ValidateIdea (validateidea.ai) platform help — an AI business-idea validator that returns a multi-section research report (market & competition, customer insights, revenue & growth assumptions, risks & open questions), delivered async in under an hour, with a paid escalation ladder from a cheap downloadable-PDF tier to a deeper AI tier to a human-expert tier (hands-on review, one-on-one sessions, GTM and MVP-scope guidance). UI-only — no public API, webhooks, or Zapier. Use when running an idea through ValidateIdea and interpreting its report, choosing between its Startup Turbo / Pro / Expert Support tiers, deciding whether AI-only analysis is enough or you should pay for human expert review, wondering how long a report takes or whether a short idea description is enough, or asking if it has an API. Do NOT use for the validate-before-building method or comparing validators across the market (use /sales-idea-validation), or the smoke-test landing-page builder at validateidea.io (use /sales-validateidea).
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
File Explorer
3 files
Showing SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
sales-validateidea-ai
description
ValidateIdea (validateidea.ai) platform help — an AI business-idea validator that returns a multi-section research report (market & competition, customer insights, revenue & growth assumptions, risks & open questions), delivered async in under an hour, with a paid escalation ladder from a cheap downloadable-PDF tier to a deeper AI tier to a human-expert tier (hands-on review, one-on-one sessions, GTM and MVP-scope guidance). UI-only — no public API, webhooks, or Zapier. Use when running an idea through ValidateIdea and interpreting its report, choosing between its Startup Turbo / Pro / Expert Support tiers, deciding whether AI-only analysis is enough or you should pay for human expert review, wondering how long a report takes or whether a short idea description is enough, or asking if it has an API. Do NOT use for the validate-before-building method or comparing validators across the market (use /sales-idea-validation), or the smoke-test landing-page builder at validateidea.io (use /sales-validateidea).
argument-hint
[describe what you need help with in ValidateIdea]
ValidateIdea (validateidea.ai) is an AI business-idea validator that turns a short idea
description into a structured multi-section research report — a business overview plus market &
competition, customer insights, revenue & growth assumptions, and risks & open questions. Two things
set it apart from the crowded AI-scorer field: it's async (the report arrives "in under an
hour," not instantly — it does deeper research per idea than a 120-second scorer), and it puts a
human expert at the top of a steep price ladder — a cheap self-serve AI PDF, a pricier deeper-AI
tier, then a human-consulting tier (40 hours of hands-on review, one-on-one sessions, go-to-market
and MVP-scope guidance).
Its job is the scorer half of validation: it emits an AI opinion/report, not measured demand.
The report sharpens your thinking and surfaces competitors and risks — but a stranger taking an action
(a waitlist email, a "buy" click, a pre-order) is the real evidence. Keep the structured parts; take
the go/no-go from behavior.
Do not confuse it with validateidea.io — nearly identical name, different tool: .io
(/sales-validateidea) builds a smoke-test landing page (a real demand test); .ai (this skill)
generates an AI report. Their relationship is unconfirmed — treat them as separate products.
Step 1 — Gather context
Ask only what you need to answer well:
What's the goal? Interpreting a report they already got, choosing a tier (Startup Turbo / Pro /
Expert Support), deciding AI-only vs paying for human expert review, or an API/automation question.
What stage & stakes? A weekend side-project (a cheap AI PDF is plenty) vs a funded/high-stakes
launch (where the human Expert Support tier might earn its price).
What evidence do they already have? A hunch, an AI report, interviews, a landing page. If they
only have a ValidateIdea report, the real demand test is the next rung — not more AI.
How sharp is the idea statement? The input is capped (~2,500 chars) — a vague description yields a
vague report. Have a specific customer + problem + differentiation ready.
Skip-ahead: if they just want the report reframed against "should I build?", jump to Step 4.
Step 2 — Route or answer directly
"My ValidateIdea report says it's viable — should I build?" → answer here (the report is an AI
opinion, not demand), then hand the go/no-go to for the real-behavior test.
/sales-idea-validation
Comparing ValidateIdea vs other validators (Validator AI, DimeADozen, IdeaProof, RebeccAi…) →
"This is a cross-tool comparison — run: /sales-idea-validation {question}". Name the split first:
they all score/report; the decision belongs to a real demand test.
Building the smoke-test landing page itself (or you meant validateidea.io) → "That's the demand
test / the .io builder — run: /sales-validateidea {question}".
Driving traffic to a validation page / growing a waitlist → /sales-audience-growth.
Otherwise answer directly from Step 3 / the platform reference.
Step 3 — ValidateIdea platform reference
For the full report anatomy, the tier ladder, the "no API — export the PDF instead" recipe, and how to
write an input that yields a useful report, read references/platform-guide.md. The essentials:
Output is a report, not a live score or a page. Five sections: business overview, market &
competition, customer insights, revenue & growth assumptions, risks & open questions. Downloadable
PDF on the paid tiers.
Async delivery: "in under an hour." Not instant — that's by design (deeper per-idea research), so
a report that isn't ready in seconds isn't broken.
Tier ladder (best-effort; confirm on site):Startup Turbo (cheap, self-serve AI report +
PDF), Startup Pro (much pricier — deeper AI: personalized recommendations, growth assessment,
advanced technical validation), Expert Support (top tier, a large step up — human hands-on
review [~40 hours], one-on-one sessions, go-to-market and MVP-scope guidance).
Input cap ~2,500 chars describing idea, target users, and market. Sharp input → sharp report.
UI-only. No public API, no webhooks, no Zapier/Make, no MCP found in research — you cannot call
it programmatically; automate only by exporting the PDF and parsing it yourself.
Step 4 — Actionable guidance
Treat the report as an AI opinion, not demand — anchor the go/no-go on real behavior. However
polished the report, tell the user an AI validator can be confidently wrong (it can invent market
sizes). The build-or-don't decision must rest on a stranger taking an action — route the real test to
/sales-idea-validation (and /sales-audience-growth to capture signups).
Keep the structured parts, discard the verdict. The competitor landscape, customer-segment
hypotheses, revenue-model references, and the "risks & open questions" list are the reusable value —
use them to sharpen the pitch and design the demand test; don't bank the viability conclusion.
Choose AI-only vs the human Expert Support tier by stakes, not curiosity. The cheap Turbo/Pro
tiers are AI; Expert Support is human consulting (hands-on review, 1:1s, GTM/MVP guidance) at a
large price step. Recommend it only for a high-stakes or funded idea where hands-on GTM/MVP review
pays back — for a quick gut check on a side project, the cheap AI report is enough.
Set expectations on async delivery. The report arrives "in under an hour," not instantly — if it's
taking a while, that's the deeper-research design, not a failure. Don't promise a 120-second score.
Write a sharp, specific input. With the ~2,500-char cap, a vague "an app for productivity" yields
a generic report. Feed it a specific customer + problem + differentiation so the market/competitor
sections are about your niche, not a category.
Present pricing and tiers as best-effort and point to the live site. The Turbo/Pro/Expert Support
names and prices are from research — say so and point the user to validateidea.ai for current numbers.
There's no API — automate by exporting the PDF, not a nonexistent endpoint. No public API,
webhooks, Zapier/Make, or MCP. To get a report into a pipeline, export the PDF and parse it (or drive
the UI); don't hunt for a ValidateIdea API.
Don't conflate validateidea.ai with validateidea.io. If the user means the smoke-test
landing-page builder, that's /sales-validateidea (the .io tool) — a different product.
If you discover a gotcha, workaround, or tip not covered in references/learnings.md, append it there.
Gotchas
Best-effort from research (2026-07). ValidateIdea (validateidea.ai) is a niche indie tool (~1,100 ideas
analyzed at research) whose live site is hard to fetch; verify the tier names, prices, delivery time, and
input cap against the live site before relying on specifics.
The report is an AI opinion, not demand. A confident, well-formatted report can rationalize a bad
idea — a high-viability read is not evidence anyone will pay. Always follow with a real-behavior test.
Steep price ladder — the top tier is humans, not more AI. Startup Turbo is a cheap AI PDF;
Expert Support is a large jump to human consulting (~40 hrs, 1:1s). Don't buy the expert tier expecting
"a better report" — you're buying hands-on human review, so only pay for it when that's what you need.
Async, not instant. "In under an hour" is normal — don't treat a non-instant report as broken.
Short input cap (~2,500 chars). A vague idea in → a generic report out. Specificity is on you.
No API/webhooks/Zapier/MCP. The only export is the PDF; there's no programmatic report generation.
Name collision with validateidea.io. Nearly identical name, opposite tool (.io builds a demand
test; .ai writes an AI report). Their relationship is unconfirmed — don't assume same company.
Related skills
/sales-idea-validation — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method: the evidence ladder
(problem → demand → willingness-to-pay), how to read an AI report critically, and the full head-to-head
of AI validators vs real-demand tests. The go/no-go lives here, on real behavior.
/sales-validateidea — Validate Idea (validateidea.io), the near-namesake but opposite tool: a
no-code smoke-test landing-page builder that builds the real demand test (not an AI report).
/sales-audience-growth — Drive targeted traffic to the demand test and grow the pre-launch waitlist.
/sales-funnel — Build the smoke-test / fake-door landing page the demand test runs on.
/sales-do — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill.
Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code
Examples
Example 1: "ValidateIdea gave my SaaS idea a strong, detailed report — am I good to build?"
User says: "The validateidea.ai report is really positive across all sections. Should I start building?"
Skill does: Reframes the report as a directional AI opinion, not demand — it can invent market
sizes and rationalize almost anything. Says to keep the structured parts (competitor list, customer
segments, risks & open questions) to sharpen the pitch, then earn a real go/no-go: a smoke-test landing
page to a pre-set conversion bar, then a pre-sale for willingness-to-pay. Routes the method to
/sales-idea-validation and the page/traffic to /sales-funnel + /sales-audience-growth.
Result: The founder gates the build on stranger behavior, not a positive AI report.
Example 2: "What's the difference between Startup Pro and Expert Support, and how long does a report take?"
User says: "Is Expert Support just a better report than Pro? And is it instant?"
Skill does: Explains the report is async — "in under an hour," not instant (deeper per-idea
research). Distinguishes the tiers: Startup Pro is still AI (deeper analysis — personalized
recommendations, growth assessment, advanced technical validation), while Expert Support is human
consulting (~40 hours hands-on review, one-on-one sessions, GTM and MVP-scope guidance) at a large
price step. Advises picking by stakes: pay for the human tier only on a high-stakes/funded idea. Flags
prices as best-effort → validateidea.ai.
Result: The user buys the tier that matches their stage instead of over- or under-paying.
Example 3: "Can I pull ValidateIdea reports into my dashboard automatically? (developer/automation)"
User says: "I want each report to land in our internal tool via an API."
Skill does: States plainly there's no public API, no webhooks, no Zapier/Make, no MCP — you
cannot generate or fetch reports programmatically. The only export is the PDF: the workaround is to
export it and parse it (PDF-to-text/LLM extraction) into your tool, or drive the UI — not to hunt for a
nonexistent endpoint. Points to references/platform-guide.md for the export-and-parse recipe.
Result: The developer stops looking for an API and pipes the PDF contents into their own sink.
Troubleshooting
"The report is taking a long time — is something broken?"
Not necessarily. ValidateIdea is async by design — it advertises delivery "in under an hour," not
instantly, because it does deeper per-idea research than a 120-second scorer. Give it time; only treat it
as stuck if it blows well past an hour. If you need an instant score for a quick gut check, a
same-second scorer (see /sales-idea-validation) is a different trade-off.
"Is the Expert Support tier worth it over the cheap AI report?"
Only if you need humans, not a better AI report. Startup Turbo is a cheap self-serve AI PDF; Expert
Support is a large price step to hands-on human review (~40 hours, one-on-one sessions, GTM and
MVP-scope guidance). For a side-project gut check the cheap AI tier is plenty; the expert tier earns its
price on a high-stakes or funded idea where 1:1 GTM/MVP guidance changes the outcome. Prices are
best-effort — confirm on validateidea.ai.
"My report came back generic and didn't feel specific to my idea"
The input is capped (~2,500 chars) and the report is only as sharp as what you feed it. A vague "a
productivity app" yields a category-level report. Re-run with a specific customer + problem +
differentiation (who exactly, what pain, why you're different) so the market/competition and
customer-insight sections are about your niche. Then take the go/no-go from a real demand test, not the
report — see /sales-idea-validation.
