idea-validator
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Validate a product idea by mapping assumptions, assessing desirability/feasibility/viability signals, and producing a go/no-go/pivot recommendation with evidence gaps. Use when working on validating product ideas, assumption mapping, go/no-go decisions.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- luongnv89/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Mathews-Tom/armorytheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- PyDaft/idea-validator-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- hongphuc5497/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jaredhhawk/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- ziho7/idea-validatortheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- Mathews-Tom/armory★ 340same name
- luongnv89/skills★ 145same name
- aakashg/pm-claude-skills★ 106same name
- HK-hub/AgentSkills★ 6same name
- dipaulavs/ClaudeCode-Workspace-2025★ 2same name
- hongphuc5497/skills★ 2same name
- dersi3/idea-validator-skill★ 0same name
- jaredhhawk/claude-skills★ 0same name
- Noumenon-ai/noumenon-free-starter-pack★ 0same name
- PyDaft/idea-validator-skill★ 0same name
1 more not listed
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 repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memory-designerSkill
- ai-cost-optimizerSkill
- ai-evaluation-builderSkill
- ai-latency-optimizerSkill
- ai-solution-architectSkill
- ai-workflow-builderSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- human-in-the-loop-designerSkill
- multi-agent-plannerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prompt-reviewerSkill
- adr-generatorSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- component-diagram-builderSkill
- container-diagram-builderSkill
- data-flow-analyzerSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- observability-plannerSkill
- scalability-advisorSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- system-context-builderSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- go-to-market-plannerSkill
- pricing-strategy-advisorSkill
- mcp-best-practicesSkill
- mcp-client-generatorSkill
- mcp-security-reviewSkill
- mcp-server-generatorSkill
- mcp-tool-generatorSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- analytics-instrumentation-plannerSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- epic-generatorSkill
- feature-prioritizationSkill
- north-star-metric-advisorSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- persona-generatorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- problem-statement-builderSkill
- product-discovery-assistantSkill
- product-vision-builderSkill
- sprint-plannerSkill
- story-mappingSkill
- user-story-generatorSkill
- value-proposition-designerSkill
- chunking-strategy-advisorSkill
- embedding-strategy-advisorSkill
- hybrid-search-advisorSkill
- knowledge-ingestion-plannerSkill
- rag-architecture-designerSkill
- retriever-optimizerSkill
- ai-governance-advisorSkill
- ai-threat-modelingSkill
- guardrails-builderSkill
- owasp-llm-reviewerSkill
- prompt-injection-detectorSkill
- skill-nameSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
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 34
If the idea is vague, ask clarifying questions before proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 80
Run Validation checklist before delivery.
- Distinctive: line 121
Use Lean Startup assumption mapping consistently.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Idea Validator
Purpose
Validate a product idea by mapping assumptions, assessing desirability/feasibility/viability signals, and producing a go/no-go/pivot recommendation with evidence gaps.
Input: Product idea description, target audience (if known), problem hypothesis (if any)
Output: Idea Validation Report with assumption map, scorecard, and recommendation
Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.
Workflow
Step 1: Capture the idea
Extract and restate:
- Core idea (one sentence)
- Target user segment
- Problem being solved
- Proposed solution
- Business model hypothesis (if stated)
If the idea is vague, ask clarifying questions before proceeding.
Step 2: Build assumption map
Categorize assumptions using Lean Startup framework:
| Category | Assumptions to identify |
| Desirability | Do users want this? Is the problem real and urgent? |
| Feasibility | Can we build it with available technology and skills? |
| Viability | Can we sustain a business (revenue, cost, distribution)? |
List each assumption explicitly. Mark confidence: High / Medium / Low / Unknown.
Step 3: Identify evidence
For each assumption, document:
- Existing evidence (user quotes, market data, prior experiments)
- Evidence gaps (what is unknown)
- Cheapest test to validate (interview, landing page, prototype, concierge)
Step 4: Score the idea
Apply scoring matrix (1–5 per dimension):
| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
| Problem clarity | ||
| Target user clarity | ||
| Differentiation | ||
| Market size signal | ||
| Technical feasibility | ||
| Distribution feasibility | ||
| Riskiest assumption testability |
Step 5: Generate recommendation
Based on scores and assumption map:
- Go — proceed to problem statement refinement
- Pivot — specify what to change (segment, problem, solution)
- Stop — specify why and what would change the decision
Step 6: Validate output
Run Validation checklist before delivery.
Decision Rules
| Condition | Action |
| Idea has no stated target user | Stop; request user segment definition |
| Idea solves no clear problem | Flag as solution-in-search-of-problem; recommend pivot to problem discovery |
| All assumptions are Unknown confidence | Recommend discovery experiments before any build decision |
| Score average < 2.5 | Recommend Stop or Pivot with specific changes |
| Score average ≥ 3.5 and testable risky assumptions | Recommend Go with experiment plan |
| User provides market size claims without source | Mark as unverified; add to evidence gaps |
Validation
- Idea restated in one clear sentence
- At least 3 assumptions listed across desirability/feasibility/viability
- Each assumption has confidence level and evidence gap
- Scorecard has rationale for every score
- Recommendation is Go, Pivot, or Stop (not ambiguous)
- Pivot/Stop includes specific actionable changes
- No invented market data or user quotes
Anti-patterns
- Enthusiasm without evidence — rating desirability High without any user signal.
- TAM fantasy — citing billion-dollar markets without segment focus.
- Build-first bias — recommending development before validating riskiest assumption.
- Generic personas — "everyone" or "businesses" as target user.
- Skipping viability — validating only whether users want it, not whether the business works.
Best Practices
- Use Lean Startup assumption mapping consistently.
- Prioritize the riskiest assumption for the cheapest possible test.
- Separate facts from hypotheses in the output.
- Reference comparable products only as competitive context, not as proof.
- Time-box recommended experiments (e.g. "5 customer interviews in 1 week").
Output Structure
# Idea Validation Report: [Idea Name]
## Idea Summary
[One paragraph restatement]
## Assumption Map
| # | Category | Assumption | Confidence | Evidence | Gap | Cheapest Test |
|---|----------|------------|------------|----------|-----|---------------|
## Scorecard
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Rationale |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
**Average score:** X.X / 5
## Recommendation
**Decision:** Go | Pivot | Stop
**Rationale:** [Why]
**If Pivot:** [What to change]
## Recommended Experiments
1. [Experiment] — validates assumption #N — timeline: [X days]
## Open Questions
- [ ] [Question]Next Skills
| Outcome | Recommended Skill |
| Recommendation is Go | product/problem-statement-builder |
| Recommendation is Pivot (problem unclear) | product/problem-statement-builder |
| Need deeper user understanding first | product/persona-generator |
| Ready for strategic framing | product/product-vision-builder |
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.

