A competitive, peer-validated proof-of-skill platform where early-career PMs demonstrate capability, earn structured ratings, and build a permanent public performance record — one Season at a time.
Every existing credentialing tool captures what a candidate claims — not what they can do. This gap is most acute at 0–3 years experience, where hiring managers have no structured, objective framework for comparing applicants beyond pedigree.
| Existing Tool | What it captures | What it misses | Ranqlet fills this? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resumes | Job titles, stated responsibilities, education | Actual quality of work output; consistency over time | No |
| Certifications | Completion of a course or program | Applied skill in real-world, comparative scenarios | No |
| Static portfolios | Self-curated work samples | Peer validation, ranking, recency, reproducibility | No |
| Professional network, endorsements | Objective, structured performance measurement | No | |
| Interviews | One-time communication under pressure | Sustained output quality across multiple cycles | No |
| Ranqlet | Recurring, peer-validated, structured skill output | — | Yes |
| Goal | Definition | Primary Metric | Design Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build the core competitive loop | Users must submit, rate, compete, and see results within a single Season with zero friction | WAC; Season 1 activation rate ≥40% | WAC-first design — every feature decision evaluated against impact on Weekly Active Contributors |
| Establish ecosystem balance | Submission and rating volumes must stay proportionate — one side collapsing breaks the flywheel | % projects with ≥5 ratings; Submit+Rate overlap % | Contribution before consumption — reward action (submitting, rating) over passive browsing |
| Create retention pull | Platform must create enough competitive urgency and profile value that users return for Season 2 | Season 1→2 retention rate ≥45% | Season as the atomic unit — all features, notifications, and incentives anchored to the 7-day cycle |
Every feature decision is evaluated against this loop. The flywheel only spins when both submitters and raters are consistently active. If either side thins out, the loop breaks.
| Metric | What it measures | Why it falls short for Ranqlet |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly Active Users (WAU) | Any login or page view | Does not require meaningful action — a passive session adds no value to either side |
| Submissions per Week | Content creation volume | Ignores the review ecosystem entirely; high submissions with no ratings breaks the loop |
| Ratings per Week | Review activity volume | Ignores content creation health; high ratings with no new content is equally broken |
| Weekly Active Contributors (WAC) | Submission AND/OR review behavior | — Captures full ecosystem health in a single number |
| Stage | User action | Platform response | WAC impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery | Finds Ranqlet via social, referral, or search | Landing page communicates value prop with a live Season in progress. Challenge prompt visible behind signup gate. | Pre-WAC |
| Signup | Creates account — email/password or Google OAuth | 5-step onboarding initiated. Must complete in <3 minutes, 5 steps max. Lands on active Season dashboard — never a blank state. | Pre-WAC |
| Activation | Submits 1 project OR rates 3 projects in Season 1 | User enters WAC count. In-app + email confirmation. Leaderboard position shown immediately. Target: ≥40% of new users activate in Season 1. | WAC +1 |
| Engagement | Rates additional projects; tracks leaderboard rank | Rankings update in real time. Dual leaderboard shows position on both Work and Contribution tracks. Feed surfaces unrated projects. | WAC sustained |
| End of Season | Season timer expires | Final standings freeze. Rankings archived to public profile. New Season opens immediately. Re-engagement email sent to non-participants. | Retention signal |
| Season 2+ | Returns for next Season | Profile history updated — previous rank shown. Streak mechanic begins at Season 2. Competitive urgency: prior rank is visible to the field. | WAC renewed |
| Category | Metric | MVP Target | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquisition | New signups per Season | 200+ by Season 2 | Absolute growth velocity — top-of-funnel health |
| Acquisition | Visitor → Signup conversion | ≥15% | Landing page and value prop clarity signal |
| Acquisition | Onboarding completion rate | ≥70% | Signup → activation gate; every completion is a potential WAC unit |
| Activation | Season 1 activation rate | ≥40% | Strongest predictor of Season 2 retention; users who don't contribute in S1 almost never return |
| Activation | Median time to first submission | <72 hours | Measures challenge clarity and form friction |
| Activation | Submission form completion rate | ≥60% | Form friction directly reduces submitter-side WAC |
| Engagement | Avg. ratings received per project | ≥5.0 by Season 2 | Proxy for project exposure and review ecosystem health |
| Engagement | Dual contributor rate | ≥25% by Season 3 | % WAC users who both submit AND rate — ecosystem balance |
| Engagement | Leaderboard view rate | ≥60% of sessions | Indicates whether competitive mechanics are motivating behavior |
| Retention | Season 1 → Season 2 retention | ≥45% | Most critical single metric in MVP — immediate post-activation stickiness |
| Retention | 3-Season retention rate | Track from S3 | Early indicator of habitual engagement forming |
| Retention | Churn rate per Season | Monitor weekly | Leading indicator for at-risk cohorts before they disappear |
| Network Health | % projects with ≥5 ratings | ≥80% | Review coverage — alert if <60%; unreviewed projects signal ecosystem imbalance |
| Network Health | Median time to first rating | <24 hours | Alert if >72h — indicates review demand shortage on rater side |
| Network Health | Top 10% contribution share | <50% | Alert if >65% — discovery is broken for new and mid-tier users |
Ranqlet operates two parallel conversion funnels. Both sides must be healthy for the ecosystem to sustain itself. Drop-off at any stage represents either a product friction point or a messaging failure.
These are the five systemic signals that indicate whether the two-sided loop is in balance. An alert on any one of these requires immediate diagnosis before it compounds across Seasons.
| Metric | Healthy signal | Alert threshold | What it indicates |
|---|---|---|---|
| % projects with ≥5 ratings | ≥80% | <60% | Long tail of unreviewed submissions — rater side is undersupplied |
| Median time to first rating | <24 hours | >72 hours | Review demand shortage — projects are not being surfaced or raters are not active |
| Submit + Rate overlap % | ≥25% | <15% | Ecosystem free-riding — submitters not contributing to the review side |
| Top 10% contribution share | <50% of output | >65% | Discovery broken for new and mid-tier users; new entrants get buried in the feed |
| Rating distribution variance | Normal spread | Gini >0.6 or bimodal | Ratings clustering at extremes — possible bias, gaming, or rubric misunderstanding |
Season-over-season retention is the most structurally important metric in the product. The platform has a natural retention engine built into its design — the job of the retention strategy is to reinforce that engine, not replace it.
When a metric crosses a threshold, this framework removes ambiguity about what to do next. Condition → Hypothesis → Action. No guesswork, no committees.
| Observed condition | Hypothesis | Recommended action |
|---|---|---|
| WAC declining season-over-season | Challenges too hard or submission friction too high | Redesign challenge prompts; simplify submission form; introduce onboarding challenges for new users |
| Activation rate below 40% | New users don't understand the value prop fast enough | Add interactive tutorial; show a sample project and its rating before the user's first submission |
| Season 1→2 retention below 50% | Platform does not create sufficient urgency or habit | Add countdown nudges; introduce Streak badge starting at Season 2; Season-end re-engagement email sequence |
| Rating coverage below 80% | Review side of ecosystem is structurally undersupplied | Introduce rating reminders; add Contribution Leaderboard callout to home feed; surface unrated projects higher |
| Top 10% submitting >60% of total work | Discovery is broken for new and mid-tier users | Improve feed algorithm to surface diverse contributors; add "New This Season" section to home feed |
| Submission form completion below 60% | Form is too long or structurally complex | Reduce required fields; add auto-save confirmation; test a 'quick submit' minimum viable form variant |
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rating supply shortfallSubmissions outpace ratings; projects go unreviewed; competitive loop breaks | High | Critical | Contribution Leaderboard is the primary structural mitigation. Rating reminders as tactical support. Future sprint: require rating before a second submission is allowed. |
| Cold start — insufficient Season 1 contentLow submission count in early Seasons creates weak competitive tension and poor first impressions | High | High | Seed platform with 20–30 submissions from beta testers before Season 1 public launch. Do not open publicly with an empty leaderboard. |
| Submission quality varianceWide skill gap between experienced and inexperienced users discourages beginners from returning | Medium | High | Calibrate challenge prompts for accessible entry points. Consider experience-tier leaderboard separation by Season 3 if quality gap is consistently observed. |
| Gaming and bad faith ratingsUsers rate artificially high or low to manipulate leaderboard outcomes for themselves or peers | Medium | Medium | Rating distribution monitoring from day one. Flag statistical outliers. Introduce rater reputation score post-MVP. User report mechanism at launch. |
| Low Season 1→2 retentionUsers experience the platform once and do not find sufficient reason to return for Season 2 | Medium | Critical | Season-end re-engagement email: "Your rank is now permanent — start Season 2." Preview next Season's challenge prompt in the end-of-Season notification. |
| Challenge prompt fatigueSingle prompt per Season creates narrow, repetitive experience after 3–4 Seasons | Medium | Medium | Introduce second challenge track by Season 4. Diversify prompt themes, difficulty levels, and PM scenario types across the first 3 Seasons. |
| Platform abuse — multi-account manipulationUsers create multiple accounts to inflate rankings or gaming the two-sided ecosystem | Low | High | Email verification required at signup. IP-based duplicate account detection. User report mechanism. Cross-account rating detection by device fingerprint post-MVP. |
Features in the future scope column are not deferred due to lack of importance — they are deferred to maintain MVP focus on the core competitive loop and avoid premature complexity before product-market fit is established.
| Feature Area | MVP Scope | Post-MVP / Future |
|---|---|---|
| Skill verticals | PM only — single vertical, maximum focus | Design, Engineering, Business Analysis, Data |
| Challenge prompts | 1 per Season, curated by Ranqlet team | Multiple tracks; community-submitted prompts; difficulty tiers |
| Rating system | 4 fixed dimensions; 1–5 stars; anonymous | Weighted dimensions by experience level; rich text feedback; rater reputation scores |
| Leaderboards | Work + Contribution — two tracks only | Team leaderboards; university cohort views; employer-facing employer dashboards |
| Profiles | Season history; leaderboard history; submitted projects | Recruiter view mode; profile export PDF; peer endorsements |
| Platform | Responsive web — mobile and desktop (375px+) | Native iOS app; native Android app |
| Monetisation | Free — no paid tier, no ads | Pro tier (advanced analytics, verified badge); employer API access |
| Authentication | Email/password + Google OAuth | GitHub OAuth; LinkedIn OAuth |
| Social features | Public profiles only | Follow system; comments on submissions; challenge discussion threads |
| Moderation | Basic report mechanism | Automated content quality detection; human review queue; user trust scores |
| Metric | Season 1 target | Season 2 target | Season 3 target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly Active Contributors (WAC) | 100+ | 200+ | 300+ |
| New signups per Season | 150+ | 200+ | 250+ |
| Onboarding completion rate | ≥60% | ≥70% | ≥70% |
| Season activation rate (new users) | ≥30% | ≥40% | ≥40% |
| Submission form completion rate | ≥55% | ≥60% | ≥65% |
| % projects with ≥5 ratings | ≥70% | ≥80% | ≥80% |
| Season N→N+1 retention rate | Baseline | ≥40% | ≥45% |
| Avg. ratings received per project | ≥4.0 | ≥5.0 | ≥5.0 |
Ranqlet wins when weekly competition becomes a habit — WAC is the clearest measure of whether that habit is forming.