working-backwards

Amazon's Working Backwards product development method based on Colin Bryar and Bill Carr's "Working Backwards". Use when you need to: (1) write a PR/FAQ document for a new product or feature, (2) validate an idea by defining the customer experience first, (3) stress-test a proposal with pre-mortem analysis, (4) align stakeholders around a product vision, (5) decide whether an idea is worth building before writing code.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "working-backwards" with this command: npx skills add tomaszstaniak/pm-ai-skills/tomaszstaniak-pm-ai-skills-working-backwards

Working Backwards (PR/FAQ)

A product development method pioneered at Amazon: start from the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. The centerpiece is the PR/FAQ document — a fictional press release and FAQ written before a single line of code, forcing clarity of thought about who benefits, why they care, and what could go wrong. Includes a built-in pre-mortem step based on Gary Klein's prospective hindsight technique.

Core Principle

If you can't write a compelling press release, you don't understand the product yet. Writing forces thinking. A PR/FAQ written at the start — not the end — of a project exposes fuzzy thinking, missing logic, and unjustified assumptions before any resources are committed. If the press release is boring, the product will be boring.

The Working Backwards process inverts the typical development flow:

Traditional:  Idea → Build → Launch → Explain to customers
Amazon:       Customer need → PR/FAQ → Debate → Build only if compelling

Scoring

Goal: 10/10. When reviewing a PR/FAQ or product proposal, rate it 0-10:

ScoreDescription
0-2No written proposal. Idea is a verbal pitch or a slide deck with bullet points.
3-4Written proposal exists but reads like an internal spec. Customer benefit is vague. No FAQ.
5-6PR/FAQ format used but the press release is generic, FAQ avoids hard questions, no pre-mortem.
7-8Strong PR/FAQ. Clear customer, specific benefit, honest FAQ, identifies key risks.
9-10Exceptional. Press release makes you want the product. FAQ addresses every tough question. Pre-mortem reveals non-obvious risks with mitigations. The document alone could be used to decide go/no-go.

The PR/FAQ Document

Part 1: The Press Release (1 page max)

A fictional press release announcing the finished product. Written in the voice of a real press release, as if the product already exists.

Structure:

SectionContentLength
HeadingProduct name + customer benefit in one line1 sentence
SubheadingWho the customer is + what they can now do1 sentence
Opening paragraphSummary: what it is, who it's for, why it matters3-4 sentences
Problem paragraphThe customer problem or pain point (in the customer's words)3-4 sentences
Solution paragraphHow the product solves it — specific, concrete, no jargon3-4 sentences
Quote from leaderWhy the company built this (vision, mission alignment)2-3 sentences
How it worksSimple explanation a customer can follow3-4 sentences
Quote from customerA fictional customer describing the benefit they experienced2-3 sentences
Call to actionHow to get started1 sentence

Rules:

  • No internal jargon, no technical architecture, no org chart references
  • Every sentence must be understandable by the target customer
  • If you can't explain the benefit simply, the idea isn't clear yet
  • The customer quote should express the emotional benefit, not feature specs
  • Maximum 1 page

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
New product ideaWrite PR before any design workForces "what's the headline?" thinking before "what's the architecture?"
Feature proposalWrite a mini-PR for significant features"Acme launches auto-save: never lose your work again"
Pivot decisionWrite PR for the pivot and compare to current directionIf the pivot PR is more compelling, that's a signal

Copy patterns:

  • "[Product] launches [headline benefit]: [one-sentence customer outcome]"
  • "Until now, [customer segment] had to [painful alternative]. Starting today, [product] [specific benefit]."
  • "'[Emotional customer quote about the outcome, not the feature]' — [Name], [Role] at [Company]"

Ethical boundary: The press release must describe a product you genuinely intend to build. Never use PR/FAQ as a marketing exercise for vaporware. If the PR describes capabilities you can't deliver, you're not working backwards — you're fabricating forwards.

See: references/press-release-writing.md

Part 2: The FAQ (2-5 pages)

Two sections: external FAQ (customer questions) and internal FAQ (stakeholder/business questions).

External FAQ (customer perspective):

  • How much does it cost?
  • How is this different from [alternative]?
  • What do I need to get started?
  • What happens to my data?
  • What if it doesn't work for me?

Internal FAQ (business perspective):

  • What is the estimated market size / TAM?
  • What are the unit economics?
  • How long will it take to build? What's the team needed?
  • What are the key dependencies and risks?
  • How will we measure success? What are the metrics?
  • What's the competitive landscape?
  • Why now? What changed that makes this the right time?

Key insights:

  • The FAQ is where honesty lives — the PR is aspirational, the FAQ is realistic
  • If you can't answer the internal FAQ convincingly, the project isn't ready
  • Update the FAQ as you learn — it's a living document
  • The hardest questions to answer are the most important ones to include

Copy patterns:

  • "Q: How is this different from [competitor]? A: Unlike [competitor], [product] [specific differentiator] because [reason]."
  • "Q: What if it doesn't work? A: [Concrete fallback, guarantee, or risk mitigation]."
  • "Q: Why now? A: [Market shift / technology change / customer behavior change] makes this the right moment because [evidence]."

Ethical boundary: Never omit FAQ questions because the answers are unfavorable. The FAQ's value is proportional to its honesty. If an internal FAQ answer reveals a fatal flaw, that's the FAQ doing its job — not a reason to delete the question.

See: references/faq-construction.md

Part 3: The Pre-Mortem (1 page)

Based on Gary Klein's prospective hindsight technique. After writing the PR/FAQ, assume the product has launched and failed. Work backwards from failure to identify what went wrong.

The Pre-Mortem Protocol:

Prompt: "It is [12 months from now]. This product launched and failed
to meet its goals. Customers didn't adopt it. The team is disappointed.
What went wrong?"

Generate 5-7 failure scenarios across these categories:

CategoryQuestionExample failure
CustomerDid we solve a real problem?"Users didn't have this problem often enough to change behavior"
MarketIs the timing/competition right?"A well-funded competitor launched the same thing 2 months before us"
ExecutionCan we actually build and ship this?"The ML model never achieved the accuracy we assumed in the PR"
Business modelDo the economics work?"Customer acquisition cost was 3x what we modeled"
AdoptionWill people switch?"Users were too entrenched in their current workflow to migrate"
InternalDoes the organization support this?"The sales team couldn't explain the product and stopped selling it"

For each failure scenario, specify:

  1. Likelihood (High / Medium / Low)
  2. Impact (High / Medium / Low)
  3. Early warning signal — how would you detect this is happening?
  4. Mitigation — what can you do now to prevent it?

Why pre-mortem works here: By the time you've written a compelling PR and honest FAQ, you're emotionally invested. The pre-mortem is the structured antidote to optimism bias. It leverages "prospective hindsight" — imagining an event has already happened makes people 30% better at identifying reasons for outcomes (Klein, 1989).

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Go/no-go decisionPre-mortem reveals deal-breakers before committing resources"3 of 5 failure scenarios are High likelihood — rethink before proceeding"
Risk planningConvert mitigations into sprint-zero tasks"Build a competitive monitoring dashboard before launch"
Team alignmentShare pre-mortem to build shared understanding of risksTeam sees risks they individually sensed but never voiced

Ethical boundary: The pre-mortem must be genuinely open-ended. Never write it to rubber-stamp a decision already made. If the pre-mortem reveals fatal risks, take them seriously.

See: references/pre-mortem-protocol.md

The Full Working Backwards Process

StepActionTime
1Write the Press Release (1 page)2-4 hours
2Write the FAQ — external + internal (2-5 pages)4-8 hours
3Run the Pre-Mortem (1 page)1-2 hours
4Circulate for feedback — silent reading, written comments1 week
5Revise based on feedback2-4 hours
6Decision meeting: go / no-go / revise1 hour

Key insights:

  • Amazon's rule: documents are read silently at the start of the meeting (no pre-reads). This ensures everyone has the same context.
  • The document is the thinking, not a summary of the thinking. Narrative forces logical structure that bullet points hide.
  • Iteration is expected — most PR/FAQs go through 5-10 revisions before approval
  • A rejected PR/FAQ is a success — you avoided building the wrong thing

Common Mistakes

MistakeWhy It FailsFix
Writing the PR after buildingDefeats the purpose — it's a rationalization, not a thought toolWrite the PR as the very first step, before any design or code
Jargon in the press releaseIf customers can't understand it, you don't understand itRead it to someone outside the team. If they're confused, rewrite.
Softball FAQ questionsAvoids the hard questions that kill projects laterInclude every question that makes you uncomfortable
Skipping the pre-mortemOptimism bias goes unchecked; risks surface too lateAlways do the pre-mortem. It takes 1 hour and can save months.
Treating PR/FAQ as a formalityGoing through motions without genuine debateIf the go/no-go meeting is always "go," the process is broken
Solo authorshipOne person's blind spots become the project's blind spotsProduct trio writes together; diverse perspectives improve quality

Quick Diagnostic

QuestionIf NoAction
Can you state the customer benefit in one sentence?Idea isn't clear enoughWrite the PR headline first — if you can't, keep thinking
Would a customer understand your press release?Too much insider languageRewrite in the customer's words
Does your FAQ include questions you're afraid to answer?You're avoiding hard truthsAdd 3 uncomfortable questions and answer them honestly
Have you run a pre-mortem?Optimism bias is unaddressedSpend 1 hour imagining failure — identify top 5 risks
Has anyone outside the team read the document?Echo chamber riskShare with a skeptic and incorporate their feedback

Reference Files

  • Press Release Writing Guide — Section-by-section guide to writing the PR, common pitfalls, templates, and worked examples for B2B SaaS, consumer apps, and internal tools
  • FAQ Construction — External vs. internal FAQ frameworks, question generation techniques, how to answer hard questions honestly, and FAQ iteration strategies
  • Pre-Mortem Protocol — Gary Klein's prospective hindsight technique adapted for product development, failure category taxonomy, likelihood/impact scoring, and mitigation planning templates
  • Narrative Decision-Making — Why Amazon chose narratives over slide decks, the six-pager format, silent reading protocols, and how to run effective document-based decision meetings

Further Reading

About the Authors

Colin Bryar and Bill Carr are former Amazon executives. Bryar served as Jeff Bezos' "shadow" (Technical Advisor) for two years. Carr led the launch of Amazon's digital media businesses including Prime Video and Amazon Music. Together they spent 27 years at Amazon and witnessed the development of its distinctive management practices firsthand.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

General

good-strategy

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

continuous-discovery-habits

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

first-90-days

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

escaping-build-trap

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review