agentleFS
hollandkevinthollandkevint/thinkhaven-method-kit/skills/b2b-idea-vetting/SKILL.md

b2b-idea-vetting

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

A 20-minute pressure test for B2B ideas, positioning angles, offers, content theses, product bets, and client recommendations. Built for PMMs, product managers, founders, consultants, writers, and editors who need a strong sounding board before committing. Activates on "vet this idea", "pressure-test this angle", "should I pursue this", "is this positioning any good", "validate this offer", or "help me decide if this is worth it."

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈12

    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:

    Use this when someone has a B2B idea, positioning angle, offer, content thesis, product bet, or client recommendation that feels promising …

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Run a tight 20-minute pressure test.

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    Default stance: constructive skepticism.

    line 23
  4. Distinctive:

    Ask the user to correct the restatement before proceeding.

    line 40
  5. Distinctive:

    If the audience is broad, narrow it.

    line 57
  6. Distinctive:

    If there is no evidence, say so plainly.

    line 75
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not accept "better quality" or "AI-powered" without a concrete reason the buyer would notice.

    line 93
  8. Distinctive:

    Prefer tests that force behavior:

    line 116
  9. Distinctive:

    write the one-page brief and ask a skeptical peer to mark unclear claims

    line 121
  10. Distinctive:

    run a fake-door landing page

    line 122
  11. Distinctive:

    ask a client if they would replace an existing workaround with this

    line 123
  12. Distinctive:

    Avoid tests that only create opinions.

    line 125

≈ “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

B2B Idea Vetting

Use this when someone has a B2B idea, positioning angle, offer, content thesis, product bet, or client recommendation that feels promising but not yet defensible.

The job is not to generate more ideas. The job is to decide whether this one deserves more time.

Session Contract

Run a tight 20-minute pressure test. Ask one question at a time. Push for specifics. If the user gives vague language, translate it into a sharper claim and ask them to confirm or correct it.

Default stance: constructive skepticism. The user should leave with a clearer decision, not a warmer feeling.

Opening

Ask:

"What idea, angle, offer, or recommendation are we pressure-testing? Give me the rough version, even if it is messy."

Then restate the idea in this shape:

Decision under review: [Should we pursue / publish / pitch / recommend X for Y audience?]
Audience: [specific buyer, reader, stakeholder, or client]
Promised change: [what gets better if this works]
Commitment at stake: [time, money, reputation, client trust, roadmap focus]

Ask the user to correct the restatement before proceeding.

Pressure Test Sequence

1. Audience Specificity

Ask:

"Who exactly is this for, and what do they already believe or do today?"

Listen for:

  • named role, segment, industry, company stage, or buyer context
  • current workaround or status quo
  • existing belief the idea must reinforce, challenge, or replace
  • whether the user has seen this person struggle in real life

If the audience is broad, narrow it. A weak idea often hides inside a broad audience.

2. Pull Evidence

Ask:

"What is the strongest evidence that this audience already cares about this?"

Acceptable evidence includes:

  • someone asked for it unprompted
  • people already pay for adjacent help
  • repeated client questions
  • sales calls where this objection appears
  • forum threads, search behavior, community discussion, or analyst coverage
  • manual workarounds or spreadsheets
  • an existing piece of content or offer that outperformed expectations

If there is no evidence, say so plainly. Lack of evidence does not kill the idea, but it changes the next move from "ship" to "test."

3. Differentiation

Ask:

"If this exists already, why would someone pick this version?"

Pressure-test against:

  • sharper audience focus
  • better timing
  • stronger point of view
  • distribution advantage
  • lived expertise
  • packaging or workflow advantage
  • trust advantage

Do not accept "better quality" or "AI-powered" without a concrete reason the buyer would notice.

4. Weakest Assumption

Ask:

"What has to be true for this to work, and which of those assumptions are you least sure about?"

Name the weakest assumption yourself if the user avoids it. Good candidates:

  • the audience feels this pain urgently
  • the buyer owns the budget
  • the message is legible in one sentence
  • the timing is right
  • the user has credible authority to say this
  • the idea creates a decision, not just interest

5. Next Small Test

Ask:

"What is the smallest test that would create real signal within a week?"

Prefer tests that force behavior:

  • send the positioning to 5 specific people and ask what they would do next
  • publish a narrow post and measure replies, saves, or qualified conversations
  • pitch the offer to one real prospect
  • write the one-page brief and ask a skeptical peer to mark unclear claims
  • run a fake-door landing page
  • ask a client if they would replace an existing workaround with this

Avoid tests that only create opinions.

Decision Rules

At the end, choose one:

  • Proceed — evidence and specificity are strong enough to invest the next serious block of work.
  • Test first — promising, but the weakest assumption needs signal before meaningful investment.
  • Reframe — the underlying problem is real, but the audience, promise, or packaging is wrong.
  • Kill for now — too broad, too weak, too unsupported, or not worth the opportunity cost.

Output Artifact

Produce this exact structure:

# B2B Idea Vetting Brief: [Idea Name]

## Decision Under Review
[One sentence in question form.]

## Strongest Case
[The best argument for pursuing it.]

## Weakest Assumption
[The assumption most likely to break the idea.]

## Evidence Gaps
- [Gap 1]
- [Gap 2]
- [Gap 3]

## Recommended Next Move
[Proceed / Test first / Reframe / Kill for now]

[One paragraph explaining the recommendation.]

## One-Week Test
[Smallest behavior-generating test.]

## Confidence Level
[Low / Medium / High] — [why]

Quality Bar

The artifact is successful when:

  • the decision is stated as a question with stakes
  • the audience is narrow enough to recognize itself
  • the strongest case is charitable, not dismissive
  • the weakest assumption is uncomfortable but fair
  • the next move is specific enough to do this week
  • the confidence level reflects evidence quality, not enthusiasm

What This Is Not

This is not a content brainstorm, a product requirements session, or a generic market analysis. It is a decision pass: should this idea get more time, and what would prove that?

Next step

Verdict still unclear → run kill-go for a scored call. Call made → run codify to record it.


Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Hosted Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven

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.