---
title: "Persona Builder"
description: "Generates an evidence-calibrated product or marketing persona using the canonical v2.5 output contract. Use when shaping artifact perspective, stress-testing decisions, or framing product and GTM strategy."
generated: true
source: scripts/generate-skill-pages.py
tags:
  - Foundation
  - research
---

:::note[Quick facts]
**Classification:** Foundation | **Version:** 2.5.0 | **Category:** research | **License:** Apache-2.0
:::

**Try it:** `/persona "Your context here"`

This skill produces decision-usable personas from one canonical template pack.

## When to Use

- Before drafting PM or GTM artifacts that need a clear persona viewpoint
- When teams disagree on priorities and need behavior-grounded tradeoff framing
- When assumptions and confidence levels must be explicit for decision review
- When tailoring downstream work (PRD, stories, launch, messaging, enablement) to a specific user or buyer profile

## How to Use

Use the `/persona` slash command:

```
/persona "Your context here"
```

Or reference the skill file directly: `skills/foundation-persona/SKILL.md`

## Instructions

When asked to generate a persona, follow these steps:

1. **Resolve mode and intent**
   Determine whether the request is `product` or `marketing` (`buyer` alias allowed).
   If mode is omitted, ask for mode selection.
   If execution must continue without reply, default to `product` and state that fallback explicitly.

2. **Collect context and evidence**
   Use user-provided context first (goals, audience, domain, constraints, sources).
   If evidence is thin, continue generation but mark gaps and calibrate confidence.

3. **Select exactly one template**
   Use `references/TEMPLATE.md` and choose exactly one of:
   - `Product Persona Template`
   - `Marketing Persona Template`

4. **Generate a complete artifact**
   Fill the selected template end-to-end:
   - header + one-sentence core-reality statement
   - metadata table
   - `Persona Card`
   - sections `1` through `11`
   - `Evidence & Confidence`

5. **Enforce mode boundaries**
   - Product mode: focus on workflow behavior, decision patterns, friction, quality bar, and product tradeoffs.
   - Marketing mode: focus on buying triggers, evaluation criteria, committee dynamics, objections, messaging, and GTM implications.

6. **Apply evidence and confidence policy**
   - Use `High|Medium|Low` confidence with rationale.
   - Distinguish validated evidence from assumptions.
   - State open questions and governance follow-up.

7. **Finalize for direct use**
   Remove template guidance blockquotes (`>` notes) from the final output.
   Ensure narrative entries are concrete and decision-changing, not placeholder bullets.

## Output Template

# Persona Output Templates (v2.5.0)

Use exactly one template per output:
- `Product Persona Template` for `/persona product`
- `Marketing Persona Template` for `/persona marketing` (and `/persona buyer` alias)

Do not mix sections from both templates in one output.

---

## Product Persona Template

# [Persona Name] - [Archetype Label]

**[One sentence that captures the persona's core reality: what they do, what's at stake, and what makes their situation distinct.]**

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Persona ID | [ PU-### ] |
| Type | [ Primary / Secondary / Supplemental / Negative ] |
| Product scope | [ What areas of the product this persona covers ] |
| Valid for | [ User type, company size, context where this persona applies ] |
| Not valid for | [ Adjacent user types this persona explicitly does not represent ] |
| Confidence | [ Validated / Directional / Proto - with brief evidence basis ] |
| Last validated | [ YYYY-MM-DD ] |
| Owner | [ Team or individual responsible for maintenance ] |

**Quick orientation.** The Persona Card is the daily-use reference - extract it as a standalone one-pager. Sections 1-4 provide context and motivation. Sections 5-8 describe behavior and workflow. Sections 9-11 translate insight into product decisions. Evidence & Confidence calibrates trust.

> **Template note:** Blockquote notes (`>`) are authoring guidance - remove them from the completed persona. Each bolded entry should be 2-4 sentences unless noted otherwise. Tables are reserved for reference data only.

---

## Persona Card

> The daily-use artifact for design reviews, sprint planning, and onboarding. Must fit on one page. Every element must pass the test: would removing this change a product decision? If not, cut it.

**[Persona Name] - [Archetype Label]**
[2-3 sentences describing what this person does, who they serve, and why their relationship with the product domain matters.]

**Key quote:** "[De-identified verbatim quote from research that captures this persona's worldview or core frustration.]"

**Goals.** [3-4 goals as a flowing sentence or short list. Outcomes, not features.]

**Frustrations.** [3-4 behavioral-level frustrations. Problems, not feature requests.]

**Design rules - always.** [3 rules the product must follow for this persona.]

**Design rules - never.** [3 things the product must avoid for this persona.]

---

## 1. Demographics & Identity

| Attribute | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Age | [ ] |
| Location | [ ] |
| Education | [ ] |
| Role | [ ] |
| Company size | [ ] |
| Team | [ Size and composition ] |
| Reports to | [ Direct manager -> skip level ] |
| Stakeholders | [ Who they deliver to or serve ] |
| Purchasing role | [ Decision-maker / Influencer / End user only ] |
| Accessibility | [ Assistive tech, vision/motor/cognitive considerations, situational constraints ] |

**[Career stage and trajectory.]** [Where they are in their career, what they're building toward, and how that shapes their relationship with tools in this domain.]

**[Organizational leverage.]** [Their influence relative to their seniority - who depends on their work, what breaks when they fail, what improves when they succeed.]

---

## 2. Technology & Environment Context

| Tool | Role |
| --- | --- |
| [ Tool name ] | [ What it does in their workflow ] |
| [ Tool name ] | [ What it does in their workflow ] |
| [ Tool name ] | [ What it does in their workflow ] |
| [ Tool name ] | [ What it does in their workflow ] |

**[Digital fluency level.]** [Their comfort with technology - not just "tech-savvy" or "non-technical" but what they can and can't do, what concepts they understand, and where they hit walls.]

**[Adoption and abandonment patterns.]** [How they evaluate new tools, what makes them stay, and what makes them leave. Include specific thresholds if known from research.]

**[Work environment.]** [Physical setup, device usage, interruption patterns, and how their environment shapes their relationship with the product.]

---

## 3. Jobs to Be Done

**Functional.** [When (situation), they need to (action) so that (outcome). Focus on the progress they're trying to make, not features they want.]

**Emotional.** [When (situation), they want to feel (emotional state) so that (consequence of that feeling). What does the experience need to deliver emotionally?]

**Social.** [How they want to be perceived by others as a result of doing this work well. What's the social reward for success or the social cost of failure?]

**Underlying.** [The deeper job they don't articulate - the structural tension or aspiration that shapes their relationship with every tool in this space. This is often the most strategically valuable insight in the persona.]

---

## 4. Goals & Motivations

> Life goal provides aspirational context. End goals define what they want to accomplish through the product domain - name each descriptively. Experience goals define how the product should feel during use.

**Life goal.** [The aspiration that gives context to everything else. What are they building toward that the product either supports or ignores?]

**[Descriptive end goal.]** [What they want to accomplish. Include the product implication - what this goal demands of the product.]

**[Descriptive end goal.]** [Same structure.]

**[Descriptive end goal.]** [Same structure.]

**[Descriptive experience goal.]** [How they want to feel during use. 1-2 sentences.]

**[Descriptive experience goal.]** [Same structure.]

**[Descriptive experience goal.]** [Same structure.]

---

## 5. Behavioral Patterns & Mental Models

**[Core mental model.]** [How they conceptualize their work in this domain. What metaphors do they use? What does their internal framing reveal about how the product should feel? 3-5 sentences - this is one of the most important entries in the persona.]

**[Primary work pattern.]** [The shape of their typical work - ratio of reactive to proactive, creating to modifying, solo to collaborative. What do they want that ratio to be vs. what it is?]

**[Accuracy and quality approach.]** [How they verify their work, what "good enough" means to them, and how that standard shifts by context.]

**[Tolerance thresholds.]** [Where they lose patience - with complexity, with configuration, with waiting, with ambiguity. Specific thresholds if known. 1-2 sentences.]

---

## 6. Decision-Making & Trust Patterns

**[How trust is built and broken.]** [The asymmetry of trust - how many positive experiences it takes to build vs. how quickly a single negative experience destroys it. Include specifics from research.]

**[Adoption filter.]** [The implicit questions they ask when evaluating a new tool or approach. Frame as a mental checklist they apply without articulating it.]

**[Risk profile.]** [Where they're risk-averse and where they're risk-tolerant. The boundary between exploration and commitment.]

**[Feature discovery behavior.]** [How they learn about new capabilities. Proactive? Accidental? Never? What this means for product investment in discoverability. 1-2 sentences.]

---

## 7. Workflow & Collaboration Context

**[Work rhythm.]** [The cadence of their work - anchored deadlines, fragmented time, deep focus blocks. How much uninterrupted time they typically have.]

**[Collaboration model.]** [Their role in the creator/consumer spectrum. Do they build, co-edit, review, consume? Who are their counterparts and what do those people do with their outputs?]

**[Key collaboration friction.]** [The specific way their collaboration model breaks down. What do their stakeholders or counterparts do that undermines the work?]

**[Dependencies.]** [What they depend on that they can't control - upstream data, other teams' processes, stakeholder availability. Where things break and who they blame.]

---

## 8. Current Alternatives & Workarounds

**[Primary alternative.]** [What they do today, with or without the product. The workflow they fall back to when the product fails them. Why that alternative persists despite its limitations.]

**[Where the product enters.]** [The specific role the product plays in their workflow today - and how fragile that position is.]

**[The firing trigger.]** [What specifically causes them to abandon the product and fall back to alternatives. The pattern, not just one anecdote.]

---

## 9. Pain Points & Unmet Needs

> Frame each as a behavioral problem, not a feature request. Include why it persists and what it costs in time, credibility, or confidence. Include as many as research supports - typically 3-6.

**[Pain point - descriptive label.]** [What the pain is, why it persists, and what it costs.]

**[Pain point - descriptive label.]** [Same structure.]

**[Pain point - descriptive label.]** [Same structure.]

**[Pain point - descriptive label.]** [Same structure.]

**[Pain point - descriptive label.]** [Same structure.]

---

## 10. Success Definition & Quality Bar

**[Accuracy standard.]** [What "correct" means to this persona. Zero tolerance? Directionally correct? Context-dependent?]

**[Timeliness standard.]** [What "on time" means. Their relationship with deadlines and the margin they expect.]

**[Self-sufficiency standard.]** [What a successful output looks like - does it need to stand alone, invite further exploration, generate action?]

**[Quality bar by context.]** [How the quality standard changes by situation. Describe 2-3 distinct contexts and what "good enough" means in each.]

---

## 11. Design Principles & Tradeoff Heuristics

> When two good ideas compete, these rules - derived from the persona's behavioral reality - resolve the tie. Include as many as the behavioral model supports - typically 4-7.

**[X over Y.]** [What to choose and what to deprioritize when they conflict. Why this persona's reality demands this tradeoff.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

---

## Evidence & Confidence

| Source | Type | Detail |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [ ID ] | [ Interview / Survey / Analytics / Support / Session recording ] | [ Brief description, date, sample size ] |
| [ ID ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| [ ID ] | [ ] | [ ] |

**Validated.** [Which sections are supported by converging evidence from multiple sources.]

**Assumed.** [Which sections rely on limited evidence or self-reported data. What would it take to validate them.]

**Open questions.** [The 2-3 most important things you still don't know about this persona. Frame as specific, answerable research questions.]

**Governance.** [Review cadence, retirement criteria, and the next planned research action with a target date.]

---

## Marketing Persona Template

# [Persona Name] - [Archetype Label]

**[One sentence that captures this buyer's core decision reality: what triggers them to evaluate, what they're trying to achieve, and what risk they're managing.]**

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Persona ID | [ BM-### ] |
| Committee role | [ Champion / Economic Buyer / Technical Validator / End User / Influencer / Blocker ] |
| Decision context | [ What purchase decision this persona models ] |
| Valid for | [ Segment, company size, buying context where this persona applies ] |
| Not valid for | [ Adjacent buyer types this persona does not represent ] |
| Confidence | [ Validated / Working / Assumption - with brief evidence basis ] |
| Last validated | [ YYYY-MM-DD ] |
| Owner | [ Team or individual responsible for maintenance ] |

**Quick orientation.** The Persona Card is the daily-use reference - extract it as a standalone one-pager. Sections 1-3 provide context and buying triggers. Sections 4-6 describe how they decide. Sections 7-8 map objections and alternatives. Sections 9-11 translate insight into GTM actions. Evidence & Confidence calibrates trust.

> **Template note:** Blockquote notes (`>`) are authoring guidance - remove them from the completed persona. Each bolded entry should be 2-4 sentences unless noted otherwise. Tables are reserved for reference data only.

---

## Persona Card

> The daily-use artifact for campaign briefs, sales plays, pitch preparation, and messaging reviews. Must fit on one page. Every element must pass the test: would removing this change a messaging or sales decision? If not, cut it.

**[Persona Name] - [Archetype Label]**
[2-3 sentences describing who this buyer is, what triggers their evaluation, and what's at stake in their decision.]

**Key quote:** "[De-identified verbatim quote from a win/loss interview or sales call that captures how this buyer thinks about the purchase.]"

**Buying trigger.** [What event or pressure causes them to start evaluating solutions.]

**Decision criteria.** [The 3-4 things they evaluate most heavily, in priority order.]

**Primary objection.** [The most common reason they stall, defer, or say no.]

**Messaging hook.** [The single framing that most reliably moves this buyer forward.]

**Competitive alternative.** [What they'll do instead if they don't buy - including doing nothing.]

---

## 1. Demographics & Professional Context

| Attribute | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Title range | [ Typical titles this persona holds ] |
| Seniority | [ IC / Manager / Director / VP / C-suite ] |
| Department | [ ] |
| Company size | [ Revenue range and/or headcount ] |
| Industry | [ Specific verticals or horizontal ] |
| Reports to | [ ] |
| Budget authority | [ Owns budget / Influences budget / Requests budget ] |
| Purchasing role | [ Signs contracts / Recommends / Evaluates / Blocks ] |

**[Professional identity.]** [How they see their role, what they're measured on, and what professional pressure shapes their buying behavior.]

**[Career context.]** [Their career stage and how it affects risk tolerance in purchasing decisions. A first-time director buys differently than a tenured VP - that difference matters for sales positioning.]

---

## 2. Technology & Buying Environment

| Attribute | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Current solution | [ What they use today ] |
| Stack context | [ Key tools this purchase must integrate with ] |
| Technical fluency | [ How deeply they evaluate technical claims ] |
| Procurement process | [ Self-serve / Team evaluation / Formal RFP / Board approval ] |
| Typical deal cycle | [ Weeks / Months / Quarters ] |

**[Relationship with technology decisions.]** [Whether they lead tech evaluations, defer to others, or play a specific role. How hands-on they are in evaluation vs. delegating.]

**[Organizational buying culture.]** [How their company makes purchasing decisions. Consensus-driven? Top-down? Committee? What the approval chain looks like.]

---

## 3. Buying Triggers & Catalyst Events

**[Primary trigger.]** [The specific event, pressure, or realization that moves this buyer from passive awareness to active evaluation. What changes in their world that makes the status quo unacceptable?]

**[Secondary triggers.]** [Other events that can initiate a buying cycle - leadership mandate, competitive pressure, team growth, failed tool, compliance deadline.]

**[The "almost triggered" state.]** [What keeps them aware of the problem but not yet actively evaluating. The gap between knowing and acting. This shapes nurture strategy.]

---

## 4. Jobs to Be Done (Buying Context)

**Functional.** [When (trigger event), they need to (find/evaluate/implement a solution) so that (business outcome). The progress they're trying to make through the purchase itself, not just the product.]

**Emotional.** [How they want to feel about the decision - confident, safe, forward-thinking. What does a "good buying decision" feel like to them six months later?]

**Social.** [How they want to be perceived for making this decision. What does a successful purchase do for their internal reputation? What does a failed one cost?]

**Underlying.** [The deeper tension driving the purchase - often about professional identity, organizational politics, or career trajectory. The thing they won't say in a sales call but that shapes everything.]

---

## 5. Decision Criteria & Evaluation Process

**[How they evaluate - process.]** [The steps they take from trigger to decision. Do they research independently first? Ask peers? Bring in a team? How do demos, trials, and references fit? 3-5 sentences describing the typical evaluation arc.]

**[What they evaluate - criteria.]** [The specific criteria they weigh, in rough priority order. Not a generic list - the actual factors this persona cares about and how they rank them.]

**[How they compare - competitive frame.]** [What they put side by side and how they structure the comparison. Spreadsheet? Gut feel? Delegate to a team member? What dimensions dominate?]

**[What "good enough" looks like.]** [Their threshold for making a decision vs. continuing to evaluate. What tips them from "still looking" to "let's move forward"?]

---

## 6. Buying Committee & Influence Dynamics

**[Their role on the committee.]** [What they contribute to the buying process - discovery, evaluation, recommendation, approval, veto. How much weight their opinion carries.]

**[Who they need to convince.]** [The other stakeholders involved in the decision, what those people care about, and what this persona needs to provide to get buy-in.]

**[Who can block them.]** [The stakeholder most likely to slow down or kill the deal, what that person's concerns are, and how this persona typically navigates the objection.]

**[Internal champion behavior.]** [If champion: how they sell internally, what materials they need, what arguments they make. If not champion: what role they play in supporting or undermining the champion.]

---

## 7. Objections, Risks & Barriers

> Include as many named objections as research supports - typically 3-5.

**[Objection - descriptive label.]** [The objection, why it comes up, and what it reveals about the buyer's underlying concern. What resolves it - not just the rebuttal, but what evidence or framing makes the concern go away.]

**[Objection - descriptive label.]** [Same structure.]

**[Objection - descriptive label.]** [Same structure.]

**[The "do nothing" risk.]** [Why this buyer might choose the status quo even after evaluating. What makes inaction feel safer than action? This is often the real competitor.]

**[The "bad experience" ghost.]** [Past purchasing experiences that shape their skepticism. What burned them before and what signals trigger that memory?]

---

## 8. Current Alternatives & Competitive Landscape

**[Status quo.]** [What they're doing today and why it persists. What's good enough about it and what's starting to break.]

**[Direct alternatives.]** [The specific competitors they're likely to evaluate. Not your full competitive set - the 2-3 options this persona actually puts on a shortlist and why.]

**[Indirect alternatives.]** [The non-obvious alternatives: internal tools, manual processes, hiring instead of buying, doing nothing. What makes these viable in the buyer's mind?]

**[Switching costs and lock-in.]** [What makes leaving their current solution hard - data migration, retraining, integrations, political cost of admitting the last purchase was wrong.]

---

## 9. Messaging Architecture

**[Primary message - the one that opens the door.]** [The core framing that connects their trigger to your value in their language. Not a tagline - the message and why it works.]

**[Supporting proof points.]** [The 3-4 pieces of evidence that make the primary message credible - customer stories, data points, analyst validation, peer references - ranked by what this persona trusts most.]

**[Language they use vs. language they distrust.]** [The vocabulary this buyer uses to describe their problem and desired outcome. Equally important: words and phrases that trigger skepticism or feel like marketing speak. Include specific examples.]

**[Content that moves them forward.]** [The content types and formats this buyer consumes during evaluation - case studies, ROI calculators, peer conversations, technical docs. Where they look and what convinces.]

**[Content that stalls them.]** [What turns them off or slows the process - generic demos, gated content, aggressive follow-up, vague pricing. 1-2 sentences.]

---

## 10. Success Definition & Relationship Expectations

**[What a successful purchase looks like.]** [How this buyer defines a good decision - not just at purchase, but 3, 6, and 12 months later. What outcome makes them say "that was the right call"?]

**[What a failed purchase looks like.]** [The scenario they're trying to avoid. What would make them regret the decision and what would the professional consequence be?]

**[Relationship expectations.]** [What they expect from the vendor relationship post-sale. High-touch? Self-serve? Strategic partnership? How much ongoing engagement they want and in what form.]

**[Expansion and advocacy triggers.]** [What would cause them to expand usage, renew enthusiastically, or refer peers. The path from buyer to champion to advocate.]

---

## 11. Sales & GTM Principles

> These rules guide messaging, sales behavior, and campaign strategy for this persona. When two good approaches compete, these resolve the tie. Include as many as the buying model supports - typically 4-6.

**[X over Y.]** [What to prioritize in sales and messaging approach. Why this buyer's reality demands this.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

**[X over Y.]** [Same structure.]

---

## Evidence & Confidence

| Source | Type | Detail |
| --- | --- | --- |
| [ ID ] | [ Win interview / Loss interview / No-decision / CRM data / Call recording ] | [ Brief description, date, sample size ] |
| [ ID ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| [ ID ] | [ ] | [ ] |

**Validated.** [Which sections are supported by converging evidence from multiple sources - ideally across won, lost, and no-decision outcomes.]

**Assumed.** [Which sections rely on limited evidence, internal assumptions, or sales intuition. What would it take to validate them.]

**Open questions.** [The 2-3 most important things you still don't know about this buyer. Frame as specific, answerable research questions.]

**Governance.** [Review cadence, retirement criteria, and the next planned research action with a target date.]

## Example Output

<details>
<summary>Persona Dossier: Rhea Patel, Keeper of the Approval Chain (Product)</summary>

# Persona Dossier: Rhea Patel, Keeper of the Approval Chain (Product)

## Layer 1: Narrative Persona Dossier

## Executive summary
- Rhea optimizes for defensible execution, not superficial speed.
- She blocks ambiguous high-impact approvals because late discovery is costlier than early friction.
- Approval quality is a product surface, not just an operational policy.
- Exception handling is acceptable only when ownership, reason, expiry, and follow-up are explicit.
- Teams misread her as conservative when they do not carry downstream accountability.
- She needs fast decision-quality signals, not verbose status reporting.
- Contradictory approvals and stale evidence links are top trust-breakers.
- "Green" status without rationale is functionally a false positive.
- She values controlled acceleration during deadlines, not process rigidity.
- Products that preserve legibility under pressure earn sustained sponsorship.

### 1) Opening scene
At 5:37 PM on submission day, the package is marked ready and Slack is celebrating a green status. Rhea opens the final approval thread and finds one high-impact approval with no rationale and one unresolved exception with no owner.

She pauses release.

To other teams this looks like delay; to Rhea it is risk containment before cost multiplies downstream.

### 2) Who this person is when work gets real
Rhea runs Clinical Quality Operations in a regulated environment where "done" has legal and operational consequences. She is collaborative and practical, but she has one hard boundary: if a high-risk decision cannot be explained later, the process is not trustworthy.

She does not optimize for workflow aesthetics. She optimizes for outcomes that survive scrutiny.

### 3) Core tension and decision model
Rhea is not "quality over speed." She is anti-fragile speed. Her operating question is not "how quickly did we ship" but "how many hidden assumptions did we carry to the finish line."

When information is incomplete, she chooses early clarification over late-stage narrative reconstruction.

### 4) Decision moments that define behavior
- Decision moment A: If evidence is incomplete and accountability is unclear, block and clarify now.
- Decision moment B: Allow lightweight approval for low-risk edits, but require rationale and confidence for high-impact changes.
- Decision moment C: Permit scoped exceptions under deadline only when owner, reason, expiry, and follow-up criteria are explicit.

### 5) What they say vs what they mean
| What they say | What they mean | Product implication |
|---|---|---|
| "This feels brittle." | A single dependency failure can cascade silently. | Surface dependency and handoff risk early. |
| "Can we stand behind this?" | Current pass state will fail under scrutiny later. | Require rationale and confidence for high-impact claims. |
| "Who owns this?" | Accountability is ambiguous right now. | Make ownership explicit in approval and exception flows. |
| "We are not ready." | It can pass today but fail in review tomorrow. | Align pre-flight and final-gate validation logic. |

### 6) Operating modes
- Normal mode: prioritize throughput while preserving traceability.
- Compression mode: prioritize controlled acceleration with risk summaries and explicit exception governance.
- Incident mode: prioritize containment, provenance reconstruction, and clear owner/action mapping.

### 7) Product strategy implications
Priority stack:
- Decision-quality signals (confidence, rationale, impact cues)
- Exception governance (owner, reason, expiry, follow-up)
- Validation parity (same rules in flow and export)
- Conflict visibility (contradictory approvals, stale references)
- Human-readable policy explanations (what failed, why, what next)

Anti-patterns to avoid:
- Green states that hide unresolved uncertainty
- Approval models that flatten low-risk and high-risk decisions into one flow

### 8) Design principles this persona forces
- Never show "green" when critical uncertainty is unresolved.
- Treat approval quality as a first-class UX problem.
- Design reversible, auditable exception paths.
- Separate low-risk convenience from high-risk control boundaries.
- Optimize for cross-role clarity, not only individual speed.

### 9) If this persona wins, what changes?
Teams stop shipping convenience features that collapse under pressure and start shipping systems that remain legible during deadlines, disagreement, and audit. Velocity stays high, but avoidable rework and accountability gaps decline materially.

---

## Layer 2: Operational Appendix

### A) Request Context
- **Mode:** product
- **Mode alias used:** none
- **Detail profile:** detailed
- **Artifact or task context:** improve a regulated approval workflow for `problem-statement`, `prd`, and `edge-cases`
- **Domain context:** regulated B2B workflow software

### B) Depth Guidance
- **Product detailed:** ~350-900 lines (soft target)
- **Marketing detailed:** ~340-850 lines (soft target)
- **Brief profile (either mode):** ~170-360 lines (soft target)
- **Brief profile:** prioritize decision snapshot and immediate actions
- **Detailed profile:** include richer tradeoffs, constraints, and edge conditions
- **If user asks comprehensive/best-in-class:** target upper half of selected range

### C) Completeness Floors (Soft)
- **Product detailed:** 8+ substantive sections, 2+ tables/matrices, 5+ scenario-tailoring entries
- **Marketing detailed:** 8+ substantive sections, 2+ tables/matrices, 4+ scenario-tailoring entries
- **Brief profile:** 6-10 executive-summary bullets and 3+ scenario-tailoring entries
- **All outputs:** sections must be decision-usable; do not ship placeholder-level bullets

### D) Includes / Excludes
- **Includes:** workflow friction, decision triggers, risk posture, product tradeoff direction
- **Excludes:** campaign messaging strategy, channel planning, non-decision persona trivia

### E) Scenario tailoring
- For `problem-statement`: frame the issue as late discovery and hidden ambiguity in high-stakes approvals.
- For `prd`: require explicit requirements for rationale capture, exception lifecycle ownership, and validation parity.
- For `user-stories`: encode accountability semantics (who decides, required evidence, conflict handling, recoverable failure).
- For `edge-cases`: prioritize contradictory approvals, stale evidence links, ownerless exceptions, and deadline overrides without rationale.
- For `launch-checklist`: include reviewer enablement, escalation ownership coverage, and rollback readiness for approval-logic regressions.

### F) When not to use this persona
- Do not use for top-of-funnel demand generation strategy.
- Do not use for consumer UX polish work with no compliance or audit consequence.
- Do not use for pure brand storytelling disconnected from workflow risk.

### G) Assumptions and Confidence
- **Key assumptions:**
  - Cross-functional approvals are a core business path.
  - Decision provenance is required for audits and escalations.
  - Late-stage rework is materially costly.
  - Reviewer quality is variable under deadline pressure.
- **Confidence:** Medium
- **Confidence rationale:** Strong behavioral fit for regulated operations leadership, but weighting should be calibrated with current baseline metrics.

## Evidence Trail

### User-provided inputs
| ID | Resource | Type | Used for | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U1 | Request for narrative-first, non-sterile persona outputs | user instruction | story-first structure and tone | no org-specific metrics supplied |
| U2 | v2.5 stance (`F-02` included; details provisional) | user instruction | scope framing and contract posture | informs guidance boundaries |

### LLM-discovered references
| ID | Resource | Type | Access method | Used for | Reliability notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | NN/g persona guidance | article | browse/search | decision-oriented persona framing | strong UX source |
| L2 | NN/g personas + JTBD relationship | article | browse/search | jobs-to-decision linkage | strong conceptual source |
| L3 | GOV.UK research guidance | docs | browse/search | evidence and assumptions clarity | high-practicality source |
| L4 | ISO 9241-210 HCD principles | standard summary | browse/search | context-driven design baseline | standards-aligned framing |

### Evidence gaps and follow-up questions
| Gap ID | Missing support | Impacted claims/sections | Confidence impact | Follow-up question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | No current re-open-after-approval baseline | decision model and risk prioritization | Medium | What is current re-open rate by workflow stage? |
| G2 | No reviewer-confidence distribution by role | mode-specific behavior and risk triage | Medium | Which reviewer cohorts show highest variance? |
| G3 | No exception taxonomy frequency data | exception governance priorities | Medium | What are top recurring exception classes and owners? |

### Claim mapping
| Claim ID | Claim summary | Evidence IDs | Confidence | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Defensible flow is prioritized over fragile speed | U1, U2, L1, L2 | Medium | regulated review constraints are material |
| C2 | Decision-quality signals are a core product lever | U1, L2, L3 | Medium | current approval model under-signals quality |
| C3 | Hidden policy logic harms trust under pressure | U1, L1, L4 | Medium | teams depend on legible escalation paths |

</details>

## Real-World Examples

See this skill applied to three different product contexts:

<details>
<summary>Storevine (B2B): Storevine Campaigns marketing persona for self-serve SMB merchant acquisition and competitive positioning against Shopify plus Klaviyo</summary>

**Prompt:**

```text
/persona marketing brief

Quick marketing persona for Storevine Campaigns SMB acquisition.

Context:
- We're targeting Shopify + Klaviyo merchants who might consolidate
- Win-loss: 6/14 wins cited "too many tools"; 4/9 losses said "Klaviyo is good enough" [fictional]
- Need this for competitive landing page and acquisition email sequence
- Self-serve purchase, no committee, individual merchant decision

Prior work:
- Competitive analysis (Feb 2026): Shopify Email is template-first, Klaviyo is automation-first
- Interview synthesis: merchants describe "tool juggling tax" as real operational cost

Keep it brief, focused on acquisition messaging and objection handling.
```

---

**Output:**

# Persona Dossier: Priya Sharma, The Merchant Who Pays the Tool-Juggling Tax (Marketing, Brief)

</details>

<details>
<summary>Brainshelf (Consumer): Brainshelf marketing persona for newsletter-creator acquisition and content-curation positioning</summary>

**Prompt:**

```text
/persona marketing brief

marketing persona for newsletter creator acquisition channel.

context: brainshelf users who share 3+ items/week have 3.4x retention
and 2.1 referral signups/quarter [fictional]. newsletter creators are
a natural fit because they already curate. want a persona for
acquisition messaging and potential "Curator" tier positioning.

competitors in this space: Readwise Reader, Raindrop, Pocket.
keep it brief but actionable for growth experiments.
```

---

**Output:**

# Persona Dossier: Amara Osei, The Creator Who Curates Before She Writes (Marketing, Brief)

</details>

<details>
<summary>Workbench (Enterprise): Workbench Blueprints marketing persona for enterprise champion sales playbook and pilot-to-expansion messaging</summary>

**Prompt:**

```text
/persona marketing brief

Sandra V. to PM Skills agent:

> I need a brief marketing persona for the Workbench Blueprints enterprise
> sales playbook. This should represent the internal champion who drives
> the purchasing conversation.
>
> Context:
> - 3 pilot customers have requested formal proposals after Blueprint trials
> - Common stall point: champion can't answer IT security and legal questions
>   without vendor-supplied materials
> - Need: concise persona for messaging alignment, objection prep, and
>   pilot-to-expansion proof points
> - Sales cycle: 60-90 day evaluations with 3-5 stakeholder sign-offs
>
> Keep it brief but decision-usable for the sales team.
```

---

**Output:**

# Persona Dossier: Sandra Vo, The Champion Who Cannot Arm Her Committee (Marketing, Brief)

</details>

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

- [ ] Exactly one mode is used and clearly labeled
- [ ] `buyer` inputs are normalized to `Marketing`
- [ ] Header, core-reality statement, metadata table, and `Persona Card` are present
- [ ] All `1` through `11` sections from the selected template are present and complete
- [ ] Includes/not-valid boundaries are explicit in the metadata and narrative
- [ ] Evidence table is populated with concrete sources
- [ ] Confidence is `High`, `Medium`, or `Low` with rationale
- [ ] `Validated`, `Assumed`, `Open questions`, and `Governance` blocks are present
- [ ] Template authoring notes (`>` guidance lines) are removed from the completed output
