name

idea-validator

description

Deep-researches a business idea, hypothesis, or rough concept and stress-tests it into either a validated opportunity, a pivot, or a clear no-go. Use this skill whenever a user has a product idea they want to explore, validate, or challenge — even if it's half-formed. Triggers on phrases like "I have an idea", "I'm thinking of building", "is there a market for", "validate this idea", "research this concept", "is this worth building", "could this be a business", or any time someone is at the hypothesis stage before committing to a build. Works in both Claude chat and Claude Code. Always runs thorough web research — never relies on assumptions alone. Ends with a blunt verdict (GO / PIVOT / SCRATCH) and produces a structured product-brief.md ready to feed directly into the project-scaffold skill.

Idea Validator Skill

Takes a hypothesis — however rough — and stress-tests it through deep research. Ends with a blunt, evidence-based verdict and a structured product-brief.md that feeds directly into the project-scaffold skill.

This skill does not encourage ideas. It finds the truth.

Principles

Research first, opinions never. Every claim must be grounded in what was found, not assumed. Use web search aggressively throughout.
Be blunt. If there's nothing there, say so clearly and quickly. Don't pad a weak idea into a maybe.
Pivots are valid exits. A PIVOT verdict is not a failure — it means there's something adjacent worth exploring. Make it specific.
The brief is the deliverable. The research is the process. The product-brief.md is what the user walks away with.

Process

Phase 1: Extract the Hypothesis

If the idea is already in the conversation, extract it. If it's vague, ask one clarifying question only:

"Tell me the idea in one or two sentences — who it's for and what it does."

Do not ask multiple questions upfront. Get moving and research. You can refine understanding as evidence surfaces.

Phase 2: Deep Research

Run all research using web search. Cover every area in references/research-areas.md. Do not skip sections — a weak signal in one area is still a signal.

Research in this order:

Market and demand — Is there evidence people want this? Search for:
- Existing products in the space
- Reddit threads, community discussions, complaints
- Job postings that signal budget allocation
- Google Trends signals if relevant
- App store or marketplace listings
Competitor landscape — Who else is doing this?
- Direct competitors (same ICP, same problem)
- Indirect competitors (different approach, same outcome)
- Adjacent tools the user might already be paying for
- For each: pricing, positioning, apparent weaknesses, review sentiment
ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) — Who specifically would pay for this?
- Role, context, budget authority
- Where they hang out online
- What they're currently using or doing instead
- What a bad day looks like for them
Monetization patterns — How do others in this space charge?
- Pricing models (per seat, usage, flat, one-time)
- Price points that appear to be working
- Where value is being captured vs given away free
Distribution — How would this reach customers?
- Organic channels available
- Paid channels viability
- Partnership or integration plays
- Community or ecosystem leverage
Moats and differentiation — What would make this defensible?
- Data advantages
- Network effects
- Switching costs
- Unique insight or access the builder has
Risks and assumptions — What has to be true for this to work?
- List the 3-5 biggest assumptions baked into the idea
- Flag which are validated by research and which are not
- Identify the single biggest risk

Phase 3: Synthesize

After research is complete, score the opportunity across five dimensions. See references/scoring.md for the scoring rubric.

Do not show the scoring table to the user — use it internally to form your verdict.

Phase 4: Verdict

Deliver one of three verdicts. Be direct. Lead with it.

✅ GO

There is clear evidence of demand, a defined ICP, monetizable market, and a realistic path to first revenue. The research supports building.

State:

What the evidence says
The specific ICP to target first
The wedge — the smallest version worth building
The biggest risk to monitor

⚠️ PIVOT

The original idea has weak signals, but research revealed an adjacent opportunity that scores better. Don't bury this in caveats.

State:

Why the original idea is weak (specific evidence)
What the pivot is (specific, not vague)
Why the pivot scores better
Whether the pivot is worth pursuing

❌ SCRATCH

No meaningful demand signal, crowded with well-funded incumbents, no clear differentiation path, or the market simply isn't there.

State:

Exactly why (evidence, not opinions)
Whether there's anything salvageable
A clean recommendation to move on

Phase 5: Produce the Brief

Regardless of verdict, generate product-brief.md using the template in assets/templates/product-brief.md.

For GO: populate fully. For PIVOT: populate for the pivot opportunity, not the original idea. For SCRATCH: produce a minimal brief noting the verdict and why. Do not pad it.

Phase 6: Handoff

Tell the user:

"This brief is ready to feed into the project-scaffold skill. Run that next to generate your full project spec folder and CLAUDE.md."

If verdict is PIVOT or SCRATCH, make the next step clear — don't leave the user without a direction.

Reference Files

references/research-areas.md — Full breakdown of what to research in each area
references/scoring.md — Internal scoring rubric for synthesizing a verdict
assets/templates/product-brief.md — Output template

name

idea-validator

description

Idea Validator Skill

This skill does not encourage ideas. It finds the truth.

Principles

Research first, opinions never. Every claim must be grounded in what was found, not assumed. Use web search aggressively throughout.
Be blunt. If there's nothing there, say so clearly and quickly. Don't pad a weak idea into a maybe.
Pivots are valid exits. A PIVOT verdict is not a failure — it means there's something adjacent worth exploring. Make it specific.
The brief is the deliverable. The research is the process. The product-brief.md is what the user walks away with.

Process

Phase 1: Extract the Hypothesis

If the idea is already in the conversation, extract it. If it's vague, ask one clarifying question only:

"Tell me the idea in one or two sentences — who it's for and what it does."

Do not ask multiple questions upfront. Get moving and research. You can refine understanding as evidence surfaces.

Phase 2: Deep Research

Run all research using web search. Cover every area in references/research-areas.md. Do not skip sections — a weak signal in one area is still a signal.

Research in this order:

Market and demand — Is there evidence people want this? Search for:
- Existing products in the space
- Reddit threads, community discussions, complaints
- Job postings that signal budget allocation
- Google Trends signals if relevant
- App store or marketplace listings
Competitor landscape — Who else is doing this?
- Direct competitors (same ICP, same problem)
- Indirect competitors (different approach, same outcome)
- Adjacent tools the user might already be paying for
- For each: pricing, positioning, apparent weaknesses, review sentiment
ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) — Who specifically would pay for this?
- Role, context, budget authority
- Where they hang out online
- What they're currently using or doing instead
- What a bad day looks like for them
Monetization patterns — How do others in this space charge?
- Pricing models (per seat, usage, flat, one-time)
- Price points that appear to be working
- Where value is being captured vs given away free
Distribution — How would this reach customers?
- Organic channels available
- Paid channels viability
- Partnership or integration plays
- Community or ecosystem leverage
Moats and differentiation — What would make this defensible?
- Data advantages
- Network effects
- Switching costs
- Unique insight or access the builder has
Risks and assumptions — What has to be true for this to work?
- List the 3-5 biggest assumptions baked into the idea
- Flag which are validated by research and which are not
- Identify the single biggest risk

Phase 3: Synthesize

After research is complete, score the opportunity across five dimensions. See references/scoring.md for the scoring rubric.

Do not show the scoring table to the user — use it internally to form your verdict.

Phase 4: Verdict

Deliver one of three verdicts. Be direct. Lead with it.

✅ GO

There is clear evidence of demand, a defined ICP, monetizable market, and a realistic path to first revenue. The research supports building.

State:

What the evidence says
The specific ICP to target first
The wedge — the smallest version worth building
The biggest risk to monitor

⚠️ PIVOT

The original idea has weak signals, but research revealed an adjacent opportunity that scores better. Don't bury this in caveats.

State:

Why the original idea is weak (specific evidence)
What the pivot is (specific, not vague)
Why the pivot scores better
Whether the pivot is worth pursuing

❌ SCRATCH

No meaningful demand signal, crowded with well-funded incumbents, no clear differentiation path, or the market simply isn't there.

State:

Exactly why (evidence, not opinions)
Whether there's anything salvageable
A clean recommendation to move on

Phase 5: Produce the Brief

Regardless of verdict, generate product-brief.md using the template in assets/templates/product-brief.md.

For GO: populate fully. For PIVOT: populate for the pivot opportunity, not the original idea. For SCRATCH: produce a minimal brief noting the verdict and why. Do not pad it.

Phase 6: Handoff

Tell the user:

"This brief is ready to feed into the project-scaffold skill. Run that next to generate your full project spec folder and CLAUDE.md."

If verdict is PIVOT or SCRATCH, make the next step clear — don't leave the user without a direction.

Reference Files

references/research-areas.md — Full breakdown of what to research in each area
references/scoring.md — Internal scoring rubric for synthesizing a verdict
assets/templates/product-brief.md — Output template