Source profileQuality 88/100

wondelai/skills/37signals-way/SKILL.md

37signals-way

Build lean, opinionated products using the 37signals philosophy from "Getting Real", "Rework", and "Shape Up". Use when the user mentions "Getting Real", "Rework", "Shape Up", "37signals", "Basecamp method", "six-week cycles", "fixed time variable scope", "appetite vs estimates", "betting table", "breadboarding", "fat marker sketch", "build less", "underdo the competition", "opinionated software", "we have too many meetings", "how do we ship faster", or "stop overbuilding". Also trigger when cut

Source repository stars
1,835
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-07-22
Source checked
2026-08-04

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

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

Best for

  • Use when the user mentions "Getting Real", "Rework", "Shape Up", "37signals", "Basecamp method", "six-week cycles", "fixed time variable scope", "appetite vs estimates", "betting table", "breadboarding", "fat marker ske…

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/wondelai/skills --skill "37signals-way"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "37signals-way" from https://github.com/wondelai/skills/blob/dd37ee506ff558e939b3d421557987cced49b866/37signals-way/SKILL.md at commit dd37ee506ff558e939b3d421557987cced49b866. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Core Principle

    Build less. The best products do fewer things exceptionally well — simplicity is the destination, not the starting point. Traditional development adds; the 37signals way subtracts: build half a product (not a half-assed product), say no by default, fix the time and flex the scop…

    Build less. The best products do fewer things exceptionally well — simplicity is the destination, not the starting point. Traditional development adds; the 37signals way subtracts: build half a product (not a half-assed…
  2. 02

    Scoring

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

    9-10: Fixed-time cycles, shaped pitches, small teams, no backlog, opinionated defaults, clear copy7-8: Mostly shaped work and small teams, but some scope creep or process overhead5-6: Some shaping happens, but backlogs persist, teams are too large, or preferences replace decisions
  3. 03

    1. Build Less, Underdo the Competition

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

    Half a product beats a half-assed product — do a few things well, not many things poorlyBe a curator, not a hoarder: say no to good ideas so the great ones can breatheMake tiny decisions — big ones are hard to make and hard to reverse; small ones build momentum
  4. 04

    2. Shaping the Work

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

    A shaped pitch has five elements: problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gosBreadboard flows as places, affordances, and connections — structure without visual designFat marker sketches keep abstraction high; wireframes invite pixel-level feedback before the concept is validated
  5. 05

    3. Betting and Cycles

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

    Abolish the backlog — if an idea is important, it will come backSix weeks is long enough for meaningful work, short enough to feel the deadlineVariable scope: teams cut non-essential scope to hit the fixed deadline, never the reverse

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score88/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars1,835SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
wondelai/skills
Skill path
37signals-way/SKILL.md
Commit
dd37ee506ff558e939b3d421557987cced49b866
License
MIT
Collected
2026-08-04
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

The 37signals Product Development Framework

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

Core Principle

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

Scoring

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

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

1. Build Less, Underdo the Competition

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

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

Key insights:

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

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Feature prioritizationDefault answer is noReporting dashboard requested → ship CSV export covering 90% of use cases
MVP scopingCut until it hurts, then cut moreDrop user accounts for v1; use email magic links
Competitive strategyUnderdo, don't outdoCompetitor has 50 integrations; ship 3 that work flawlessly

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

2. Shaping the Work

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

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

Key insights:

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

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Feature designBreadboard before mockup"Invite teammate": Settings → invite form → email sent → accept link → dashboard
Scope definitionSet appetite first"A 2-week appetite problem, not a 6-week one" shapes which solution fits
Risk managementCall out rabbit holes upfront"Permissions could get complex — limit to owner/member for v1"

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

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

3. Betting and Cycles

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

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

Key insights:

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

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Roadmap replacementBet each cycle3-4 shaped pitches every 6 weeks instead of a 12-month roadmap
Risk managementCircuit breaker kills zombies70% done at week 6? It doesn't ship — re-shape and re-bet if it still matters
Capacity planningCool-down between cyclesTwo weeks for bugs, tech debt, exploration, recovery

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

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

4. Small Teams and Execution

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

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

Key insights:

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

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Team structureThree people max, no PMOne designer + two programmers per 6-week bet
Progress trackingHill charts, not burndowns"Invitations" uphill (permissions unclear); "Email templates" downhill (executing)
CommunicationAsync-first, write it upA written update or 5-minute video instead of a 30-minute meeting

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

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

5. Opinionated Software and Clear Communication

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

Why it works: Every added preference splits the product into more states to design, test, and support, and pushes a decision onto users who lack the context to make it well; sensible defaults reduce cognitive load and create cohesion. Clear copy builds trust where marketing-speak erodes it, and teaching openly attracts customers who share your values.

Key insights:

  • Pick the best default and ship it — revisit only if data shows it fails most users
  • Epicycles (features patching problems earlier features created) compound complexity
  • "Not now" is a valid, healthy answer to good feature requests
  • Out-teach the competition; sell your by-products (books, posts, tools)
  • Interface copy is your best marketing — every label and error message builds or burns trust

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Feature requestsDefault no, no false promises"Thanks for the suggestion. We're not planning this right now."
UI copyPlain language"Your file is saved" not "Your asset has been successfully persisted to the cloud"
Error messagesHonest and helpful"We couldn't send that email. Check the address and try again."
PreferencesEliminate; choose defaultsDetect timezone from the browser; ship one good theme
MarketingHonest positioning"Basecamp is not for everyone. Here's who it's for and who it's not for."

See references/opinionated-software.md when responding to feature requests or removing settings, and references/ux-ui-copy.md when writing interface copy, empty states, or error messages.

Common Mistakes

MistakeWhy It FailsFix
Maintaining a backlogGrows forever; false progress; diluted focusAbolish it; bet on shaped pitches each cycle
Estimating instead of setting appetiteEstimates grow to fill time and invite negotiationAsk "how much time is this problem worth?"
Pixel-perfect mockups before shapingToo concrete too early; invites bikesheddingBreadboards and fat marker sketches first
Extending a six-week cycleZombie projects teach teams deadlines are fakeCircuit breaker: not done means not shipped
Adding preferences instead of decidingComplexity for all users to serve a fewPick the best default and ship it
Daily standups and status meetingsInterrupt maker flow; reporting overheadHill charts for visibility; async updates
Saying yes to good feature requestsGood features still add non-essential complexityDefault to no; bet only on what matters this cycle
Planning multiple cycles aheadStale commitments reduce responsivenessPlan one cycle at a time

Quick Diagnostic

QuestionIf NoAction
Is there a fixed time constraint on this work?Scope expands indefinitelySet a six-week (or smaller) appetite first
Is the work shaped (rough, solved, bounded)?Scope problems surface mid-buildDefine problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gos
Can a team of 2-3 people do this?Too bigBreak into independent six-week bets
Said no to at least 5 things this cycle?Building too muchCut ruthlessly at the betting table
Is the team figuring out its own tasks?Micromanagement; team not empoweredHand off shaped pitches, not task lists
Tracking progress with hill charts?False precision masks uncertaintySwitch to uphill (figuring out) vs. downhill (executing)
Is there a cool-down after this cycle?Burnout; no cleanup timeSchedule two unstructured weeks between cycles
Does the software have a clear opinion here?Decisions deferred to users via preferencesPick the best default; remove the setting

See references/case-studies.md for end-to-end worked scenarios when you want a model to follow — adopting Shape Up, resisting feature creep, and replacing status meetings with hill charts.

Further Reading

About the Authors

Jason Fried is co-founder and CEO of 37signals (Basecamp, HEY) and a leading advocate for calm companies and product simplicity. David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) is 37signals co-founder and creator of Ruby on Rails, extracted from Basecamp's codebase; together they wrote Getting Real, Rework, Remote, and It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work. Ryan Singer spent 15+ years shaping product at 37signals and codified the methodology in Shape Up.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 10042,968

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

ab-testing

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

Computed 10042,968

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

churn-prevention

When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' 'involuntary churn,' 'people keep canceling,' 'churn rate is too high,' 'how do I keep users,' or 'customers are leaving.' Use this whenever someone is losing subscribers o

Computed 100165

JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills

suede-ab-testing

Suede-owned experimentation discipline for hypotheses, sample sizing, test duration, significance, and repeatable experiment programs. Use when comparing variants, deciding whether a result is reliable, or building an experiment backlog and cadence. NOT FOR: analytics instrumentation (use suede-analytics), post-click conversion diagnosis (use suede-site-alchemy), or writing the variant copy itself (use suede-copy).

Computed 1007

narrative-io/narrative-skills-marketplace

design-analysis

Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "