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).
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
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.
