---
title: "Foundation Sprint Readiness: Brainshelf Book Catalog"
description: "Brainshelf pre-seed founding team readiness assessment for a Foundation Sprint to resolve the individual-collectors vs social-readers strategic question."
artifact: foundation-sprint-readiness
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.15.0"
skill_version: "0.1.0"
created: 2026-05-14
status: sample
thread: brainshelf
context: "Brainshelf pre-seed B2C SaaS for personal book collection management; founding team readiness diagnostic before Day 1"
---

<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

The Brainshelf founding team (Jamie, Alex, Sam, Riley) is preparing to run a two-day Foundation Sprint to resolve a strategic split: should the product optimize for individual collectors (private library tracking) or for social readers (community feeds, recommendations)? Before committing two days to a facilitated workshop, the team runs `tool-foundation-sprint-readiness` to verify they meet the canonical readiness criteria.

## Inputs Captured

**Initiative description:**

> Brainshelf is a pre-seed B2C SaaS for personal book collection management. The founding team wants to launch a product that helps readers track what they have read and what they want to read next, but the team is divided on whether to optimize for individual collectors (private library) or social readers (community, recommendations, book clubs).

**Team composition draft:**

- Jamie (founder, PM; Decider candidate)
- Alex (design)
- Sam (engineering)
- Riley (customer expert; runs a 12k-follower book-blogger Discord)

**Decider name and availability:** Jamie, available full days May 13-14 with no calendar conflicts confirmed.

**Existing customer/market knowledge level (self-assessed):** 7 of 10. The team has run 22 customer interviews with active readers in the last 8 weeks. Riley has deep network in social-reading. Less direct knowledge of pure private-collection users.

## Readiness Verdict: **Go**

The team meets the canonical readiness criteria with one addressable yellow flag.

| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Initiative is named and concrete | PASS | Brainshelf product direction is named |
| 2. Stakes are meaningful | PASS | Pre-seed founders; wrong choice is costly |
| 3. Team has existing customer/market knowledge | PASS | 22 interviews + Riley's domain network |
| 4. Decider is available | PASS | Jamie commits to both days |
| 5. Team size is appropriate (max 5) | PASS | 4 people including Decider |
| 6. Inputs are collected | YELLOW | Interview notes ready; competitor research scattered |
| 7. Output has a path to testing | PASS | Team intends to run a Design Sprint week of May 26 |
| 8. Organization tolerates explicit tradeoffs | PASS | Founders explicitly chartered the sprint to force a top bet |

## Diagnosis

Seven of eight criteria pass cleanly. The single yellow flag is competitor research completeness.

**Competitor and alternatives research is incomplete.** Goodreads is well-understood; paper journals and physical notebooks are understood as alternatives; but the team has not surfaced systematic notes on apps like StoryGraph, Bookly, or LibraryThing. This matters because Day 1 morning Basics depends on a real competitor map; without it, the team risks generic positioning ("we are better than Goodreads") instead of differentiated positioning against the full alternative set. The gap is addressable: a 90-minute prep window the evening before Day 1 can produce one-page summaries for each missing competitor.

No other risk factors found. The Go verdict is honest, not optimistic.

## Recommended Preconditions

1. **Compile competitor one-pagers** (Riley owns; deadline: evening of 2026-05-12 by 22:00 PT). One page each for Goodreads, StoryGraph, Bookly, LibraryThing. Include: target user, primary jobs-to-be-done, monetization, why-people-leave signals. Closes the Yellow on criterion 6.

## Recommended Pre-Sprint Activities

1. **Print or screen-share the 22 interview synthesis notes** (Jamie owns; deadline: morning of 2026-05-13). For Day 1 morning reference during target customer and important problem decisions.
2. **Block calendars** (whole team owns; deadline: end of day 2026-05-11). No Slack, no email during sprint hours (09:00-17:00 PT) both days.
3. **Prepare the room and digital workspace** (Alex owns; deadline: evening of 2026-05-12). Pre-load Miro board with the canonical Foundation Sprint board template.
4. **Confirm Day 2 closing time is unambiguous** (Jamie owns; deadline: morning of 2026-05-13). Founding Hypothesis ratification cannot slip to Day 3.

## Recommended Attendees

| Attendee | Role | Required for which sections |
|---|---|---|
| Jamie | Decider, PM | All; especially Differentiation and Magic Lenses |
| Alex | Design lead | All; especially Differentiation (2x2 chart) |
| Sam | Engineering lead | All; especially Approach Options (feasibility) |
| Riley | Customer expert | All; especially Basics (target customer + competitors) |

No additional cameo experts recommended. The team has enough internal context.

## Decider Checkpoint

**Decider sign-off required before scheduling Day 1.**

- [x] Jamie confirms Go verdict and accepts the diagnosis (competitor research gap).
- [x] Jamie commits to attending both full days as Decider.
- [x] Jamie acknowledges the documented precondition (competitor one-pagers by evening of May 12) and owns ensuring Riley completes it.
- [x] Jamie agrees the output should be a Founding Hypothesis ratifiable by end of Day 2.
- [x] Jamie acknowledges that the sprint will force a choice between social/community direction and personal-collection direction; the sprint does NOT preserve both paths.

**Signed:** Jamie (founder, PM), 2026-05-12 18:30 PT
