> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.rocket.new/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Product direction

> Use Rocket.new Solve to prioritize features, validate ideas, and build research-backed roadmap input from structured product analysis.

export const LlmsDirective = () => <blockquote className="llms-directive">
    For the complete documentation index, see <a href="/llms.txt">llms.txt</a>.
    For a lightweight markdown version of this page, append .md to the URL.
  </blockquote>;

<LlmsDirective />

Product decisions are hard because the data is scattered across user feedback, competitor moves, market trends, and team intuition. Solve pulls these together into structured analysis for prioritization, validation, and roadmap planning.

Share your backlog and constraints, then ask Solve to rank options using a framework. You can also attach internal documents like user research summaries or feature specs to give Solve additional context.

## What Solve can do for product direction

| Analysis type              | What you get                                                           | Best for                                    |
| :------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------ |
| **Feature prioritization** | Ranked list of features based on impact, effort, and market demand     | Sprint planning, roadmap decisions          |
| **User needs analysis**    | Structured breakdown of what users want, grouped by persona or segment | Product discovery, validation               |
| **Roadmap input**          | Research-backed recommendations for what to build and in what order    | Quarterly planning, strategy docs           |
| **Build vs. buy analysis** | Tradeoffs of building in house vs. integrating a third party tool      | Architecture decisions, resource allocation |
| **Feature gap analysis**   | What competitors offer that you do not, and whether it matters         | Competitive response, differentiation       |

## Example prompts

<Tabs>
  <Tab title="Feature prioritization">
    ```plaintext wrap theme={null}
    I'm building a CRM for real estate agents. Here are 8 features on my backlog: automated follow-ups, MLS integration, AI lead scoring, mobile app, team dashboards, email campaigns, document signing, and client portal. Prioritize these using an impact vs. effort framework. Consider what real estate agents value most based on market research.
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="User needs analysis">
    ```plaintext wrap theme={null}
    What are the top unmet needs of freelance designers when it comes to invoicing and payments? Analyze complaints about existing tools like FreshBooks, Wave, and HoneyBook. Group findings by theme and severity.
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="Roadmap input">
    ```plaintext wrap theme={null}
    I run a B2B analytics dashboard product. We currently offer basic charts, CSV export, and team sharing. What features should we build next to move upmarket into mid-market accounts? Consider what tools like Looker, Metabase, and Amplitude offer that we don't.
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="Build vs. buy">
    ```plaintext wrap theme={null}
    Should we build our own authentication system or use Auth0/Clerk for a B2B SaaS product? We need SSO, role-based access, and MFA. Compare the tradeoffs: cost, time to implement, ongoing maintenance, and flexibility.
    ```
  </Tab>

  <Tab title="Feature gap analysis">
    ```plaintext wrap theme={null}
    Compare our feature set (listed below) against Calendly. Identify gaps that matter most to our target audience of B2B sales teams: one-on-one scheduling, group events, round-robin routing, CRM integration (Salesforce, HubSpot), custom branding, and analytics.
    ```
  </Tab>
</Tabs>

## Prioritization frameworks Solve can use

Request a specific framework by name, or let Solve choose the most appropriate one based on your context. If you have already run a [competitive teardown](/solve/research/competitive-teardowns), reference those findings to strengthen the prioritization.

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Impact vs. effort matrix">
    Plots features on a 2x2 grid of high/low impact and high/low effort. Quick wins (high impact, low effort) go first. Solve estimates impact based on market demand and competitive positioning, and effort based on typical engineering complexity.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="RICE scoring">
    Scores each feature on Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. Produces a numeric score you can use to rank your backlog. Ask Solve to estimate each component and show the calculation.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="MoSCoW prioritization">
    Categorizes features as Must-have, Should-have, Could-have, and Won't-have. Useful for defining an MVP or a release scope. Solve maps features to categories based on competitive necessity and user expectations.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Kano model">
    Classifies features as basic expectations, performance features, or delighters. Helps you understand which features prevent churn (basic), drive satisfaction (performance), and create differentiation (delight).
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Value vs. complexity">
    Similar to impact/effort but framed around customer value and technical complexity. Works well for B2B products where customer value ties to willingness to pay or retention metrics.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

<Info>
  You do not have to pick a framework. If you ask "prioritize these features," Solve chooses the most appropriate one. Naming one gives you more control over the output format.
</Info>

## What results include

A product direction report contains five sections. Review the context summary first to confirm Solve is working from the right assumptions.

| Report section                  | What it covers                                                                                                                                 |
| :------------------------------ | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Context and assumptions**     | Summary of the product, market, and target user that Solve is working from. Review this to verify the analysis is grounded correctly.          |
| **Prioritized recommendations** | Ranked list or framework-based output showing which features to build first and why. Each recommendation includes reasoning, not just ranking. |
| **Supporting evidence**         | Data points from competitor analysis, user sentiment, and market trends that support the recommendations. This is what you show stakeholders.  |
| **Risks and tradeoffs**         | What you give up by prioritizing one direction over another. Solve flags dependencies, competitive risks, and resource implications.           |
| **Suggested next steps**        | Follow-up research, validation experiments, or decisions that come next. Connects the analysis to action.                                      |

## Tips for better product direction analysis

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Share your current state">
    Tell Solve what you have already built, your target audience, and your stage (pre-launch, early traction, scaling). Context prevents generic advice and produces recommendations that match your situation.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="List your backlog">
    Include a list of features you are considering in the prompt. Solve works better when evaluating specific options rather than generating a list from scratch.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Name your constraints">
    Include constraints that matter: "We have a team of 3 engineers," "We need to ship in 6 weeks," or "We cannot build anything that requires SOC 2 compliance yet." Constraints shape practical recommendations.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Ask for the counter-argument">
    After getting a recommendation, follow up with: "What is the strongest argument against this prioritization?" Challenging the analysis surfaces risks you might have missed.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Connect to other Solve analyses">
    If you have already run a [market analysis](/solve/research/market-analysis) or competitive teardown, reference those findings. "Based on the competitive gaps we identified, which features should we prioritize?" builds on previous work. Use @-mentions to carry insights forward.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## What's next

<CardGroup cols={3}>
  <Card title="Market analysis" icon="chart-line" href="/solve/research/market-analysis">
    Ground product decisions in market data and opportunity sizing.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Investment analysis" icon="briefcase" href="/solve/research/investment-analysis">
    Build the business case around your product direction.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Reports" icon="file-lines" href="/solve/results/reports">
    Share prioritization analysis with your team and stakeholders.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>