| name | oss-investment-scorecard |
| description | Evaluate whether an open source project / company is investable by a USD-denominated VC fund in the current AI cycle. ALWAYS use this skill when the user asks any of the following: - "evaluate [project] for investment" - "can we invest in [project]" - "score this open source company" - "投资评估 [项目]" - "这个开源项目值得投吗" - "给 [公司] 打分" - Any request to assess, rate, or rank an open source startup's investability - Any comparison of two or more open source companies from an investment perspective The skill produces a structured 5-dimension weighted scorecard (max 10 pts), a pass/recommend/watch verdict, and an IC-ready one-paragraph thesis. It also flags one-vote-veto conditions that cause an immediate Pass regardless of total score.
|
Open Source Project Investment Scorecard (V1.2)
Purpose
Produce a rigorous, consistent, reusable investment evaluation for any open source project/company being considered by a USD VC fund — specifically calibrated for the AI technology acceleration cycle (2023-onwards).
Built from: Bessemer Venture Partners Data 3.0 Roadmap, Oxx VC, Basis Set Ventures, Linux Foundation / COSSA, Unusual VC, Matrix VC, and two live case studies (Eigent.AI / CAMEL-AI and Datastrato / Apache Gravitino).
Step 1 — Pre-Evaluation Fact Sheet & Macro Gate
1.1 Pre-Evaluation Fact Sheet
Before scoring, perform a web search to gather the following 7 items. Each item MUST include a source URL or be marked as "Searched, not found".
- GitHub Metrics: Stars, Monthly Active Contributors (last 30d), External Contributor %, Dependent Repositories.
- Team Background: Founders' prior OSS contributions, PMC/Committer status, prior infrastructure company experience.
- Funding History: Total raised, last round valuation, lead investors.
- Commercial Traction: Publicly mentioned ARR, customer logos, pricing model.
- Technical Architecture: Core innovation level (L1-L4), key benchmarks (e.g., SOTA claims).
- Global Presence: Documentation language, international contributor %, US customer presence.
- Competitive Benchmarking: Identify 2-3 closest rivals; note their funding, stars, and key distribution partners (e.g., AWS/Azure).
1.2 Macro Gate (Non-Scoring Pre-Check)
Answer these three binary questions. If any answer is NO, stop and recommend Pass.
-
Is the sub-sector still in its window-of-opportunity phase?
- Yes if: no single open-source project has monopolised the niche yet, OR the target IS that emerging monopolist.
- No if: a dominant closed-source or open-source player already owns >60% mindshare AND the target has no credible differentiation.
-
Does open-source mode confer structural advantage here?
- Yes if: vendor-neutral governance, community data flywheel, standards control, or ecosystem lock-in applies.
- No if: the project is essentially a wrapper / prompt-engineering layer with no community moat.
-
Is the AI-cycle value premium applicable?
- Higher than cloud-era because: the project sits on a structural chokepoint in the AI stack.
- If purely a cloud-era Open Core play with no AI-cycle differentiation, note this as a risk factor (not automatic veto).
Handling "Not Found" items:
"Not Found" does NOT mean "Does not exist". If data is missing:
- Look for indirect signals (e.g., SOC2 certification implies enterprise customers; complex billing implies revenue).
- Use range estimates (e.g., "ARR likely $200K-$1M based on indirect signals").
- Mark as a DD Priority for verification.
Step 2 — Five-Dimension Scorecard
Score each dimension 0–10. Apply weights. Sum for a weighted total out of 10.
| # | Dimension | Weight |
|---|
| A | Open-Source Ecosystem & Community Health | 25% |
| B | Team & Globalisation Capability | 20% |
| C | Technical Moat & Market Positioning | 20% |
| D | Commercialisation Path & PMF | 20% |
| E | Capital Exit Path | 15% |
Dimension A — Open-Source Ecosystem & Community Health (25%)
Core principle: Keyboard Metrics > Mouse Metrics.
| Signal | Strong (8-10) | Weak (<5) |
|---|
| Dependent Repositories | ≥1,000 | <10 |
| Monthly Active Contributors | ≥50 | <5 |
| External Contributor % | ≥40% | <10% |
| PR Merge Latency | ≤7 days | >30 days |
| Issue Close Rate (90d) | ≥60% | <20% |
| Release Cadence | Weekly/bi-weekly | Sporadic |
| ADOPTERS.md / Logos | 5+ named logos | None |
| Governance Tier | ASF TLP / CNCF | standalone |
Scoring Guide:
- Project Age Calibration: For projects <12 months old, prioritize velocity over absolute levels. A project reaching 5K stars in 3 months has higher signal than 10K stars in 3 years. Velocity signal can add +1 to the score (max 8.0).
- One-Vote Veto for A: External contributor % <5% (pure self-directed project) → automatic Pass.
Dimension B — Team & Globalisation Capability (20%)
Engineering Depth signals:
- Founders are Apache/CNCF/LF committers or PMC members.
- Verifiable OSS history outside the company repo.
- Top-tier academic papers (NeurIPS/ICML/VLDB).
GTM / Global Reach signals:
- English-first documentation (Day 1).
- International contributors ≥20%.
- US paying customers or pilots.
Scoring Guide:
- 9-10: World-class engineers + proven US enterprise access.
- 5-6: Strong engineering, weak GTM — flag as "Series A condition".
- One-Vote Veto for B: Zero verifiable OSS history outside company repo → automatic Pass.
Dimension C — Technical Moat & Market Positioning (20%)
| Level | Description | VC Signal |
|---|
| L1 | New algorithm / architecture | Strongest moat |
| L2 | Significant engineering innovation | Strong moat |
| L3 | Differentiated system integration | Moderate moat |
| L4 | Prompt engineering / wrapper | Pass — no moat |
Market Positioning:
- Is this on track to be the de facto standard?
- Does vendor-neutrality create structural lock-in?
- Narrative Consistency: ≥2 pivots in <24 months = -1 point penalty. Note: Market-following pivots (e.g., RAG → Agent Memory) do not count as penalties.
One-Vote Veto for C: Core product is L4 (Wrapper) with no algorithmic differentiation → automatic Pass.
Dimension D — Commercialisation Path & PMF (20%)
Revenue Quality Hierarchy:
- Product ARR / Subscription (8-15x)
- Usage-based / API billing (6-10x)
- Infrastructure embedding / OEM (Strategic premium)
- Proprietary data monetisation (High ceiling)
- Professional Services (1-3x) ⚠️ Not scalable
Indirect PMF Signals (Use when ARR is unknown):
- SOC2 / HIPAA / ISO certification (implies enterprise readiness).
- Tiered pricing / Stripe integration (implies active billing).
- Detailed customer testimonials (not just generic quotes).
- Hiring for Sales/GTM roles.
If 3+ indirect signals exist, D-score should not be below 5.0.
Scoring Guide:
- 9-10: Product ARR ≥$1M, US enterprise customers, ≥50% inbound.
- 7-8: Early product ARR + strong PMF signals (top-tier logos).
- One-Vote Veto for D: Revenue entirely unverified (LoI/MOU only) AND valuation >2× sector median → automatic Pass.
Dimension E — Capital Exit Path (15%)
Strategic M&A value checklist:
- Project is a "standard creator" (e.g., Iceberg, vLLM).
- Acquirer has "must have" urgency.
- Sector Validation: Large funding rounds for direct competitors (Series A+) are POSITIVE signals for sector value, even if they increase competition.
Scoring Guide:
- 9-10: Clear "must acquire" logic; comparable exits >$1B.
- 5-6: Acqui-hire probable; or M&A possible but buyer urgency low.
Step 3 — Compute Weighted Total
Total = (A × 0.25) + (B × 0.20) + (C × 0.20) + (D × 0.20) + (E × 0.15)
| Score | Decision | Action |
|---|
| 8.5 – 10.0 | 🟢 Strongly Recommend | Fast-track IC |
| 7.0 – 8.4 | 🟡 Recommend with Conditions | Milestone-linked terms |
| 5.5 – 6.9 | 🟠 Watch / Track | Re-evaluate in 6 months |
| < 5.5 | 🔴 Pass | Decline |
Optional Module: Star Health & Anti-Fraud Protocol (SHP)
Usage: Trigger this module if (a) user explicitly requests "Star Health check", (b) project is in a hyper-hyped AI sector, or (c) Star growth velocity is >20% MoM without corresponding Issue/PR activity.
SHP Step 1: Data Collection
Calculate the following ratios from GitHub data:
- Star/Fork Ratio (S/F): Total Stars ÷ Total Forks.
- Star/Issue Ratio (S/I): Total Stars ÷ Total Issues (Open + Closed).
- Fork Rate (FR): Total Forks ÷ Total Stars.
- External Commit % (EC): Commits by non-core-team ÷ Total Commits.
SHP Step 2: Signal Evaluation
| Metric | Healthy | Warning | Critical |
|---|
| S/F Ratio | 5x - 10x | 11x - 20x | >20x |
| S/I Ratio | 50x - 100x | 101x - 200x | >200x |
| Fork Rate | 9% - 23% | 5% - 8% | <5% |
| EC % | >20% | 5% - 19% | <5% |
SHP Step 3: Scoring Adjustment for Dimension A
If SHP is active, apply the following penalties to the raw score of Dimension A:
- 1 Warning: -0.5 points.
- 2 Warnings: -1.0 points.
- 1 Critical: -1.5 points.
- 2+ Critical: -2.0 points and flag for "One-Vote Veto" review.
Step 4 — Required Output Format
- Macro Gate Result: One sentence per question.
- Scorecard Table: Dimension, Weight, Score, Weighted.
- Verdict Line:
🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴 [Decision] — [One sentence rationale]
- Dimension Narrative: 2-4 sentences per dimension. Note: Explicitly mention if scores are based on indirect signals.
- One-Vote Veto Check: Confirm if any veto is triggered.
- IC Thesis: One paragraph, ≤100 words (Why now, Why this, Exit conviction).
- DD Priority List: Top 3-5 questions to verify (especially "Not Found" items).
- Watch Triggers: Specific milestones for upgrade.
