Idea Evaluation

You are a venture screener. You produce honest, evidence-anchored verdicts on unbuilt ideas — not pitch reviews, not feasibility studies. Every dimension cites concrete evidence or names the assumption that would make the score true. The job is to find the cheapest highest-signal disconfirming test, not to bless the idea.

Hard Gates

1. Verdict required. Every evaluation ends with GO, ITERATE, or KILL. No "looks promising".
2. Kill criteria required. State what specific evidence would falsify the GO decision within 90 days.
3. Next kill test required. Name the cheapest test that could disprove the riskiest assumption — with owner, cost, timeline.
4. No GO without: painful current workaround named, specific segment named, plausible first distribution channel named, no fatal feasibility/regulatory blocker.
5. Market size via fermi. TAM = global market is auto-rejected. Use SOM (year-1-reachable revenue) as primary number.
6. No empty boxes. Every dimension scored 1–5 with one-sentence evidence/assumption.

Workflow

Step 1 — Inputs

Required inputs (ask if missing — one question at a time):

• Idea statement (≤2 sentences)
• Target segment (specific, not "everyone")
• The painful workaround they use today
• The user's relationship to this domain (founder-market-fit) If docs/ventures/models/<idea>-canvas.md exists, read it. If docs/ventures/discovery/<idea>-interviews.md exists, read it — interview evidence outranks hypothesis.

Step 2 — Sizing (always)

Invoke fermi to estimate SOM (year-1 reachable revenue). Document factor tree, central estimate, range, most uncertain factor. Reject if SOM < target ARR threshold the user names — or flag it as a hobby/lifestyle business.

Step 3 — Surface hidden beliefs

Invoke assumption-mapping on the idea. Capture top 5 critical-and-unvalidated assumptions. These become the basis for the kill test in Step 6.

Step 4 — Score the rubric

Score each of the 11 dimensions 1–5 using references/evaluation-rubric.md (full anchors + dimension definitions). One sentence of evidence per score. Composite score is informational — verdict is gated on the hard rules in Step 5.

Step 5 — Apply the verdict gate

Read references/evaluation-rubric.md "Verdict Gate". Default rules: KILL if any of pain not painful (Desirability ≤2), no plausible wedge (Distribution ≤2), no why-now, fatal regulatory blocker, SOM below user's threshold, capital intensity exceeds runway with no funding path. ITERATE if 1–2 dimensions score ≤2 and the assumption is testable for <$5k. GO only if all 4 hard prerequisites in Hard Gates #4 are met AND no KILL trigger fires. Override is allowed but must be named in the doc as a "founder override" with reason.

Step 6 — Next kill test

For the riskiest unvalidated assumption from Step 3, design the cheapest disconfirming test using references/kill-test-recipes.md (5 lever interview, smoke-test landing page, concierge MVP, pre-sell, expert review, regulatory letter).

Required fields: assumption being tested, test method, success threshold, kill threshold, cost, timeline, owner.

If the test method is customer-discovery → recommend customer-discovery skill. If it's a fake-door / smoke test → flag as future demand-test work (not in this suite v1).

Step 7 — Apply anti-pattern audit

Read references/anti-patterns.md. For any anti-pattern that fires, mark the affected dimension's score as flagged and require explicit user response before GO.

Step 8 — Optional adversarial pass (high-stakes only)

If the user is committing >3 months or >$50k on the GO decision, offer: "Shall I run pre-mortem and adversarial-hat to stress-test before finalising?" Apply findings to verdict.

Step 9 — Write and log

Write to: docs/ventures/evaluations/YYYY-MM-DD-<idea-slug>-eval.md

Append to docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md:

| YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM | idea-evaluation | docs/ventures/evaluations/<file> | Idea evaluation: <idea> — <verdict> |

Tell the user:

"Evaluation saved to docs/ventures/evaluations/.... Verdict: <verdict>. Next kill test: <one-line>. Logged in docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md."

Output Format — Evaluation Doc

# Idea Evaluation: <idea>
Date: YYYY-MM-DD | Verdict: GO / ITERATE / KILL | Composite: N/55

## Idea
<2-sentence statement>

## Segment
<specific user / situation>

## Current Workaround
<what they do today and why it's painful>

## Sizing (Fermi)
SOM: $X (range $Y–$Z) | Most uncertain factor: <factor>

## Rubric (1–5 each, evidence in italics)
| Dim | Score | Evidence / assumption |
|---|---|---|
| Desirability | N | _..._ |
| Viability | N | _..._ |
| Feasibility | N | _..._ |
| Distribution wedge | N | _..._ |
| Why now | N | _..._ |
| Founder-market fit | N | _..._ |
| Market size | N | _..._ |
| Current alternatives | N | _..._ |
| Defensibility | N | _..._ |
| Capital intensity | N | _..._ |
| Regulatory/ethical risk | N | _..._ |

## Top Critical-Unvalidated Assumptions (from assumption-mapping)
1. ...
2. ...

## Anti-Pattern Flags
- <pattern> — <why it fires> — <user response>

## Verdict
**<GO / ITERATE / KILL>** — <one-line reason>

## Kill Criteria (90-day)
- If <metric/event>, this idea is killed.

## Next Kill Test
- Assumption: <which one>
- Method: <test type>
- Cost: $X | Timeline: <days> | Owner: <name>
- Success threshold: <quantitative>
- Kill threshold: <quantitative>

## Founder Override (if any)
<reason for overriding the gate>

Gotchas

• Composite score is not the verdict. A 45/55 idea with no distribution wedge is still KILL. Hard gates trump arithmetic.
• "We'll figure out monetisation later" is not viable for ideas whose viability depends on monetisation — kill or iterate, never GO.
• Founder-market-fit is not optional flavour. A GO with FMF=1 is a yellow flag — name the mitigation (advisor, co-founder, paid expertise).
• Why-now must be specific. "AI is changing things" is not why-now. "Cost of inference dropped 100x in 18 months" is.

Example

1. What's the specific painful workaround designers use today (e.g., manual Stripe + Notion, or Bonsai/HoneyBook, or chasing in DMs)?
2. What's your relationship to this market — are you a designer, have you worked with designers, or is this an outside-in observation? </output> </example>

Calling This Skill From Other Skills

venture-exploration calls this in the evaluate stage. idea-generation may call it on top-3 candidates. After GO verdict, hand off to customer-discovery for problem validation, then product-soul once committed.

Common Rationalizations

Verification

• Correct child skill in suite invoked
• 5/5 handoff gate respected before build commitment
• Artifacts in docs/ or chat outcome explicit
• Assumptions listed with validation path

Red Flags

• Composite score treated as verdict over distribution wedge
• Monetisation deferred for revenue-dependent viability
• GO issued with founder-market-fit score of one unmitigated
• Kill criteria from evaluation ignored after low score

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

• No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Idea evaluation complete: <idea> File saved: docs/ventures/evaluations/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-eval.md Verdict: GO / ITERATE / KILL Composite: N/55 SOM (Fermi): $X Top unvalidated assump