opportunity-gap-finder
Skill29 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Discovers and ranks evidence-backed opportunities by tracing unmet needs, underserved outcomes, weak alternatives, and viable ways to create value in any domain. Use when someone wants to identify a business, service, personal project, community initiative, physical product, creative pursuit, research direction, or other worthwhile problem to pursue.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-creatorSkill
- agent-skill-creatorSkill
- art-engineSkill
- capability-architectureSkill
- copy-sanitizerSkill
- intent-replaySkill
- md-compressorSkill
- md-design-systemSkill
- project-graphSkill
- skill-scanSkill
- story-architectSkill
- token-estimatorSkill
- vector-drawingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
Use references/questioning-logic.md to branch the interview rather than asking every question.
≈ “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
Opportunity Gap Finder
Turn an open domain, observed problem, change, capability, audience, or early idea into ranked opportunity hypotheses and a validation plan. Find valuable progress that people or organisations struggle to make, then determine whether the user has a credible way to help. Investigate before ideating and never imply that success is guaranteed.
Core Rules
- Discover before inventing — Never present an assumed problem, demand level, market fact, or success probability as established.
- Do not skip the problem — Trace context → actors → current behaviour → friction or blocked progress → root cause → need → opportunity mechanism.
- Stay domain- and format-agnostic — Do not default to software, commercial ventures, or scalable products. The best response may be a service, physical intervention, practice, programme, community, research effort, policy, creative work, or a decision not to proceed.
- Define success for this user — Clarify desired impact, income or non-financial value, available resources, timeframe, geography, risk tolerance, motivation, and ethical boundaries before ranking.
- Ask progressively — Ask 3–6 related questions per round unless the user requests a full questionnaire or a rapid scan.
- Follow evidence — Investigate strong signals and contradictions instead of completing a static questionnaire.
- Compare against reality — Include direct competitors, indirect substitutes, manual workarounds, doing nothing, and failed prior attempts.
- Separate attractiveness from confidence — A promising hypothesis with weak evidence is not a recommendation to build.
- Prefer behaviour over opinion — Separate attention, complaints, stated intent, attempted solutions, commitment, adoption, retention, payment, and measurable impact.
- No guaranteed-success language — Explain uncertainty, dependencies, disconfirming evidence, and the cheapest next test.
Workflow
- Choose a mode and establish the user's pursuit criteria — references/session-rules.md.
- Frame the search from the supplied domain, actor, problem, change, capability, asset, or idea.
- Investigate actors, behaviour, frictions, blocked progress, causes, alternatives, and needs — references/investigation-phases.md.
- Gather and grade relevant evidence; distinguish sourced facts, user observations, inferences, and unknowns — references/evidence.md.
- Generate materially different opportunity mechanisms using references/archetypes.md, then screen and rank them with references/scoring.md.
- Stress-test the leaders and choose the cheapest tests of their riskiest assumptions — references/validation.md.
- Deliver a decision-ready brief — references/opportunity-brief.md.
Use references/questioning-logic.md to branch the interview rather than asking every question.
Output Contract
For a completed guided or evidence-assisted investigation, include:
- Pursuit criteria and scope
- Context and relevant actors, when applicable
- Current behaviour, alternatives, and non-consumption, when applicable
- Ranked frictions or blocked outcomes with evidence strength
- Root causes and outcome-focused need statements
- 3–5 distinct opportunity hypotheses, or fewer when justified
- Comparative ranking, evidence strength, consistency, resulting confidence, and kill factors
- Recommended lead opportunity and value proposition
- Smallest useful validation plan
- Unknowns, disconfirming evidence, and conditions that would change the decision
- Decision: investigate now | validate before committing | pursue a small version | monitor | reframe | reject for now
For a rapid scan, provide only:
- scope and assumed pursuit criteria,
- 2–5 provisional search territories or opportunity hypotheses,
- evidence available, evidence missing, and major caveats,
- the most useful next investigation step.
For open search, first deliver a checkpoint containing:
- pursuit criteria and accessible assets,
- 2–3 search territories with selection reasons,
- the first evidence-gathering questions for each.
A full investigation is complete only when it yields either one sufficiently supported opportunity with a validation plan or a clear conclusion that evidence does not justify pursuit and exactly what to learn next. A rapid scan or open-search checkpoint is complete when its smaller output contract is met; never present it as a validated recommendation. Do not manufacture an opportunity to satisfy the format.
Reference Index
- Modes, intake, session behaviour, and language: references/session-rules.md
- End-to-end investigation sequence: references/investigation-phases.md
- Evidence collection and confidence rules: references/evidence.md
- Screening, comparative ranking, and kill factors: references/scoring.md
- Stress tests and validation experiments: references/validation.md
- Final brief and completion rules: references/opportunity-brief.md
- Dynamic interview branching: references/questioning-logic.md
- Gap archetypes for broad solution discovery: references/archetypes.md
- Quality gate and anti-patterns: references/quality-checklist.md
- Cross-domain worked examples: references/example-cross-domain.md
When To Use This Skill
- Exploring a broad industry, community, place, technology, trend, problem, capability, or behaviour for worthwhile opportunities.
- Testing whether an early business, service, project, initiative, product, research, or creative idea addresses a meaningful gap.
- Comparing possible pursuits against evidence, alternatives, constraints, value, risk, and personal fit.
- Designing a low-cost next step before making a larger commitment.
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.

