kill-go
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Viability assessment that produces a proceed/pivot/kill recommendation. 5 pointed questions, scored, with a clear verdict. Use when evaluating ideas, making go/no-go decisions, assessing product-market fit, deciding whether to invest time, or when someone asks "should I build this?", "is this worth pursuing?", or "kill or keep?"
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ai-graduationSkill
- arbitrage-auditSkill
- assumption-mapperSkill
- b2b-idea-vettingSkill
- codifySkill
- decision-briefSkill
- design-thinking-liteSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- innovation-diagnosticSkill
- preflightSkill
- problem-framingSkill
- pull-frameworkSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
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 14
Ask each question. Score 1-5.
- Distinctive: line 28
Ask: "Who has this problem?
- Distinctive: line 30
If the user can't name specific people or specific workarounds, score 1-2.
- Distinctive: line 44
Ask: "How many people have you talked to about this?
- Distinctive: line 58
Ask: "What do people use today?
- Distinctive: line 72
Ask: "How long have you been in this space?
- Distinctive: line 86
Ask: "What's the smallest version you could ship?
- Distinctive: line 102
Do NOT soften the kill recommendation.
≈ “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
The 5 Questions
Ask each question. Score 1-5. Push back on optimistic answers with "What evidence do you have for that?" Unverified optimism scores lower.
1. Problem Severity (1-5)
How painful is this problem for the people who have it?
| Score | Severity | Signal |
| 5 | Hair on fire | People are actively spending money or significant time on workarounds |
| 4 | Significant pain | Regular complaints, dedicated manual processes, measurable cost |
| 3 | Moderate annoyance | People notice it, work around it, don't prioritize fixing it |
| 2 | Mild inconvenience | Shrug and move on, rarely mentioned unprompted |
| 1 | Solution looking for a problem | You think it's a problem; they don't |
Ask: "Who has this problem? How do you know? What are they doing about it today?"
If the user can't name specific people or specific workarounds, score 1-2.
2. Market Reality (1-5)
Can you reach enough people who have this problem and will pay to solve it?
| Score | Reality | Signal |
| 5 | Known buyers | You've talked to 10+ people who said "I'd pay for that" |
| 4 | Strong signals | Active communities discussing this problem, competitor revenue visible |
| 3 | Plausible market | Logical argument for demand, some anecdotal evidence |
| 2 | Assumed market | "Everyone needs this" with no validation |
| 1 | Imagined market | No evidence anyone wants this beyond the builder |
Ask: "How many people have you talked to about this? What did they say, unprompted?"
3. Differentiation (1-5)
Why would someone choose this over what exists?
| Score | Edge | Signal |
| 5 | Category creator | Nothing like this exists; you're defining the space |
| 4 | 10x better on one axis | Dramatically faster, cheaper, simpler, or more specific |
| 3 | Meaningfully different | Clear differentiation, but alternatives exist |
| 2 | Slightly better | Incremental improvement, easy to ignore |
| 1 | Me-too | Another version of something that already works fine |
Ask: "What do people use today? Why would they switch? What's the switching cost?"
4. Founder-Market Fit (1-5)
Are YOU the right person to build this?
| Score | Fit | Signal |
| 5 | Deep domain + lived problem | You've spent years in this space AND have this problem yourself |
| 4 | Deep domain OR lived problem | Strong on one dimension |
| 3 | Adjacent experience | Related domain, transferable skills |
| 2 | Interested outsider | Researched but no direct experience |
| 1 | No connection | Chasing a trend, no domain knowledge |
Ask: "How long have you been in this space? Do you have this problem yourself? Who do you already know in this market?"
5. Execution Reality (1-5)
Can you actually build and ship this?
| Score | Reality | Signal |
| 5 | Buildable this week | Clear technical path, tools in hand, scope is tight |
| 4 | Buildable this month | Known unknowns, but path exists |
| 3 | Buildable this quarter | Significant technical work, dependencies to resolve |
| 2 | Research required | Unsure if the technical approach even works |
| 1 | Moonshot | Requires breakthroughs or resources you don't have |
Ask: "What's the smallest version you could ship? How long would it take? What would you need that you don't have?"
Scoring
Multiply all five scores. Maximum: 3,125.
| Composite | Verdict | What to do |
| 500+ | Proceed | Build the smallest version. Ship it. Measure. |
| 200-499 | Pivot | The idea has signal, but something's off. Fix the weakest dimension or reframe. |
| <200 | Kill | Walk away. Document why. Revisit only if new evidence surfaces. |
CRITICAL: A score of 1 on any dimension kills the idea regardless of composite score. You can't overcome zero evidence of demand, no differentiation, or no ability to execute.
Anti-Sycophancy Protocol
Do NOT soften the kill recommendation. If the scores say kill, say kill. Explain why clearly. Offer what would need to change for a re-evaluation.
The user came here for truth, not comfort. A good kill saves months of wasted effort.
Output
# Kill/Go Assessment: [Idea Name]
Date: [date]
## Scores
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Problem Severity | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Market Reality | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Differentiation | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Founder-Market Fit | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Execution Reality | X/5 | [key evidence] |
**Composite: [X] / 3,125**
## Verdict: [PROCEED / PIVOT / KILL]
[2-3 sentence rationale]
## Weakest Dimension
[Which scored lowest and what would change it]
## Recommended Next Step
[One specific action]Next step
Proceed or pivot → run decision-brief to write it up. Kill → run codify to record why, so the lesson survives.
Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Full Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven
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.