vcposer

name	vcposer
description	Detect VC funds that are posers: zombie funds, stage drifters, thesis cosplayers, and tourist investors who take meetings but don't write checks. Usage: /vcposer <VC Fund Name>. Runs 8 evidence-based checks, scores a Poser Score (0–100), and recommends whether to pursue. Saves to vcposer-<fund>.md.
license	MIT
compatibility	Requires Claude Code with WebSearch and WebFetch. Internet connection required.
allowed-tools	WebSearch WebFetch Read Write
metadata	{"author":"3Flux","version":"1.0","workflow-step":"3 — run before /vcmatch to verify fund legitimacy"}

/vcposer — VC Poser Detector

Run a structured 8-check deal flow against a VC fund to determine whether they actually write checks or just show up. Produces a Poser Score and a verdict before founders waste cycles on outreach, vcmatch reports, or meeting prep.

Invocation

/vcposer <VC Fund Name>

Examples: /vcposer a16z or /vcposer Slow Ventures

Execution Steps

Step 1 — Load Startup Context

Read STARTUP_PROFILE.md from the current working directory. Extract and hold in context:

• Stage (pre-seed / seed / Series A)
• Sector and category
• Ask amount
• Geography

This context calibrates the checks — a fund that hasn't invested in 12 months is a zombie risk at seed but may simply be between funds at growth stage. Flag relative risk, not just absolute signals.

If STARTUP_PROFILE.md does not exist, stop and tell the user to create it first.

Derive the fund slug and output filename: lowercase the fund name, strip spaces and punctuation.

• a16z → vcposer-a16z.md
• Slow Ventures → vcposer-slow-ventures.md

Step 2 — Gather Raw Intel

Use WebSearch and WebFetch across exactly these 6 angles. Run all 6 before moving to Step 3 — do not score until you have the full picture.

1. "<Fund Name>" new investments portfolio 2023 2024 2025 — investment recency and pace
2. "<Fund Name>" fund close raised fund II III — fund lifecycle and vintage
3. "<Fund Name>" led round lead investor board seat — deal leadership evidence
4. "<Fund Name>" partner left departed joined — team stability and continuity
5. "<Fund Name>" founder experience feedback ghosted slow — public founder sentiment
6. site:<fund-website> portfolio (or "<Fund Name>" portfolio companies list) — actual portfolio for sector/stage analysis

Pull direct quotes and specific dates wherever possible. Named sources beat paraphrases.

If fewer than 3 of the 6 angles return usable data (fund is very small, stealth, or new): note this explicitly in the report header and default the verdict to Watch List. Do not score what you cannot evidence.

Step 3 — Run the 8 Poser Checks

Run each check in sequence. For each, produce:

• Signal: 🟢 Green / 🟡 Yellow / 🔴 Red
• Finding: 1–2 sentences with specifics — dates, numbers, names
• Evidence: the source (URL, quote, or named publication)

Signal thresholds are defined per check below.

---

Check 1: Fund Vitality (20 pts)

What it tests: When did they last make a new investment? Active funds deal every 2–4 months. Silence is a signal.

• 🟢 New deal announced within the last 6 months
• 🟡 Last deal 7–18 months ago — likely between funds or slowing
• 🔴 Last deal >18 months ago, or no deals found at all — zombie risk

Points: 🟢 = 20 · 🟡 = 10 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 2: Fund Health (15 pts)

What it tests: Is there an active fund with capital to deploy? A fund raising its next vehicle or winding down its last one cannot write new checks.

• 🟢 Recently closed a new fund (within 24 months) and it's not yet fully deployed
• 🟡 Fund close was 3–5 years ago — likely late in deployment, limited dry powder
• 🔴 No fund close found, between funds with no announced raise, or key GPs departed

Points: 🟢 = 15 · 🟡 = 8 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 3: Thesis Authenticity (15 pts)

What it tests: Does their actual portfolio match their stated sector thesis? Claim to invest in "category-defining" companies without specificity, or show a portfolio scattered across 10 unrelated sectors = thesis cosplay.

• 🟢 ≥60% of observable portfolio matches stated thesis sector and stage
• 🟡 40–59% match — thesis is real but diluted; may be opportunistic
• 🔴 <40% match, or thesis language is too vague to verify against any portfolio company

Points: 🟢 = 15 · 🟡 = 8 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 4: Lead vs. Follow (20 pts)

What it tests: Have they ever led a round? Follow-only funds cannot anchor a raise. Look for: board seats, "led by" press language, first-check signals in portfolio company announcements.

• 🟢 Clear evidence of leading multiple rounds (board seats, "led by" in announcements)
• 🟡 Evidence of leading 1–2 rounds, or unclear — may be able to lead but doesn't prefer to
• 🔴 No evidence of ever leading a round; appears exclusively co-invest or FOMO follow

Points: 🟢 = 20 · 🟡 = 10 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 5: Stage Honesty (10 pts)

What it tests: Do their last 10 investments actually match their stated stage focus? Many funds claim "seed" but entry rounds average $8–15M — that's Series A.

• 🟢 Last 5–10 investments are at the fund's stated stage (or one adjacent stage)
• 🟡 1–2 stage drifts visible — may be selective, not systematic
• 🔴 Consistent stage drift of 1+ stages in either direction — bait and switch

Points: 🟢 = 10 · 🟡 = 5 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 6: Check Size Reality (10 pts)

What it tests: Stated check range vs. observable co-investment data from portfolio company public raises. Funds that consistently come in at the floor of their stated range (or below) are inflating their positioning.

• 🟢 Observable deal sizes align with stated range (within 20%)
• 🟡 Observable deals trend toward the low end of the stated range — modest but credible
• 🔴 Observed checks are consistently below their stated minimum, or no observable data exists to verify a large stated range

Points: 🟢 = 10 · 🟡 = 5 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 7: Signal-to-Check Ratio (5 pts)

What it tests: Conference appearances, podcast episodes, Twitter/X threads, and blog posts in the last 12 months vs. actual new investment count. High-output, low-check funds are tourists — they're building a brand, not a portfolio.

• 🟢 Content and conference presence is proportionate to investment pace (or investment pace dominates)
• 🟡 Noticeable content-heavy, deal-light imbalance — may be raising a new fund or pivoting thesis
• 🔴 Heavy public presence (frequent keynotes, prolific posting) with fewer than 3 observable new deals in 12 months

Points: 🟢 = 5 · 🟡 = 3 · 🔴 = 0

---

Check 8: Founder Sentiment (5 pts)

What it tests: Public founder feedback on what it's actually like to work with this fund. Search for X/Twitter threads, podcast references, Blind posts, and direct quotes in founder interviews. Patterns of ghosting, slow decisions, or adversarial behavior post-term-sheet are disqualifying signals.

• 🟢 Positive founder references found, or no negative patterns detected
• 🟡 Mixed or thin feedback — insufficient data to flag, but not a ringing endorsement
• 🔴 Documented pattern of ghosting, reneging, or adversarial post-investment behavior

Points: 🟢 = 5 · 🟡 = 3 · 🔴 = 0

---

Step 4 — Score and Verdict

Sum the points across all 8 checks.

Poser Score: XX/100

Show the per-check breakdown in a table:

Check	Signal	Points Earned / Max
1. Fund Vitality	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 20
2. Fund Health	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 15
3. Thesis Authenticity	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 15
4. Lead vs. Follow	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 20
5. Stage Honesty	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 10
6. Check Size Reality	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 10
7. Signal-to-Check Ratio	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 5
8. Founder Sentiment	🟢/🟡/🔴	X / 5
Total		XX / 100

Verdict:

Score	Verdict	What it means
80–100	Legit	Active fund, real checks, honest mandate — worth pursuing
60–79	Probable	Yellow flags present; prioritize if fit is strong, but clarify open questions
40–59	Watch List	Material poser signals; de-prioritize unless a warm intro already exists
0–39	Likely Poser	Don't waste cycles — redirect to better-fit funds

Step 5 — Save and Report

Write the full check report to vcposer-<fund>.md.

Then tell the user:

• Legit (80–100): "This fund checks out. Run /vcmatch <fund> to see if the mandate fits your startup."
• Probable (60–79): "Yellow flags noted — run /vcmatch <fund> but factor these signals into how hard you chase this one."
• Watch List (40–59): "De-prioritize unless you have a warm intro. If you do, run /vcpartner <fund> to find the one person who actually moves deals."
• Likely Poser (0–39): "Skip this fund. Run /vclist to surface better-fit alternatives."

---

Output Format

When producing the output file, read the exact template from references/output-format.md.

---

Output Rules

• Every check must cite named evidence — URLs, dates, quotes, or named publications. If evidence is absent, say what was searched and why it came up empty.
• Show the per-check score table before the check details — founders need the summary before the breakdown.
• If a fund has <3 angles with usable data, print this warning at the top of the report: ⚠️ Limited public data — fewer than 3 checks could be fully evidenced. Verdict defaulted to Watch List regardless of score.
• The Poser Score is not a fit score — it says nothing about mandate alignment. Always clarify this before the recommended action.
• Total word budget for check details: ≤700 words. The score table and verdict rationale are not counted.
• Do not recommend /vcmatch until the verdict is Legit or Probable.