agentleFS
T4LELT4LEL/Claude-Arsenal/skills/validate-idea/SKILL.md

validate-idea

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when deciding whether an idea is worth building - before any scaffolding or code - or when the user says validate, is this worth it, would anyone pay, market check, should I build this.

23 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use company-values, find-community and 7 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • insight68Skill

    company-values

    Help define company values and culture for a minimalist business. Use when someone is setting up their company culture, preparing to hire, or wanting to codify what their company stands for.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • insight68Skill

    find-community

    Help identify and evaluate communities to build a minimalist business around. Use when someone is looking for a business idea, trying to find their community, or wondering where to start as an entrepreneur.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • slavingiaSkill

    grow-sustainably

    Evaluate business decisions through the lens of sustainable, profitable growth. Use when someone is making decisions about spending, hiring, fundraising, or scaling their business.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • slavingiaSkill

    processize

    Turn a product idea into a manual-first process you can start delivering today. Use when you have an idea and want to figure out how to deliver value by hand before writing any code.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • +4 more from insight68
  • +1 more from slavingia

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 20 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    No evidence found is itself a finding — report it, don't paper over it with assumptions.

    line 38
  2. Distinctive:

    If the Step 3 verdict is go, point the user at /new-project to scaffold and /monetize to lock pricing before building features.

    line 62

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 20 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Validate Idea

Kill or confirm an idea cheaply before /new-project scaffolds anything. No code, no scaffolding — this skill produces a verdict, not a repo.

Copy this checklist and check off items as you complete them:

Validate-Idea Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame — customer, problem, current alternative
- [ ] Step 2: Evidence — competitor scan + demand signals
- [ ] Step 3: Verdict — would they pay, differentiation
- [ ] Step 4: Cheapest real-world test
- [ ] Report

Step 1 — Frame

State each in one sentence. Use what the user gave; where they left gaps, state an assumption explicitly and label it unverified.

  • Who exactly is the customer?
  • What painful problem are they having?
  • What do they use today instead (including "nothing" or "a spreadsheet")?

Vague answers here (e.g. "everyone," "it'd just be useful") are the first sign the idea isn't ready — say so instead of pushing forward.

Step 2 — Evidence

Delegate to the researcher agent with the framing from Step 1:

  • Competitor scan: real products, real URLs, current prices — not "probably around $X."
  • Demand signals: actual search results, community complaints and threads (Reddit, forums, X, App Store reviews) showing people describing this exact pain.

No evidence found is itself a finding — report it, don't paper over it with assumptions.

For a deeper pass — market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM) or a full competitive landscape — delegate to the market-analyst agent with the same Step 1 framing.

Step 3 — Verdict

Delegate to the biz-strategist agent with the Step 2 evidence:

  • Would the target customer actually pay for this, and roughly how much?
  • What's the differentiation from what they use today — why switch?
  • A verdict — go / no-go / pivot — with the reasoning that drove it, not just the label.

Numbers the agent can't source from real evidence get labeled unverified assumptions, not stated as fact.

Step 4 — Cheapest real-world test

Pick exactly ONE, matched to how fast/cheap it is to run for this idea:

  • 5 target-customer conversations — real people who fit the customer profile, scheduled this week.
  • Landing-page smoke test — one page, one CTA, traffic driven to it.
  • Community post — pitch the problem/solution where the target customer already hangs out.

Spell out the concrete next actions (who does what, by when) and a numeric success threshold up front — e.g. "10 signups in a week," "3 of 5 conversations confirm the pain unprompted." No threshold means no test.

If the Step 3 verdict is go, point the user at /new-project to scaffold and /monetize to lock pricing before building features.

Report

  • Verdict: go / no-go / pivot, one-line reason.
  • Evidence: competitor and demand findings, with sources.
  • Riskiest assumption: the single belief that, if wrong, breaks the idea.
  • Cheapest next test: the chosen test, concrete actions, and the numeric success threshold.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.