bp-validate

# Business Plan Validator Run a structured quality check on all draft sections before final compile. ## Input Business plan directory: `$ARGUMENTS` (default: `./business-plan/`) ## Step 1: Read all sections Read every `.md` file in the directory. Extract key numbers into a working table: | Metric | Value found | Location (file:section) | |--------|------------|------------------------| | Revenue Y1 | | | | Revenue Y2 | | | | Revenue Y3 | | | | CAC (blended) | | | | LTV | | | | LTV/CAC ratio | | | | Funding ask | | | | Team size at launch | | | | TAM | | | | Break-even month | | | ## Step 2: Numerical cross-consistency check Compare extracted values across sections: - `01-executive-summary.md` §1.7 vs `07-financial-projections.md` §7.2 — revenue match? - `06-marketing-sales.md` §6.5 vs `07-financial-projections.md` §7.5 — CAC/LTV/ratio match? - `01-executive-summary.md` §1.8 vs `08-funding-request.md` §8.1 — funding ask match? - `01-executive-summary.md` §1.5 vs `03-market-analysis.md` §3.1 — TAM match? - `04-organization.md` §4.7 vs `07-financial-projections.md` §7.8 — headcount/OPEX match? - `08-funding-request.md` §8.6 milestones vs `07-financial-projections.md` §7.3 runway — timeline match? Flag mismatches. Rounding differences < 5% are acceptable — note but don't flag as critical. ## Step 3: Assumption labeling audit Search all sections for these patterns using Grep: - Percentage claims without source (e.g., "conversion rate of 12%") - Market size figures without methodology citation - Competitor analysis claims without evidence ("competitor X is weak at Y") - Financial projections derived from industry benchmarks — need source or `[ASSUMPTION]` - Growth rates cited without CAGR methodology Each should carry `[ASSUMPTION]` or a cited source. List every violation. ## Step 4: Completeness check Verify no section contains: - Blank required subsections - "TBD", "TODO", "PLACEHOLDER", "N/A" without explanation - Subsections that exist in the template but have no content List all `[TO BE DETERMINED]` items found — do not remove them, just catalog them. ## Step 5: Internal logic check Verify: - **Team capacity:** Can the headcount in §4.7 realistically execute the roadmap in §5.9 and sales targets in §6.13? - **Revenue timing:** Does revenue start date in §7.2 align with product launch in §5.8? - **Operational load:** Can the ops plan in §9.2 handle the customer volumes projected in §6.13? - **Budget coverage:** Does the funding ask in §8.3 cover the OPEX in §7.8 for the stated runway? - **Risk coverage:** Does §10.1 risk matrix cover the major risks mentioned in §3.11, §5.6, and §7.12? ## Step 6: Ethics and quality guardrails Flag: - Claims of "no competition" or "first in market" in established categories — investors will research this - Projections with only optimistic/base scenarios and no pessimistic case - Missing AI-generated content disclaimer (check §11.3 or title page) - Forward-looking statements presented as facts rather than projections - Personal data collection described without privacy/compliance mention (cross-check §10.12) ## Step 7: Output report Write `validation-report.md` in the business plan directory: ```markdown # Business Plan Validation Report **Generated:** [date] **Directory:** [path] **Sections reviewed:** [list of files] **Validator score:** X/10 --- ## 🔴 Critical issues (fix before any investor sees this) ... ## 🟡 High-priority issues ... ## 🟢 Minor issues ... --- ## Numerical cross-check table [table with match/mismatch for each metric] ## Unlabeled assumptions [list with section, quote, recommended fix] ## [TO BE DETERMINED] items [catalog with section and why it's needed] ## Potential hallucinations [list with section, statistic, recommended action] ## Missing disclaimers - [ ] AI-generated content disclaimer - [ ] Forward-looking statements note ... ## Logic gaps ... ## Passed checks ✓ ... ``` **Do not modify any section files.** This skill is read-only and report-only. Fixes are made by spawning the relevant specialist agents with the validation report as context.