idea-validator

name

idea-validator

description

Deep-researches a business idea, hypothesis, or rough concept and stress-tests it into either a validated opportunity, a pivot, or a clear no-go. Use this skill whenever a user has a product idea they want to explore, validate, or challenge — even if it's half-formed. Triggers on phrases like "I have an idea", "I'm thinking of building", "is there a market for", "validate this idea", "research this concept", "is this worth building", "could this be a business", or any time someone is at the hypothesis stage before committing to a build. Works in both Claude chat and Claude Code. Always runs thorough web research — never relies on assumptions alone. Ends with a blunt verdict (GO / PIVOT / SCRATCH) and produces a structured product-brief.md ready to feed directly into the project-scaffold skill.

Idea Validator Skill

Takes a hypothesis — however rough — and stress-tests it through deep research. Ends with a blunt, evidence-based verdict and a structured product-brief.md that feeds directly into the project-scaffold skill.

This skill does not encourage ideas. It finds the truth.

---

Principles

• Research first, opinions never. Every claim must be grounded in what was found, not assumed. Use web search aggressively throughout.
• Be blunt. If there's nothing there, say so clearly and quickly. Don't pad a weak idea into a maybe.
• Pivots are valid exits. A PIVOT verdict is not a failure — it means there's something adjacent worth exploring. Make it specific.
• The brief is the deliverable. The research is the process. The product-brief.md is what the user walks away with.

---

Process

Phase 1: Extract the Hypothesis

If the idea is already in the conversation, extract it. If it's vague, ask one clarifying question only:

"Tell me the idea in one or two sentences — who it's for and what it does."

Do not ask multiple questions upfront. Get moving and research. You can refine understanding as evidence surfaces.

---

Phase 2: Deep Research

Run all research using web search. Cover every area in references/research-areas.md. Do not skip sections — a weak signal in one area is still a signal.

Research in this order:

1. Market and demand — Is there evidence people want this? Search for:

   • Existing products in the space
   • Reddit threads, community discussions, complaints
   • Job postings that signal budget allocation
   • Google Trends signals if relevant
   • App store or marketplace listings

2. Competitor landscape — Who else is doing this?

   • Direct competitors (same ICP, same problem)
   • Indirect competitors (different approach, same outcome)
   • Adjacent tools the user might already be paying for
   • For each: pricing, positioning, apparent weaknesses, review sentiment

3. ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) — Who specifically would pay for this?

   • Role, context, budget authority
   • Where they hang out online
   • What they're currently using or doing instead
   • What a bad day looks like for them

4. Monetization patterns — How do others in this space charge?

   • Pricing models (per seat, usage, flat, one-time)
   • Price points that appear to be working
   • Where value is being captured vs given away free

5. Distribution — How would this reach customers?

   • Organic channels available
   • Paid channels viability
   • Partnership or integration plays
   • Community or ecosystem leverage

6. Moats and differentiation — What would make this defensible?

   • Data advantages
   • Network effects
   • Switching costs
   • Unique insight or access the builder has

7. Risks and assumptions — What has to be true for this to work?

   • List the 3-5 biggest assumptions baked into the idea
   • Flag which are validated by research and which are not
   • Identify the single biggest risk

---

Phase 3: Synthesize

After research is complete, score the opportunity across five dimensions. See references/scoring.md for the scoring rubric.

Do not show the scoring table to the user — use it internally to form your verdict.

---

Phase 4: Verdict

Deliver one of three verdicts. Be direct. Lead with it.

✅ GO

There is clear evidence of demand, a defined ICP, monetizable market, and a realistic path to first revenue. The research supports building.

State:

• What the evidence says
• The specific ICP to target first
• The wedge — the smallest version worth building
• The biggest risk to monitor

⚠️ PIVOT

The original idea has weak signals, but research revealed an adjacent opportunity that scores better. Don't bury this in caveats.

State:

• Why the original idea is weak (specific evidence)
• What the pivot is (specific, not vague)
• Why the pivot scores better
• Whether the pivot is worth pursuing

❌ SCRATCH

No meaningful demand signal, crowded with well-funded incumbents, no clear differentiation path, or the market simply isn't there.

State:

• Exactly why (evidence, not opinions)
• Whether there's anything salvageable
• A clean recommendation to move on

---

Phase 5: Produce the Brief

Regardless of verdict, generate product-brief.md using the template in assets/templates/product-brief.md.

For GO: populate fully. For PIVOT: populate for the pivot opportunity, not the original idea. For SCRATCH: produce a minimal brief noting the verdict and why. Do not pad it.

---

Phase 6: Handoff

Tell the user:

"This brief is ready to feed into the project-scaffold skill. Run that next to generate your full project spec folder and CLAUDE.md."

If verdict is PIVOT or SCRATCH, make the next step clear — don't leave the user without a direction.

---

Reference Files

• references/research-areas.md — Full breakdown of what to research in each area
• references/scoring.md — Internal scoring rubric for synthesizing a verdict
• assets/templates/product-brief.md — Output template