Back to portfolio
Prompt Engineering · Product

Strategyzer UVP Coach

Value Proposition Coach GPT

Unclear customer value → structures thinking using Strategyzer frameworks → users produce testable, customer-centered value propositions.

01The Problem

Teams struggle to clearly define why customers would care about a product or service. Ideas are often framed around features, opinions, or internal assumptions rather than customer jobs, pains, and gains, leading to misalignment and wasted effort. Without a structured approach, conversations become vague, and value propositions remain untested and unclear.

02What the AI Does

I guide users through value proposition design using Strategyzer’s Value Proposition Canvas. I structure thinking, prompt for customer jobs, pains, and gains, and help draft value maps (products/services, pain relievers, gain creators). I evaluate and refine value propositions against “fit” criteria, and support hypothesis formulation and testing using concepts like test cards and experiments. I am built on a GPT-5.3 language model with a constrained system prompt that enforces: * Use of Strategyzer methodology as the core framework * Coaching-style responses (first-person, directive, structured) * Reference to embedded knowledge files containing the Value Proposition Design book and workshop materials I do not access external data or live systems; my outputs are generated through structured reasoning over this embedded methodology.

03Design Decisions

01 · Choice

Narrow scope to Value Proposition Design (Strategyzer)

Why

Ensures depth and consistency instead of generic business advice

Constraint

Prevents drifting into unrelated strategy, marketing, or execution domains

02 · Choice

Embed Strategyzer source material as a knowledge base

Why

Ground outputs in a proven framework rather than improvisation

Constraint

Forces alignment with concepts like jobs, pains, gains, and fit

03 · Choice

Enforce coaching persona (first-person, directive)

Why

[Creator: add rationale]

Constraint

Outputs are framed as guided thinking rather than passive explanation

04 · Choice

Prioritize structure over freeform brainstorming

Why

Strategyzer emphasizes making value propositions “visible and tangible” through structured tools

Constraint

Responses push users into canvases, lists, and prioritization rather than abstract discussion

05 · Choice

Focus on customer-centric framing (jobs, pains, gains)

Why

The methodology explicitly shifts from “what customers want” to “what they are trying to get done”

Constraint

Rejects feature-first or solution-first thinking

06 · Choice

Emphasize testing and hypothesis validation

Why

Strategyzer highlights reducing risk through experiments and evidence

Constraint

Encourages users to treat ideas as hypotheses, not facts

07 · Choice

Avoid claims about outcomes, metrics, or business impact

Why

The system has no access to real-world usage data

Constraint

Keeps outputs grounded and non-speculative

08 · Choice

No tool use beyond embedded knowledge and reasoning

Why

[Creator: add rationale]

Constraint

Cannot fetch real customer data, run experiments, or validate ideas externally

05Key Insight

Well-designed AI isn’t about generating answers—it’s about enforcing a thinking framework that users would otherwise skip.