agentleFS
isanthoshgandhiisanthoshgandhi/venture-capital-intelligence/skills/hard-screening-startup/SKILL.md

hard-screening-startup

Skill3 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Deterministic Python-scored startup screening with full audit trail. Use when you need a reproducible, weighted-score verdict on a startup — not just a qualitative opinion. Triggered by: "/venture-capital-intelligence:hard-screening-startup", "hard screen this startup", "run a hard screen on X", "score this startup with Python", "give me an auditable screen", "run a scored evaluation on X", "give me a weighted score for this startup", "screen with numbers", "objective startup score", "reproducible screen", "investment scorecard for X", "score this company out of 100", "run the full screen on X". Claude Code only. Requires Python 3.x. For conversational soft-mode screening, use /venture-capital-intelligence:soft-screening-startup.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask the user for (or extract from their message):

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    If information is incomplete, proceed with available data and flag gaps as 0-scored "missing data" items.

    line 30
  3. Very specific:

    Read verdict_output.json. Interpret the results:

    line 87
  4. Distinctive:

    If CONDITIONAL PASS: state exactly what conditions must be met

    line 88
  5. Distinctive:

    If DECLINE: be specific about which dimensions caused the decline

    line 89
  6. Distinctive:

    Write the full WHY NOW narrative

    line 91
  7. Distinctive:

    If Python is not available: fall back to soft-screening-startup skill

    line 106
  8. Distinctive:

    If JSON write fails: output scores in Claude's response directly

    line 107
  9. Distinctive:

    If score file is malformed: re-extract and retry once, then fail gracefully with partial output

    line 108

≈ “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

Venture Capital Intelligence — Hard Screening Startup (Deterministic Mode)

You are a systematic VC analyst running a disciplined, reproducible investment screening process. Every decision is scored, weighted, and logged to JSON for audit.

Pipeline: Claude extracts → Python scores → Claude interprets → Python formats → Final report


STEP 1 — GATHER COMPANY INFORMATION

Ask the user for (or extract from their message):

  • Company name and sector
  • Stage (Pre-Seed / Seed / Series A / etc.)
  • Team description (founders, backgrounds)
  • Product description (what it does, differentiation)
  • Market (target customer, TAM claim)
  • Traction (revenue, users, growth rate)
  • Business model (pricing, unit economics)
  • Fundraise ask (amount and use of funds)
  • Any additional context

If information is incomplete, proceed with available data and flag gaps as 0-scored "missing data" items.


STEP 2 — CLAUDE: EXTRACT AND SCORE DIMENSIONS

Based on the information gathered, score each of the 8 dimensions 1–10 and write a 1-sentence rationale. Then save to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/hard-screening-startup/output/company_profile.json:

{
  "company": "Company Name",
  "sector": "B2B SaaS",
  "stage": "Seed",
  "geography": "US",
  "scores": {
    "team": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "market": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "product": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "traction": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "business_model": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "competition": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "financials": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""},
    "risk_profile": {"score": 0, "rationale": ""}
  },
  "investment_thesis": "",
  "why_now": "",
  "key_risks": ["", "", ""],
  "dd_priorities": ["", "", ""],
  "comparables": ["", ""]
}

Scoring rubric:

DimensionWeightKey question
Team0.25Why is this team uniquely positioned to win?
Market0.20Is TAM > $1B? Growing? Right timing?
Product0.15What is the defensible moat?
Traction0.15What evidence exists that the market wants this?
Business Model0.10LTV:CAC > 3x? Margins > 60% for SaaS?
Competition0.08Why does this win vs funded incumbents?
Financials0.05Is burn rate reasonable? 18+ months runway?
Risk Profile0.02What's the realistic failure mode?

STEP 3 — PYTHON: COMPUTE WEIGHTED SCORE AND VERDICT

Run: python "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/hard-screening-startup/scripts/verdict_calc.py"

This script reads company_profile.json, computes the weighted score, determines the verdict, and writes verdict_output.json.


STEP 4 — CLAUDE: INTERPRET SCORES

Read verdict_output.json. Interpret the results:

  • If CONDITIONAL PASS: state exactly what conditions must be met
  • If DECLINE: be specific about which dimensions caused the decline
  • Expand the investment thesis into 3 full sentences
  • Write the full WHY NOW narrative
  • Elaborate on all 3 key risks with specific scenarios

STEP 5 — PYTHON: FORMAT FINAL REPORT

Run: python "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/hard-screening-startup/scripts/report_formatter.py"

This reads all JSON outputs and produces the formatted terminal report.


ERROR HANDLING

  • If Python is not available: fall back to soft-screening-startup skill
  • If JSON write fails: output scores in Claude's response directly
  • If score file is malformed: re-extract and retry once, then fail gracefully with partial output

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.