kill-go

name	kill-go
version	1.0.0
description	Viability assessment that produces a proceed/pivot/kill recommendation. 5 pointed questions, scored, with a clear verdict. Use when evaluating ideas, making go/no-go decisions, assessing product-market fit, deciding whether to invest time, or when someone asks "should I build this?", "is this worth pursuing?", or "kill or keep?"
user-invocable	false

The 5 Questions

Ask each question. Score 1-5. Push back on optimistic answers with "What evidence do you have for that?" Unverified optimism scores lower.

1. Problem Severity (1-5)

How painful is this problem for the people who have it?

Score	Severity	Signal
5	Hair on fire	People are actively spending money or significant time on workarounds
4	Significant pain	Regular complaints, dedicated manual processes, measurable cost
3	Moderate annoyance	People notice it, work around it, don't prioritize fixing it
2	Mild inconvenience	Shrug and move on, rarely mentioned unprompted
1	Solution looking for a problem	You think it's a problem; they don't

Ask: "Who has this problem? How do you know? What are they doing about it today?"

If the user can't name specific people or specific workarounds, score 1-2.

2. Market Reality (1-5)

Can you reach enough people who have this problem and will pay to solve it?

Score	Reality	Signal
5	Known buyers	You've talked to 10+ people who said "I'd pay for that"
4	Strong signals	Active communities discussing this problem, competitor revenue visible
3	Plausible market	Logical argument for demand, some anecdotal evidence
2	Assumed market	"Everyone needs this" with no validation
1	Imagined market	No evidence anyone wants this beyond the builder

Ask: "How many people have you talked to about this? What did they say, unprompted?"

3. Differentiation (1-5)

Why would someone choose this over what exists?

Score	Edge	Signal
5	Category creator	Nothing like this exists; you're defining the space
4	10x better on one axis	Dramatically faster, cheaper, simpler, or more specific
3	Meaningfully different	Clear differentiation, but alternatives exist
2	Slightly better	Incremental improvement, easy to ignore
1	Me-too	Another version of something that already works fine

Ask: "What do people use today? Why would they switch? What's the switching cost?"

4. Founder-Market Fit (1-5)

Are YOU the right person to build this?

Score	Fit	Signal
5	Deep domain + lived problem	You've spent years in this space AND have this problem yourself
4	Deep domain OR lived problem	Strong on one dimension
3	Adjacent experience	Related domain, transferable skills
2	Interested outsider	Researched but no direct experience
1	No connection	Chasing a trend, no domain knowledge

Ask: "How long have you been in this space? Do you have this problem yourself? Who do you already know in this market?"

5. Execution Reality (1-5)

Can you actually build and ship this?

Score	Reality	Signal
5	Buildable this week	Clear technical path, tools in hand, scope is tight
4	Buildable this month	Known unknowns, but path exists
3	Buildable this quarter	Significant technical work, dependencies to resolve
2	Research required	Unsure if the technical approach even works
1	Moonshot	Requires breakthroughs or resources you don't have

Ask: "What's the smallest version you could ship? How long would it take? What would you need that you don't have?"

Scoring

Multiply all five scores. Maximum: 3,125.

Composite	Verdict	What to do
500+	Proceed	Build the smallest version. Ship it. Measure.
200-499	Pivot	The idea has signal, but something's off. Fix the weakest dimension or reframe.
<200	Kill	Walk away. Document why. Revisit only if new evidence surfaces.

CRITICAL: A score of 1 on any dimension kills the idea regardless of composite score. You can't overcome zero evidence of demand, no differentiation, or no ability to execute.

Anti-Sycophancy Protocol

Do NOT soften the kill recommendation. If the scores say kill, say kill. Explain why clearly. Offer what would need to change for a re-evaluation.

The user came here for truth, not comfort. A good kill saves months of wasted effort.

Output

# Kill/Go Assessment: [Idea Name]
Date: [date]

## Scores
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Problem Severity | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Market Reality | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Differentiation | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Founder-Market Fit | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Execution Reality | X/5 | [key evidence] |

**Composite: [X] / 3,125**

## Verdict: [PROCEED / PIVOT / KILL]

[2-3 sentence rationale]

## Weakest Dimension
[Which scored lowest and what would change it]

## Recommended Next Step
[One specific action]

Next step

Proceed or pivot → run decision-brief to write it up. Kill → run codify to record why, so the lesson survives.

---

Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Full Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven