メニュー
Review product risk before coding by checking demand, alternatives, channels, switching costs, and failure signals.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | before-you-build |
| description | Review product risk before coding by checking demand, alternatives, channels, switching costs, and failure signals. |
| category | Document Processing |
| source | antigravity |
| tags | ["claude","ai","workflow","spreadsheet","security","cro"] |
| url | https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills/tree/main/skills/before-you-build |
Before You Build helps an AI coding workflow pause before implementation and check whether the feature, product, or tool is worth building. It focuses on product risk rather than code structure: who needs the thing, what they use today, why they would switch, how distribution works, and what evidence would make the project safer to start.
The upstream project ships a standalone skill repository and an npx installer for several coding assistants.
Restate the product or feature in one concrete sentence. Name the intended user, the job they are trying to finish, and the current workaround or competitor.
Review the idea across demand, workflow fit, willingness to switch, distribution, pricing, data access, and operational burden. Prefer specific doubts over generic brainstorming.
Suggest the smallest useful validation step before implementation. This could be a buyer conversation, landing page test, manual concierge workflow, prototype, waitlist, paid pilot, or narrow internal trial.
If the risk is acceptable, move into implementation with the assumptions written down. If the risk is high or evidence is weak, recommend a smaller experiment instead of building the full version.
User: Build a dashboard for AI trend monitoring.
Before coding, check:
- Which role needs this dashboard every week?
- What source do they use today?
- What decision changes because of the dashboard?
- Would they pay for alerts, reports, or workflow integration?
- What is the smallest manual report that proves repeat use?
User: Build an internal CRM for our small team.
Before coding, check:
- What breaks in the current spreadsheet or existing CRM?
- How many people will use it daily?
- What data must be imported or kept in sync?
- What process change is required after launch?
- Can a no-code workflow prove the need first?
Problem: The assistant repeats the product pitch instead of challenging the assumptions. Solution: Ask for current alternatives, switching triggers, and a validation step before code.
Problem: The review becomes too broad and blocks progress. Solution: Pick the riskiest assumption and test only that first.
Problem: The idea is treated as a startup even when it is a small internal workflow. Solution: Scale the risk review to the project size and only ask questions that change the build decision.
@saas-mvp-launcher - Use when moving from validation into MVP planning and launch execution.@ux-research-methodology - Use when the next step needs structured user research.Rewrites unprofessional code comments into clear ones and performs non-semantic cleanup. Use to professionalize code without altering logic or behavior.
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test th
Triage acc's open promises and close them with honest real-world verdicts via acc_act(runtime="outcome").
Drain acc's deliberation queue — open/waiting brain_frames checkpointed by headless runs — via acc_act(runtime="continue").
Route a goal through acc's scored-memory loop via acc_act(runtime="solve"); deliberate any returned brain_frame and submit via continue.
Add an iOS App Clip target to an Expo app. Use when the user mentions App Clip, AASA, apple-app-site-association, appclips, smart app banner, or wants to ship a lightweight iOS Clip invoked from a URL