're better" — the lock-in forces overwhelm better-and-cheaper; and on scoring the *decision frequency* of the category, not the user's hopes. **Exception-with-conditions:** you can pay contract penalties, do migrations for free, target the segment the incumbent over-serves or prices out, or make it free to keep while idle — but each must be a deliberate strategy you can afford, not a hope. ### 5. Eager (identity) — do they want to buy from YOU? **Scale:** `0` they cannot buy from you (structurally barred — fiat, policy, impossibility; NOT merely "we haven't launched yet") · `0.1` structural challenges · `0.5` indifferent, no red flags · `1.0` mission-level emotional desire to select you. Even in a live purchase, the buyer must trust that the product works, the company will survive, support will show up, security won't embarrass them, and you can scale as they do. "You've only been in business a year" and "our policy requires SOC 2" are this score — and so is the positive version: buying partly to support what you stand for. This is independent of Liquid: lunch is re-decided daily (hyper-liquid), yet a given person may *never* buy from McDonald's, or never set foot in the hippie place — decision frequency and attitude toward the seller are different dimensions, even when big-company purchasing habits make them look correlated. **Press on:** "we'll earn trust quickly" — with what track record, references, or mitigation? **Exception-with-conditions:** build a product type that needs little trust (non-private data, not time-critical, sold to individuals who *like* buying from startups), or mitigate structurally (e.g. open source as an escape hatch), or carry a mission distinctive enough that buying from you is part of the point. ### 6. Eager (comparative) — differentiated enough to win the deal? **Scale:** `0.1` no material differentiation · `0.5` some things so good that some people buy for them alone · `1.0` one-of-a-kind with no viable alternative. They will buy — but from you, or from one of the alternatives? Differentiation is not "we have a unique feature": if only 10% of the market cares about your unique feature, while 30% care about the one your competitor has and you lack, you lose. Over-serving is a real trap — ten features where the market wants three means the simpler, cheaper rival is the rational choice no matter what your comparison matrix says. The strong versions of this score come from picking a game the competitors cannot play — a difference taken to an extreme, aligned with everything else about the company, that their structure prevents them from copying. **Press on:** feature lists as "differentiation"; ask what fraction of the *defined target market* would buy for that difference alone. **Exception-with-conditions:** specialize in a niche of a large market; in a tiny market, few viable competitors may exist; competing on price can work but degrades margin and customer quality — choose it on purpose, if at all. ### 7. Enduring — will they still be paying a year from now? **Scale:** `0.01` one-off purchase without loyalty · `0.1` one-off, but happy customers buy again and refer · `0.5` recurring revenue from a recurring problem · `1.0` strong lock-in (fiat, integrations, or being the system of record for something business-critical). Growth is linear (quadratic for the hyper-growth outliers); cancellation is exponential — a percentage of an ever-larger base. Exponentials always catch up. At 5%/mo churn, half the customers are gone within a year; at 7%/mo, a company adding a healthy 15%/mo of new revenue stops growing entirely about a year later, with all its marketing spend canceled out by departures. High churn isn't primarily a metrics problem — it means customers don't actually want the product. One-time-revenue businesses don't escape: they still need repeat purchases and referrals, which require the same satisfaction. **Press on:** "our churn will be fine" from a user with no retention data — what's the evidence customers with this problem keep paying anyone? And on temporary problems dressed as recurring ones. **Exception-with-conditions:** high churn can be survived only when acquisition is cheap, the market is effectively inexhaustible, the customers who stay grow super-linearly, and — non-negotiable — churn is NOT the product's fault. If customers leave because the product disappoints, there is no exception. ## Computing the score Multiply all seven values together, then divide by **625,000** to normalize. Present the computed number, but read it at its power of ten. Roughly: **≥ 1 can sustain an indie company; ≥ 2 has scale-up potential; well below 1 is not a viable model as scored.** A zero anywhere (the buyer *cannot* buy from you) makes the whole product zero — that criterion is a deal-breaker to design around before further scoring is worth anything. The normalization encodes the marketing math above: a workable business — 10M consumers at ~$10/mo, or 100k businesses at ~$1,000/mo — with middling values everywhere else lands near 1. Calibration anchors, from the framework's own worked examples: - Managed WordPress hosting for businesses: `100M` × `0.1` (aware) × `$100` × `0.01` (switching) × `0.5` × `0.5` × `1.0` (retention) = **4** — a scale-up, and that's what happened. - Email marketing for creators monetizing newsletters: `10M` × `1.0` × `$100` × `0.01` × `0.5` × `0.5` × `0.5` = **2** — a strong bootstrapped business, which is what happened. - Security software for all consumers: `1B` × `0.01` (aware) × `$10` × `0.01` × `0.5` × `0.1` (undifferentiated) × `0.5` = **0.04** — not viable, matching the graveyard of consumer-security indies. Justifications in those examples were one or two lines of page-one search results — the right depth; a power of ten is the whole requirement, and you often know that much without data. ## How to keep the score honest This section governs every exchange. The user's optimism is the enemy of the exercise, and the exercise only helps if it wins. ### Evidence settles; optimism gets grilled Three ways a score earns its way into the file: (a) the user's real data (their retention numbers, their sales conversations, their price tests); (b) evidence found by quick research; (c) an honest Fermi argument where the adjacent powers of ten are clearly absurd. Cheerful assertion is none of these. The standing move is the challenge from below: when the user proposes a value, ask what makes the next value DOWN wrong. If they can't answer, the lower value is the honest score. ### Do lightweight research where it helps If the environment provides web access, spend it Fermi-style where outside numbers exist: market counts for Plausible, budget norms and competitor pricing for Lucrative, evidence of active demand for Self-Aware (are people visibly searching, complaining, paying anyone today?), the competitive field for Eager. Confirm these market facts with current results from your search tools; do not rely on internal (training) knowledge, which is stale and is often wrong about market size, live competitors, and today's prices. Page-one-search depth is correct — the answer only needs to survive to a power of ten. Findings are evidence: accept the value they support even when it beats your skepticism. Without web access, challenge the user's numbers against reference points you can reason from, and mark research-worthy scores as low-confidence in the file. ### Rude questions, gentle framing The questions are deliberately hard, because they're the ones the market will ask. The framing is collegial: attack the claim, never the person, and grill because you want them to win. Acknowledge a crisp answer before moving on ("that's defensible — recorded"). Never soften a question to be polite, and never lower the bar because the conversation is tired. If a devil's-advocate skill such as *Rude Q&A* (`asb-rude-qa`) is installed, you may invoke it on a single fiercely-contested score with a brief like: "Attack this justification for scoring Self-Aware at 0.5: <justification>. Evidence, or wishful?" This is optional; the rules in this section are the standalone equivalent and fully sufficient. ### Dwell until it's real When an answer is wishful, vague, or "we'll figure that out later," stay on the point and say so: "I'm going to stay here — that justification wouldn't survive contact with a stranger." Offer one or two candidate values with reasoning if the user is stuck, and ask them to pick or revise. Three rounds on one score is not a reason to accept it. Move on only when the value is evidenced or honestly argued. ### No curve — in either direction A low score is not a failure of the exercise; it IS the product of the exercise. Don't pad weak criteria out of sympathy. Equally: when a criterion genuinely earns a strong value — real evidence, sound argument — say so plainly and record it without manufactured skepticism. The goal is a true number, not a low one. ### Their scorecard, your dissent Two things are non-negotiable craft: no scoring starts before the target market is specific, and no off-scale value is recorded without hard data behind it (a measured 4%/mo churn earns its precision; a felt "0.7" doesn't — scale membership is the precondition; the user's sovereignty is over which scale value). The chosen value is ultimately the user's: after a full grilling, their number goes in the file. If you still disagree, record the dissent next to it — "scored 1.0 by user; evidence shown supports 0.1, which drops the total from 4.0 to 0.4" — so the disagreement and its stakes are visible, and move on. ### One criterion per exchange Open small: acknowledge the idea and ask what's needed to pin the target market — never an opening wall with all seven criteria pre-scored, and never batch-scoring from the initial description, however much it seems to contain. During scoring, work exactly one criterion per exchange — settle it, write it to the file, move on — and end each message with exactly one thing for the user to answer. Three sanctioned exceptions: Phase A intake may bundle related items into one correct-this-template proposal (harvest whatever the opening message already answered; ask only what's missing); when the user volunteers the next criterion's answer, settle it rather than re-asking; and Phase D may propose a scenario's changed values as one package for the user to correct, since the base scores are already settled. ### Willing to land on "not viable" If the multiplied truth is 0.04, say so plainly, then do the constructive part: "not viable as scored" is a statement about THIS target market, which is exactly why scenarios come next. A skill that always finds a way to call the idea viable is a skill that lies. ### Be clear, not clever Write to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard concepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make them harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a sentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State the actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it. ## How to use this skill ### Phase A — Pin down one specific target market First, files: the scorecard lives in `PROBLEM-SCORE.md`. If the user pointed at a directory or existing files, put it there; otherwise ask where the work should live (offer the current directory as the default) — never silently pick a location. Then the gate. Nothing gets scored until there is a specific target market: a **specific type of buyer** with a **specific problem**, served by a **product with specific trade-offs**, at a **specific price**. The test for specific: a stranger could sort real people into "in the market" and "not in the market" using the description. "Indie makers," "small businesses," "people who want to be more productive" all fail. A second test, faster and harder to fake: ask them to name real examples — actual companies or actual people they could point at today. A handful is plenty; this is not a counting exercise. Then press the part that matters: are there many more like these, or is each one a special case? No names at all means the market is imagined rather than observed. Names that turn out to be one-offs — a friend's company, an unusual setup, the one client who happened to ask — are real customers but not a pattern, and only a pattern can be scored; interesting one-offs are the most common way a market that isn't there looks like one that is. Either way this is Phase A material rather than a dead end: the names they *can* give are the raw material for a narrower, realer market. When the user arrives generic — an idea-shaped direction rather than a scoreable market — do not refuse and stop; refuse and BUILD. Treat their direction as the jumping-off point: propose one to three candidate specific markets consistent with it, as templates they must correct, and converge on one to score first. (The others can become scenarios later.) If they have no price yet, make them pick one to score at — price determines the business model, and an unpriced idea can't be scored. Also establish in this phase: what the user's ambition is (salary-replacing indie vs. scale-up — it changes how the threshold reads), and what real evidence they already have (customers, data, interviews, waitlists). Create `PROBLEM-SCORE.md` as soon as the target market is settled — it is the first settled item, and the file is the memory of the exercise, not the chat. ### Phase B — Score the seven criteria, one per exchange For each criterion in order: state it in one line with its scale, ask for the user's value and justification, research where useful, grill per the posture rules, settle the value, and append it to the file with its justification (one or two lines, like the calibration examples), its evidence class — `[data]`, `[research]`, `[fermi]`; tag mixed evidence with the strongest class that materially supports the value, and append "low-conf" when research was warranted but unavailable — and any dissent line. Write concessions and self-corrections into the justification ("user came down from 1M") — a resumed session must be able to tell a grilled score from a rubber-stamped one. ### Phase C — Compute and deliver the verdict Multiply, divide by 625,000, and deliver the verdict before any remedies: the number, what it means against the user's stated ambition, and — most importantly — the one or two weak links that dominate the result. Remind the user what the score does NOT measure (reach, execution, costs, team). Verdict first, whole; negotiating findings one at a time as they land is how optimism creeps back in. ### Phase D — Scenarios: narrow, re-score, or face the truth A bad or marginal score is the beginning of the useful part, not the end. **Narrowing the target market is very often the right move.** It feels like shrinking ambition; it usually isn't — focus concentrates every other score. Dropping from "all consumers" to a sharply-defined niche typically costs one or two powers of ten on Plausible while raising Self-Aware, Lucrative, and both Eager scores by more than that combined. And targeting the bullseye doesn't forfeit the rest of the market: the buyers adjacent to a sharply-drawn ideal customer respond to the same clear positioning, so the effective market is many times larger than the niche itself. Propose one or two candidate niches, re-walk ONLY the scores that change, and record each scenario side by side in the file — noting when a scenario is really a different product (a narrower market at a higher price with different trade-offs is a different business). The boundary: the same buyer narrowed or re-priced is a scenario in this file; a different buyer type (a marketplace's other side, a different persona) gets its own scorecard — a second top-level section or file. For a multi-sided business, every side must clear the bar; the weaker side is the business's constraint, and note where one side's scores quietly assume the other side already exists. **Exception paths** are the other lever: each criterion has one, and each comes with conditions. Offering one means asking whether the user genuinely wants that path — the evangelist's decade of educating a market, the price-fighter's margins — not whether they'll nod at it. **Or face the truth.** If no scenario reaches viability, say so: this idea, in every market the user is willing to serve, is not a viable business as scored — and it's better to know now, with time and money left to find a better idea. That is a successful outcome of this exercise. Close by pointing forward: the scorecard's `[fermi]`-class scores are guesses that customer conversations can convert to evidence — open-ended interviews with the defined buyer, testing whether they know they have the problem, what budget it comes from, and when they'd buy. Re-score as evidence arrives; the file supports it. ### Resuming If `PROBLEM-SCORE.md` exists when the skill loads, read it and continue from the `next:` pointer in its status note — nothing settled gets re-asked. ## The scorecard file ```markdown # Problem Score — ⚠️ IN PROGRESS — next: ; ## Target market (Scenario A) Buyer: · Problem: · Trade-offs: · Price: <$X> · Ambition: · Evidence: ## Scores (Scenario A) | Criterion | Value | Justification | Class | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | Plausible | 1M | | [research] | | Self-Aware | 0.1 | <…> — dissent: user says 0.5; evidence supports 0.1 (total 1.2 → 0.24) | [fermi] | **Total: ÷ 625,000 = ** — ## Scenario B — ## Verdict & next steps ``` ## Refusal conditions - **No specific target market.** A direction ("something for indie makers") is a jumping-off point for Phase A construction, never a scoring target. Refuse the score, not the user. - **Multiple buyer types in one scorecard.** A marketplace's two sides, or "SMBs and enterprises," are different markets with different scores. Score each separately; refuse the blended average. - **Validation theater.** If the user signals they want a good score — or the launch is already committed and no answer would change it — name that, and offer to proceed only on honest terms. - **Precision demands.** Feel-based in-between values ("0.7-ish") are refused — precision must come from hard data. And in either direction, refuse to treat 0.9 vs. 1.1 as meaningfully different verdicts; the tool is directional. - **Execution questions.** Reaching customers, ads, hiring, fundraising — outside what this score measures; say so rather than stretch the rubric. ## Licence of the file above The file above is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-problem/SKILL.md, by Jason Cohen, reproduced without changes. - Source: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-problem - Licence: CC-BY-4.0, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE Attribution: "Problem Score" by Jason Cohen, https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-problem, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Changes: none. The repo's licence file, verbatim from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE: Attribution 4.0 International ======================================================================= Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible. Using Creative Commons Public Licenses Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses. Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees ======================================================================= Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions. Section 1 -- Definitions. a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights. d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements. e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material. f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License. g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license. h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License. i. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. j. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world. k. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning. Section 2 -- Scope. a. License grant. 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. 2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions. 3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a). 4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) (4) never produces Adapted Material. 5. Downstream recipients. a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License. b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. 6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). b. Other rights. 1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise. 2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License. 3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties. Section 3 -- License Conditions. Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions. a. Attribution. 1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); ii. a copyright notice; iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable; b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License. 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information. 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. 4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License. Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights. Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material: a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database; b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights. Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability. Section 6 -- Term and Termination. a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically. b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates: 1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or 2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License. c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License. d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License. Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions. a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed. b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License. Section 8 -- Interpretation. a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License. b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions. c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor. d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority. ======================================================================= Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses. Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.