investor-research

name	investor-research
description	When the user wants to identify, evaluate, or prioritize potential investors for a fundraising round. Also activates when the user asks "who should I pitch?", "find me investors", "build an investor list", or mentions VC/angel targeting.
related	["pitch-deck","fundraising-email"]
reads	["startup-context"]
origin	startup

Investor Research

When to Use

• The founder is preparing to fundraise and needs a target investor list.
• The founder has a list of investors and wants to qualify or prioritize them.
• The founder asks which VCs or angels are a good fit for their stage, sector, or geography.
• The founder wants to understand a specific fund's thesis, portfolio, or decision-making process.

Context Required

From startup-context: stage, sector/category, location, current round target (amount), business model, and any existing investor relationships or warm connections.

From the user: geographic preferences (if any), whether they want VC-only, angel-only, or both, any investors already in conversation, and any firms they want to explicitly avoid (e.g., portfolio conflicts they know about).

Workflow

1. Read startup context — Pull stage, sector, geography, round size, and existing investors from .agents/startup-context.md.
2. Define investor criteria — Based on context, establish the filtering parameters: stage match, sector focus, typical check size range, geographic relevance, and portfolio conflict exclusions.
3. Build the raw list — Research investors matching the criteria. For each investor, capture: firm name, partner name, fund stage focus, sector focus, typical check size, recent fund size/vintage, portfolio companies, geographic preference, and a source URL.
4. Check for conflicts — Flag any firm that has a portfolio company directly competing with the founder's startup. These go on a "conflicts" list, not the target list.
5. Score and tier — Assign each investor to Tier 1 (strong fit, prioritize), Tier 2 (good fit, pursue), or Tier 3 (acceptable fit, use as backfill) using the scoring framework below.
6. Identify warm paths — For each Tier 1 investor, suggest how the founder might get a warm intro: mutual connections, portfolio founder intros, accelerator networks, or conference overlap.
7. Deliver the target list — Output a structured, sortable list with tiers and recommended outreach order.

Output Format

A markdown table with the following columns, grouped by tier:

## Tier 1 — High Priority

| Firm | Partner | Stage Focus | Sector Fit | Check Size | Recent Fund | Conflict? | Warm Path | Notes |
|------|---------|-------------|------------|------------|-------------|-----------|-----------|-------|

Followed by a "Conflicts" section listing excluded firms and why.

Followed by a "Research Gaps" section listing anything that could not be verified and needs the founder's input.

Frameworks & Best Practices

Investor Qualification Criteria (The 7-Point Filter)

1. Stage fit — Does the firm invest at the founder's current stage? A Series B fund will not lead a seed round. This is the first filter and it is binary: pass or fail.
2. Sector focus — Does the firm have a stated thesis or track record in the founder's sector? Look at their last 10 investments, not just their website copy.
3. Check size match — Does the firm's typical check size align with what the founder needs? A $2B fund rarely writes $500K checks. A $50M fund rarely leads $20M rounds.
4. Portfolio conflicts — Does the firm already have a company in the same space? This is the most common reason pitches are dead-on-arrival. Check every portfolio company, including quiet ones.
5. Fund vintage — Is the firm actively deploying from a recent fund? A fund raised 4+ years ago is likely in harvest mode and not writing new checks. Prefer firms that closed a fund within the last 18 months.
6. Geographic relevance — Some firms only invest locally. Others require board seats that demand proximity. Remote-friendly firms have expanded, but geography still matters for many funds.
7. Partner-level interest — Is there a specific partner whose background, interests, or public writing aligns with the startup? Pitching the right partner at the right firm matters as much as pitching the right firm.

Tiering Framework

• Tier 1: Matches on 6-7 of the criteria above. The firm has invested in adjacent companies, the partner has spoken publicly about the space, and a warm intro path exists. Pursue first.
• Tier 2: Matches on 4-5 criteria. Good fit on stage and sector but may lack a warm path or have a slightly mismatched check size. Pursue in the second wave.
• Tier 3: Matches on 3 criteria. Acceptable as backfill if the round needs more participants. Do not spend significant time here until Tier 1 and 2 are exhausted.

Sourcing Investor Information

• Crunchbase / PitchBook: Fund size, recent investments, portfolio companies.
• Firm website: Stated thesis, partner bios, blog posts that reveal focus areas.
• Twitter/X and Substack: Many partners publish their current interests publicly. Recent posts are a better signal than old "About" pages.
• SEC filings: Fund size from Form D filings when not publicly disclosed.
• Portfolio founder back-channels: The single best diligence on an investor is talking to founders they have backed — both successes and companies that struggled.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Spraying 200 cold emails — Fundraising is a funnel. 30 well-targeted, well-introduced conversations beat 200 cold ones.
• Ignoring portfolio conflicts — Founders waste weeks pitching firms that will never invest because of a conflict.
• Pitching the wrong partner — At multi-partner firms, the wrong partner will say "interesting, let me introduce you to my colleague" at best, or just pass.
• Targeting only brand-name firms — Tier 2 and emerging funds are often faster to decide, more founder-friendly, and more willing to lead at earlier stages.
• Not tracking your pipeline — Use a simple spreadsheet or CRM: investor name, status (researching / intro requested / meeting scheduled / pitched / passed / term sheet), and next action.

Angel Investor Considerations

• Angels decide faster (days, not weeks) but write smaller checks ($25K-$250K typically).
• Look for angels with operational experience in your sector — they add value beyond capital.
• Angel syndicates (AngelList, etc.) can aggregate small checks into a meaningful allocation.
• Be cautious about taking angel money from potential acquirers or competitors without understanding the signaling implications.

Related Skills

• pitch-deck — tailor the deck narrative based on what specific investors care about
• fundraising-email — write targeted outreach once the investor list is built

Examples

Example prompt: "We're raising a $2.5M seed round for a developer tools company based in SF. Help me build an investor list."

Good output snippet (one Tier 1 entry):

| Boldstart Ventures | Ed Sim | Pre-seed/Seed | Developer tools, infrastructure | $1-3M | $160M Fund IV (2023) | None | Ed is active on Twitter re: dev tools; check if any portfolio founders overlap with your network | Led seed in [similar company]; blog post on "Why developer experience is the next platform shift" |

Example prompt: "I have a list of 15 VCs I want to pitch. Can you help me prioritize?"

Good output approach: Run each firm through the 7-point filter against the founder's startup context. Re-tier the list. Flag any portfolio conflicts the founder may have missed. Identify the 5 to pitch first and suggest the outreach sequence.