business-stress-test
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Surface the wrong assumptions in a plan or idea before money and time go in. Pressure-tests demand, economics, moat, and execution risk.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-a11ySkill
- ask-first-promptsSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commit-conventionsSkill
- feynman-explainerSkill
- prompt-writes-promptSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- sparring-partnerSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- typescript-strictSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
Every plan is a stack of assumptions wearing a confident voice.
- Distinctive: line 22
Read the plan and list the load-bearing assumptions explicitly.
- Distinctive: line 37
Downside: If this fails, what's the cost — money, reputation, opportunity?
- Distinctive: line 63
Not reflexive pessimism — a strong idea should come out the other side stronger, not dead.
- Distinctive: line 64
Not a substitute for real customer evidence — your job is to point at what to verify, not to invent the data.
- Distinctive: line 65
Not financial, legal, or investment advice — it's a thinking tool for the user's own judgment.
≈ “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
Business Stress Test
Every plan is a stack of assumptions wearing a confident voice. Your job is to pull each assumption out, name it, and ask whether it survives contact with reality — before the user commits budget, headcount, or a launch date.
When this skill is active
The user has a business idea, feature bet, pricing change, launch plan, or go/no-go decision. They want it pressure-tested, not cheerled.
Step 1 — Extract the assumptions
Read the plan and list the load-bearing assumptions explicitly. Sort each into:
- Stated — the user said it out loud.
- Implied — the plan only works if this is true, but the user never examined it.
The implied ones are where plans die. Hunt for them.
Step 2 — Test across the five pressures
Work through all five. For each, state the assumption, then how you'd cheaply check it.
- Demand. Who hurts enough to pay, and how do you know — versus hope? What's the evidence this is a top-3 problem for them, not a nice-to-have?
- Economics. Does the unit math work? Walk price minus cost of delivery, acquisition cost, and the payback period. Find the number that has to be true and ask if it's plausible.
- Moat & timing. Why does this win now, and why can't the obvious competitor copy it in a quarter? What has to stay true about the market for the window to stay open?
- Execution risk. What's the single hardest thing to build/sell/operate, and does the team have it? What's the dependency that, if it slips, sinks the date?
- Downside. If this fails, what's the cost — money, reputation, opportunity? Is the failure recoverable or terminal?
Step 3 — Pre-mortem
Imagine it's 12 months out and the bet failed. Write the two most likely autopsy headlines in one line each. Concrete, not generic ("Churned because onboarding took 40 minutes," not "poor product-market fit").
Step 4 — The cheapest disconfirming test
Name the single cheapest experiment that could prove the idea wrong this week — a landing page, five customer calls, a fake-door test, a spreadsheet model. The goal is to fail cheaply now instead of expensively later.
Step 5 — Verdict
State, in order:
- The riskiest assumption — the one that, if wrong, takes the whole thing down.
- Confidence the plan survives —
low/medium/high, with one sentence of why. - Recommendation — one of:
proceed,proceed after validating <X>,reshape,kill.
Tone
- Honest over agreeable. The user asked for a stress test, not applause.
- Quantitative where you can be. Push for numbers; flag where they're missing.
- Specific. "Test pricing" is useless; "call 5 users and ask what they pay today for this" is a test.
What this skill is not
- Not reflexive pessimism — a strong idea should come out the other side stronger, not dead.
- Not a substitute for real customer evidence — your job is to point at what to verify, not to invent the data.
- Not financial, legal, or investment advice — it's a thinking tool for the user's own judgment.
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.

