-
Parse the idea from $ARGUMENTS. If empty, ask the user what idea they want to validate.
-
Search for related knowledge:
If MCP kb_search tool is available, use it directly:
kb_search(query="<idea keywords>", n_results=5)
Otherwise search locally:- Grep for idea keywords in
.md files across the project and knowledge base
Summarize any related documents found (existing ideas, frameworks, opportunities).
-
Deep research (optional): Check if research.md exists for this idea (look in docs/ or the current working directory).
- If it exists: read it and use findings to inform STREAM analysis and PRD filling (competitors, pain points, market size).
- If it does not exist: ask the user if they want to run deep research first. If yes, tell them to run
/research <idea> and come back. If no, continue without it.
-
Manifest Alignment Check (with teeth):
Consult references/manifest-checklist.md (bundled with this skill) for the full checklist of 9 principles and 6 red flags. Check the idea against EACH one. This is not a formality — a manifest violation is a soft kill flag.
For each principle, assess: comply or violate? If violating — cite the specific principle.
Key principles (see checklist for details):
- Privacy-first / offline-first
- One pain -> one feature -> launch
- AI as foundation, not feature
- Speed over perfection (MVP in days)
- Antifragile architecture
- Money without overheating
- Against exploitation
- Subscription fatigue
- Creators, not robots
Scoring: 0 violations = perfect, 1-2 = caution, 3+ = strong KILL signal.
Be honest. If the idea conflicts with principles, SAY SO. Don't rationalize alignment.
-
S.E.E.D. niche check (quick, before deep analysis):
Score the idea on four dimensions:
- S — Searchability: Can you rank? Forums/Reddit in top-10, few fresh giants, no video blocks?
- E — Evidence: Real pain with real quotes/URLs? Or hypothetical?
- E — Ease: MVP in 1-2 days on existing stack? No heavy dependencies?
- D — Demand: Long-tail keywords exist? Clear monetization path?
Kill flags (stop immediately if any):
- Top-10 SERP dominated by media giants or encyclopedias
- Fresh competing content (<60 days old) already covers it well
- No evidence of real user pain (only founder's hypothesis)
- MVP needs >1 week even on best-fit stack
If any kill flag triggers → recommend KILL with explanation. Don't proceed to STREAM.
-
Devil's Advocate (Inversion):
"Flip the question: how would you guarantee failure?" — STREAM Layer 3 (Inversion)
This step is mandatory — before scoring positively, actively try to kill the idea. The goal is to find reasons NOT to build it.
6a. Inversion — 5 ways this fails:
List 5 specific, concrete ways this idea could fail. Not generic risks ("competition") but specific scenarios with evidence:
- What specific competitor could crush this? (name, funding, strategy)
- What user behavior makes this unviable? (churn data, willingness to pay)
- What regulatory/legal event kills this? (specific laws, precedents)
- What technical limitation blocks this? (latency, cost, accuracy)
- What market dynamic makes the "opportunity" a mirage?
6b. Dead startup search:
Search for startups that tried something similar and failed or pivoted:
- WebSearch:
"<idea category>" startup failed OR pivoted OR shut down
- WebSearch:
"<competitor>" pivot OR layoffs OR shutdown
- If any found: what killed them? Does the same risk apply here?
6c. Unit economics stress test (if research.md exists):
Recalculate unit economics with PESSIMISTIC assumptions:
| Metric | Optimistic | Realistic | Pessimistic |
|---|
| Monthly churn | 10% | 30-40% (industry data) | 50%+ (first year) |
| Average lifetime | 10 months | 2.5-3 months | 1.5 months |
| LTV | (price × 10) | (price × 2.5) | (price × 1.5) |
| CAC | <$20 | $30-50 | $50-80 |
| LTV:CAC | >3:1 | ~1:1 | <1:1 (UNPROFITABLE) |
If pessimistic LTV:CAC < 1 → flag as critical risk.
6d. "Empty market" test:
If the analysis found an "empty" market segment or pricing gap, ask:
- Why is it empty? Is it opportunity or graveyard?
- Search for companies that tried this exact positioning and failed
- Is the segment empty because demand doesn't exist at that price point?
6e. Manifest conflict honesty:
Re-check findings from step 4. For each manifest violation found, state the conflict clearly: "This requires X, which violates principle Y because Z."
Do NOT rationalize conflicts away. The user decides whether to proceed — not the skill.
-
STREAM analysis: Walk the idea through all 6 layers.
Consult references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill) for the complete 6-layer framework with questions per layer.
For EACH layer, provide BOTH positive and negative assessment. Use the actual framework questions:
- Layer 1 (Scope): Map!=Territory, Simplicity, Boundaries — what assumptions are unproven?
- Layer 2 (Time): Entropy, Lindy — will this exist in 5 years?
- Layer 3 (Route): Inversion (use Devil's Advocate findings), Second-Order Effects — effects of effects?
- Layer 4 (Stakes): Asymmetry, Antifragility — real risk/reward with pessimistic numbers
- Layer 5 (Audience): Reputation, Network — deposit or withdrawal?
- Layer 6 (Meta): Mortality, Balance — worth finite time? Aligns with mission?
Scoring rules:
- Each layer scored 1-10
- If Devil's Advocate found critical issues, the affected layer score MUST be reduced
- If Manifest alignment has violations, Layer 6 (Meta) score MUST be reduced
- Final score = weighted average (Meta and Stakes weighted 1.5x)
-
Stack selection: Auto-detect from research data, then confirm or ask.
Auto-detection rules (from research.md product_type field or idea keywords):
product_type: ios → ios-swiftproduct_type: android → kotlin-androidproduct_type: web + mentions AI/ML → nextjs-supabase (or nextjs-ai-agents)product_type: web + landing/static → astro-staticproduct_type: web + content site + needs SSR for some pages (CDN data, transcripts, dynamic) → astro-hybridproduct_type: web (default) → nextjs-supabaseproduct_type: api → python-apiproduct_type: cli + Python keywords → python-mlproduct_type: cli + JS/TS keywords → nextjs-supabase (monorepo)- Edge/serverless keywords →
cloudflare-workers
If auto-detected with high confidence, state the choice and proceed.
If ambiguous (e.g., could be web or mobile), ask via AskUserQuestion with the top 2-3 options.
If MCP project_info is available, show user's existing stacks as reference.
-
Generate PRD: Create a PRD document at docs/prd.md in the current project directory. Use a kebab-case project name derived from the idea.
PRD must pass Definition of Done:
-
Output summary:
- Idea name and one-liner
- S.E.E.D. score (S/E/E/D each rated low/medium/high)
- Manifest alignment (X/9 principles met, list violations)
- Two scores:
- Optimistic score (0-10): best-case assumptions
- Realistic score (0-10): pessimistic unit economics, real churn, funded competitors
- Devil's Advocate top finding (the single strongest reason NOT to build)
- Key risk and key advantage
- Path to generated PRD
- "If I'm wrong about..." — state the single assumption that, if wrong, changes the verdict
- Recommended next action (one of):
/research <idea> — if evidence is weak, get data first/scaffold <name> <stack> — if realistic score ≥ 7, build it- Fake-Door Test — if realistic score 5-7, spend $20 on a landing stub before coding
- KILL — if realistic score < 5 or kill flags triggered
- PIVOT — if the idea has merit but current angle fails (suggest specific pivot)
