---
title: "Foundation Sprint Readiness: Workbench Debugging Toolchain"
description: "Workbench pre-seed founding team readiness assessment for a Foundation Sprint to resolve the specialized-debugger vs general-observability strategic question."
artifact: foundation-sprint-readiness
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.15.0"
skill_version: "0.1.0"
created: 2026-05-20
status: sample
thread: workbench
context: "Workbench pre-seed developer tooling for distributed-systems debugging; founding team readiness diagnostic before Day 1"
---

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

## Scenario

The Workbench founding team (Priya, Marcus, Ari, Jin) is preparing a two-day Foundation Sprint to resolve a strategic split: should Workbench ship as a specialized distributed-systems debugger (deep focus on causal trace + state reconstruction during incidents) or as a general observability platform (broader logs + metrics + traces, competing head-on with Datadog and New Relic)? Before committing two days to a facilitated workshop, the team runs `tool-foundation-sprint-readiness`.

## Inputs Captured

**Initiative description:**

> Workbench is a pre-seed developer tooling startup. The founding team wants to help SRE teams at growth-stage startups recover faster from production incidents, but is split on whether to build a specialized distributed-systems debugger (incident-time tool) or a broader observability platform (always-on tool). Priya leans specialized; Marcus leans general; both have credible reasoning. We need a forcing decision.

**Team composition draft:**

- Priya (founder, ex-Datadog senior PM; Decider candidate)
- Marcus (engineering lead, ex-Splunk distributed tracing engineer)
- Ari (design lead, ex-Plaid product designer)
- Jin (customer expert, currently SRE at a Series C fintech; advisor capacity)

**Decider name and availability:** Priya, available full days May 21-22 with zero calendar conflicts confirmed.

**Existing customer/market knowledge level (self-assessed):** 7 of 10. Team has run 19 SRE interviews in the last 6 weeks, primarily Series B-D companies. Jin is a current target-customer user and gives weekly product reactions. Less direct exposure to Series E+ companies and to enterprise SREs.

## Readiness Verdict: **Go**

The team meets canonical readiness criteria. One yellow flag for awareness; not a blocker.

| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Initiative is named and concrete | PASS | Workbench product direction is named with two specific alternatives |
| 2. Stakes are meaningful | PASS | Wrong direction commits 8-12 months of build before signal |
| 3. Team has existing customer/market knowledge | PASS | 19 interviews + Jin's lived experience |
| 4. Decider is available | PASS | Priya commits to both days |
| 5. Team size is appropriate (max 5) | PASS | 4 people including Decider |
| 6. Inputs are collected | PASS | Interview synthesis + competitive scan complete |
| 7. Output has a path to testing | YELLOW | Team has 2 candidate design partners but no committed pilot; covered below |
| 8. Organization tolerates explicit tradeoffs | PASS | Priya and Marcus have explicitly agreed the sprint decides between two paths, not both |

## Diagnosis

Seven criteria clean; the validation-path yellow is the only flag. The team has identified two candidate design partners (Series C fintech where Jin works and a Series B logistics startup) but neither has committed to a pilot. Without a committed pilot, the Founding Hypothesis lands as theory; the team needs a 2-3 week window post-sprint to close at least one design-partner commitment.

This is addressable without blocking the sprint. Priya owns the conversion conversation pre-sprint.

No other risk factors. The customer knowledge band is deep enough; Marcus's Splunk tracing background covers the technical feasibility questions Day 2 Approach Options will need.

## Recommended Preconditions

None blocking. Awareness note: confirm at least one design-partner pilot commitment within 2 weeks of sprint output, or the Founding Hypothesis enters research-only mode rather than build-and-test mode.

## Recommended Pre-Sprint Activities

1. **Priya schedules design-partner conversion calls** (deadline: 2026-06-05, 2 weeks post-sprint). Not blocking sprint start; tracking item.
2. **Prep the 19-interview synthesis as a one-page summary** (Jin owns; deadline: morning of 2026-05-21). For Day 1 morning reference during target customer and important problem decisions.
3. **Pre-stage the workspace** (Ari owns; deadline: evening of 2026-05-20). FigJam board with the canonical Foundation Sprint structure; office room reserved.
4. **Block calendars** (whole team; deadline: end of day 2026-05-19). No Slack, no email during sprint hours (10:00-18:00 PT) both days.

## Recommended Attendees

| Attendee | Role | Required for which sections |
|---|---|---|
| Priya | Decider, founder/PM | All; especially Differentiation and Magic Lenses |
| Marcus | Engineering lead | All; especially Approach Options (feasibility), Magic Lenses (Pragmatic lens) |
| Ari | Design lead | All; especially Differentiation (2x2 chart, principles) |
| Jin | Customer expert | All; especially Basics (target customer + competitors) |

No additional cameo experts recommended. Strong internal coverage; Jin's lived experience makes external customer-expert add-ons redundant.

## Decider Checkpoint

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

- [x] Priya confirms Go verdict and accepts the validation-path yellow as an awareness note.
- [x] Priya commits to attending both full days as Decider.
- [x] Priya commits to closing at least one design-partner pilot within 2 weeks of sprint output.
- [x] Priya acknowledges the sprint will force a binary choice between specialized debugger and general observability; not both at v0.1.
- [x] Priya agrees the output should be a Founding Hypothesis ratifiable by end of Day 2.

**Signed:** Priya (founder, PM), 2026-05-20 17:00 PT
