business-investigation
Skill9 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Root cause analysis for business problems — why no signups, why churn, why stalled pipeline. Use when diagnosing WHY something is broken. For choosing between strategic options, use strategic-review instead.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Layneformalized225/ai-cofounderedited, first seen Mar 22, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Layneformalized225/ai-cofounder★ 196% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository78 other files it gives its agents.
- anti-pattern-auditSkill
- brand-storytellingSkill
- ceo-weekly-reviewSkill
- cold-emailSkill
- community-buildingSkill
- company-intelSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- competitor-researchSkill
- composio-cliSkill
- conducting-user-interviewsSkill
- content-strategySkill
- copywritingSkill
- daily-recapSkill
- decision-playbookSkill
- designing-growth-loopsSkill
- discovery-debriefSkill
- email-sequenceSkill
- enterprise-salesSkill
- evening-recapSkill
- exa-code-searchSkill
- exa-company-researchSkill
- exa-lead-genSkill
- exa-people-researchSkill
- exa-personal-siteSkill
- exa-x-searchSkill
- feedback-trackerSkill
- find-email-by-nameSkill
- focus-keeperSkill
- founder-salesSkill
- fpf-problem-solvingSkill
- github-stars-monitorSkill
- google-calendarSkill
- grafana-monitoringSkill
- humanizerSkill
- hypothesis-trackerSkill
- idea-generatorSkill
- install-openclaw-to-digitaloceanSkill
- install-openclaw-to-hetznerSkill
- install-openclaw-to-ycSkill
- launch-marketingSkill
- lead-enrichmentSkill
- measuring-product-market-fitSkill
- meeting-prepSkill
- metrics-briefingSkill
- morning-briefSkill
- openclaw-guideSkill
- openclaw-user-onboardingSkill
- orthogonalSkill
- outreach-senderSkill
- person-lookupSkill
- ph-launch-timelineSkill
- pipeline-managerSkill
- positioning-messagingSkill
- positioning-workshopSkill
- posthog-analyticsSkill
- prepare-yc-workshopSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- problem-definitionSkill
- product-hunt-launchSkill
- product-led-salesSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 33
Timeline: when did the problem start?
- Distinctive: line 39
Check typical startup patterns:
- Distinctive: line 77
3-Strike Rule: if 3 hypotheses turn out to be wrong -> STOP.
- Distinctive: line 92
When root cause is identified:
- Distinctive: line 134
Follow output preferences from USER.md (language, format, platform constraints).
- Distinctive: line 138
Data -> hypothesis -> test -> conclusion: Not the other way around.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Business Investigation
Systematic root cause analysis for business problems. Engineering debugging adapted for CEO tasks.
Triggers: "why no signups", "why churn", "figure out why X", "what's wrong with Y", "investigate", "dig into"
Iron Law
DO NOT PROPOSE SOLUTIONS WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THE ROOT CAUSE.
- Not "let's redesign the landing page" -> first "WHY signups = 0?"
- Not "let's hire sales" -> first "WHY is the current approach not working?"
- Symptomatic treatment creates whack-a-mole debugging. Find the root cause.
Phase 1: Symptom Collection
- Define the problem specifically: not "growth is slow", but "0 signups in 7 days with X visitors" or "3 out of 5 customers didn't complete onboarding"
- Gather data:
- PostHog:
posthog__query-generate-hogql-from-question question="..."for quantitative data - MEMORY.md: what do we already know about this problem?
- Daily logs: were there similar problems before? What was tried?
- Hypotheses.json: are there related hypotheses?
- PostHog:
- Timeline: when did the problem start? What changed? Regression = cause is in the change.
Phase 2: Pattern Matching
Check typical startup patterns:
Funnel Problems
| Where the problem is | Common cause | Where to look |
| Traffic -> signup | Positioning / channel / trust | Language, source quality, proof, CTA |
| Signup -> activation | Product / onboarding / TTFV | Steps to first value, friction points |
| Activation -> paid | Outcome proof / buyer / pricing | Value clear? Right buyer? |
| Paid -> retained | Problem frequency / workflow embed | Recurring job? In daily workflow? |
| Retained -> expansion | Narrow value / weak multi-user | Team hooks, second use case |
Structural Problems
| Pattern | Symptom | Root cause |
| Wrong ICP | Every customer wants something different | Wedge too broad |
| Wrong channel | High effort, low response | Message-channel mismatch |
| Wrong timing | "Interesting, but not now" | No urgent trigger |
| Wrong buyer | User loves it, buyer won't pay | Value doesn't connect to budget |
| Feature != product | Demo wow, usage dead | Solves interesting != painful problem |
| Trust gap | Enterprise stalls at procurement | No case studies, no compliance, no social proof |
Phase 3: Hypotheses (3-Strike Rule)
Formulate 1-3 root cause hypotheses. For each:
HYPOTHESIS: [specific statement]
Evidence FOR: [what supports it]
Evidence AGAINST: [what refutes it]
How to test: [concrete action in 1-2 days]
If true we'll see: [observable outcome]
If false we'll see: [observable outcome]3-Strike Rule: if 3 hypotheses turn out to be wrong -> STOP. The problem is likely architectural (wrong market, wrong product, wrong channel). Escalate:
3 hypotheses tested, none confirmed.
The problem may be deeper — not tactics, but strategy.
A) Continue investigation with a new hypothesis: [describe]
B) Launch strategic-review to reassess wedge/ICP
C) Talk to customers directly (CEO = best investigator)Phase 4: Root Cause -> Recommendation
When root cause is identified:
- Name the cause specifically. Not "bad marketing", but "positioning says 'AI platform' instead of a specific outcome we deliver for [your buyer]"
- Minimal intervention. The smallest change that eliminates the cause.
- Tie to constraint. Does the solution exploit the constraint (market learning speed) or not?
- Kill signal. At what result do we abort the solution?
Phase 5: Report
INVESTIGATION REPORT
---
Symptom: [what we observe]
Root cause: [why this is happening]
Evidence: [data confirming]
Recommendation: [what to do]
Metric: [what to measure]
Kill signal: [when to abort]
Status: DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / BLOCKED
---Log to memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md via structured-log.
Telegram Format
Investigation: [problem]
Root cause: [1-2 lines]
Evidence: [key proof]
Recommendation: [action]
Metric: [what to measure]
Status: [DONE/BLOCKED/NEEDS_CONTEXT]Follow output preferences from USER.md (language, format, platform constraints).
Rules
- Data -> hypothesis -> test -> conclusion. Not the other way around.
- Don't say "should fix it". Show evidence.
- If you can't test — say NEEDS_CONTEXT and request specific data.
- Don't expand scope. Investigate one problem, don't switch.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

