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
- ajstars1/startup-coachedited, first seen Jul 4, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- ajstars1/startup-coach★ 090% 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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- brandingSkill
- business-model-canvasSkill
- customer-discoverySkill
- experimentsSkill
- facts-assumptions-unknownsSkill
- founder-stackSkill
- gtmSkill
- jtbdSkill
- learnSkill
- marketingSkill
- outreach-sprintSkill
- problem-discoverySkill
- salesSkill
- startup-scorecardSkill
- value-proposition-canvasSkill
- where-to-playSkill
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 28
Every figure needs URL + publisher + date: Prefer: government/statistical data, filings, credible trade press, primary company sources.
≈ “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
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)
- 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.
- Sources conflict → report both. Nothing credible found → the item stays UNKNOWN — say so plainly. Never fill a gap with a plausible number.
- Grade confidence per finding: HIGH (official/primary-adjacent) / MEDIUM (single secondary source) / UNKNOWN.
- 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.
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.

