agentleFS
ajstars1ajstars1/founder-stack/secondary-research/SKILL.md

secondary-research

Skill1 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub

Desk research that turns assumptions into sourced facts (URL, publisher, date): demand, competitors, value chain, buyers, purchase process. Use for market sizing, competitor scans, regulation, or researchable unknowns.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Every figure needs URL + publisher + date: Prefer: government/statistical data, filings, credible trade press, primary company sources.

    line 28

≈ “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.

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

Secondary Research

Purpose: move Assumptions → Facts where possible — before and alongside customer discovery, never instead of it. Not a one-off: understanding your business environment is continuous.

Where to start

Which industry/sector should you research? Hint: who are your likely competitors — which sector are they in? If you believe you have no competitor, think again: your target customers are using something right now (a product, a workaround, a shop visit, postponement). Whatever they use defines the industry to analyse — the status quo is the real competitor.

The five focus areas (checklist, not exhaustive)

a) Demand — demand pattern; unit of consumption; growth rate vs GDP; seasonality or concentration (festivals, fiscal years, weather); thousands of customers or a few; new vs established market; does one sale trigger follow-on revenue (printers→cartridges, cars→service)?

b) Competition — how many suppliers; basis of competition (price, quality, reliability, status, convenience); intensity; what determines market share; new entrants in the past 3 years and their entry strategies; who has tried this model and failed — and why (failed lookalikes are the cheapest education available).

c) Value chain — every entity between originator and consumer (distributor, transporter, regulator, financier, platform); the role of each; who plays the critical roles in the purchase, consumption, and payment decisions.

d) Customer types — how many distinct types exist; the differences between them.

e) Purchase process — when the need is felt; how they learn what/where to buy; how they decide among competitors; the actual steps; anything odd that stands out.

Evidence rules (non-negotiable)

  1. Every figure needs URL + publisher + date. Prefer: government/statistical data, filings, credible trade press, primary company sources. Note when data is old (e.g., a decade-old census) and label derived estimates as derived.
  2. Sources conflict → report both. Nothing credible found → the item stays UNKNOWN — say so plainly. Never fill a gap with a plausible number.
  3. Grade confidence per finding: HIGH (official/primary-adjacent) / MEDIUM (single secondary source) / UNKNOWN.
  4. Separate global from local: national market stats rarely answer "how many buyers in THIS town" — derive carefully or mark unknown.

Output

Findings table (Focus area | Finding | Source URL | Confidence) → 3–5 key conclusions about the business environment (each labeled) → "What this cannot tell you — needs interviews" — the honest list of questions only customer discovery answers (willingness to pay, actual behavior, trust barriers, why a past launch failed). Feed conclusions back into /facts-assumptions-unknowns as explicit list movements.

Ledger discipline (v2): reference Belief Ledger IDs ([A4], [F7]) for every claim; propose new/changed items in a closing "Ledger delta" section rather than restating claims — restated claims drift.

Fill-in templates: TEMPLATES.md in this skill's folder — copy the structures into your project's discovery/ and fill with labels.

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.