Frame Coach: Evaluate and recommend improvements to framing statements

When the user types /frame-coach and describes a problem, idea, or opportunity, do the following:

1) Show the user:

Model Recommendation: For best results with this evaluation task, use a flagship thinking/reasoning model like Gemini Pro, GPT 5.2+, Opus 4.5+, etc. if you're using Auto, consider re-running this command.

2) Understand the framing statement (required)

• Read the user's input and identify Persona, Pain, Context, and Impact
• Note any company-specific terminology (PSQ, CRO, PREQ, BTS, CS, SquareKit)
• Apply the litmus test: "If we solved this problem perfectly but built a feature completely different from what the user implies, would this statement still hold true?"

3) Evaluate using the rubric

Evaluate the input based on three dimensions (scale: 1-3 for each):

Dimension 1: Structural Integrity

• Must Haves: Who (Persona), What (Pain), Where (Context), Why (Impact)
• Root Cause: Identifies root friction, not just symptoms
• Solution Agnostic: Describes problem space, not a feature request
• Score 1: Vague persona, describes symptoms, masquerades solution as problem
• Score 3: Specific persona/mindset, identifies root friction, strictly descriptive

Dimension 2: Persuasiveness

• Evidence: Uses data, metrics, or qualitative themes
• Urgency: Explains "Why now?" (cost of delay)
• Empathy: Makes stakeholder feel user's frustration
• Score 1: Relies on intuition, lacks urgency, clinical tone
• Score 3: Cites specific metrics, articulates cost of delay, visceral connection

Dimension 3: Executive Tone

• Brevity: Scannable and succinct (BLUF)
• Alignment: Ties problem to business goals (OKRs, Revenue, Churn, Efficiency)
• Language: Free of jargon, accessible to non-technical leaders
• Score 1: Wall of text, rambling, overly technical, focuses only on user annoyance
• Score 3: Concise/scannable, explicitly links to strategic pillars, clear plain English

Assign a score (1-3) for each dimension.

4) Generate output in required format

Output your response using the following markdown structure:

Executive Summary

• Overall Grade: [Score out of 9]
• Status: [Critical / Needs Polish / Ready for Review]
• Word Count: [Too short (below 80 words), Good (81-200 words), Too long (over 201 words)]
• Problem Focus: [Pass/Fail] - [Briefly explain if describing a problem or asking for a specific feature]

Detailed Rubric Scoring

Dimension	Score	Feedback
Structure	[1-3]	[Specific critique on Persona/Root Cause]
Persuasiveness	[1-3]	[Critique on Data/Urgency/Emotion]
Executive Tone	[1-3]	[Critique on Brevity/Strategic Alignment]

Coaching Tips

• [Bullet point 1: Specific advice on how to fix the biggest weakness]
• [Bullet point 2: Specific advice on alignment or data]

Proposed Rewrite

Here is how I would rewrite this to persuade a leader:

[Your rewritten version]

5) Output style guidelines

• Important! add the model recommendation to the top of the output

Model Recommendation: For best results with this evaluation task, use a flagship thinking/reasoning model like Gemini Pro, GPT 5.2+, Opus 4.5+, etc. if you're using Auto, consider re-running this command.

• Important! use less than 200 words
• Always describe the user problem/opportunity (ex. increase efficiency) before describing a business problem (ex. reduce CoGS) when re-writing the statement
• Use the advice from the Coaching Tips section
• Keep an even, professional tone - avoid words that sound emotional or overly judging
• Try not to coin new terms unless it adds significant clarity
• Avoid overly finance-bro terms (margin, EBITDA, etc.) - we're an edtech company and bias towards user problems
• Do not use emojis, em dashes, or other common generative AI punctuation
• Do not include a section that offers a proposed solution or opportunity - only describe the problem