validate
Skill258 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill to test whether an idea is worth pursuing before building it, or to find an idea in the first place: 'is this a good idea,' 'should I build this,' 'pressure test my idea,' 'how do I know anyone wants this,' 'I don't have an idea yet,' 'do it by hand first,' 'concierge MVP,' 'go/no-go,' or 'how big is this market.' Designs the cheapest test, scores the evidence with a script, and returns a dated verdict. Not for choosing what form to build (use is-this-an-app) or for getting customers after a go (use first-customers).
63 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- joeldevz/skynex-pitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- 99Luuk/Forge-or-Scraptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- etr/groundworktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cykedev/vereinsheimtheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- vzhukovs/podman-desktop-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- aya-taleb/biz-ready-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use policy-init, create and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
open-coder-aiSkillpolicy-init
Create conformant Chock policy from request. args(request, target_path,
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillcreate
Also in 4 projects that use this
HermeticOrmusSkillclose
End-of-session ritual. Captures session state, updates auto-memory, writes a session summary, then exits the session cleanly.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Hugging FaceSkillsprint
Work on a batch of GitHub issues in parallel using Agent Teams. Creates one worktree per issue with TDD enforcement, coordinates via a lead agent, then produces stacked PRs.
Also in 4 projects that use this
qtzx06Skilleval
Evaluate trained YOLO model accuracy with mAP metrics and per-class error analysis. Identifies failure cases for targeted improvement. Use after training.
Also in 4 projects that use this
csiddhant796-blipSkillboard
Read, write, and browse the AgentHub message board for agent coordination.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions63 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- whawkinsiv/solo-founder-skills★ 260100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 62
- iPlug2/iPlug2★ 2.4ksame name
- sirius-db/sirius★ 1.1ksame name
- H-mmer/pentest-agents★ 815same name
- nudgebee/nudgebee★ 520same name
- microsoft/skills-for-copilot-studio★ 486same name
- boshu2/agentops★ 453same name
- scaccogatto/okf-skills★ 444same name
- OffchainLabs/arbitrum-docs★ 252same name
- cortex-tms/cortex-tms★ 180same name
- atelier-fashion/adlc-toolkit★ 173same name
52 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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- about-meSkill
- beautifySkill
- buildSkill
- contentSkill
- domain-nameSkill
- emailSkill
- financesSkill
- first-customersSkill
- focusSkill
- go-liveSkill
- humanizeSkill
- is-this-an-appSkill
- journeySkill
- landing-pageSkill
- legalSkill
- paymentsSkill
- pricingSkill
- retentionSkill
- secureSkill
- seoSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 52 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 23
Read the project's CLAUDE.md, README, and ABOUT-ME.md if they exist.
- Distinctive: line 37
Ask the founder to answer in one sentence each:
- Very specific: line 52
Read references/pressure-test-questions.md.
- Very specific: line 56
Read references/experiments.md.
- Very specific: line 62
If nobody else has shown they want this, the test is conversations first.
- Very specific: line 66
Only with real results in hand.
- Very specific: line 68
Run the script. The path is relative to the folder that holds this SKILL.md:
- Distinctive: line 104
Never soften the verdict. "Leaning towards maybe" wastes the brief.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 52 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
Validate
Find out whether strangers will pay for this, as cheaply as possible. The goal is to fail fast, not to confirm what the founder already believes.
find → pressure-test → design → run → verdict
(no idea (is the idea (cheapest (the founder (score the
yet?) coherent?) test of the does this) evidence)
biggest gap)Most founders want the verdict without the evidence. Route them back to the earliest stage they have not finished.
Step 0: Context
Read the project's CLAUDE.md, README, and ABOUT-ME.md if they exist. If the founder mentions an earlier brief for this idea, ask for it, and treat this run as a revisit.
Step 1: Choose the mode
| The founder says | Mode | Steps |
| "I don't have an idea yet" | find | 2, then 3 |
| "Validate this idea" (default) | full | 3 → 6 |
| "Pressure test this" | pressure-test | 3, 6 |
| "How do I test this?" | design | 4, 6 |
| "Here's what happened" / "go or no-go" | verdict | 5 → 6 |
Step 2: Find the problem (no idea yet)
Ask the founder to answer in one sentence each:
- Which groups do you belong to? Think of work, hobbies, online communities, and local groups.
- In those groups, what do people complain about again and again?
- What task do you, or people like you, dread or put off?
- What takes far too long for what it produces?
- What would you pay $100 a month to never do again?
Kill a problem early if only the founder has it, if it happens once a year, if a good tool already exists and people know about it, or if every step needs human judgment.
Pick the one problem where the founder can name a real person who has it and can reach that person. "Everyone in my field needs this" means they have not found anyone yet. Continue with Step 3.
Step 3: Pressure-test
Get the idea in 1–2 sentences and the founder's stage. If either is too vague, ask once and stop.
Read references/pressure-test-questions.md. Ask only the three questions mapped to the founder's stage. Capture the answers word for word. Mark each one: ✅ evidenced / 🟡 partial / ❌ none. Any ❌ is a gap that Step 4 must test. Do not give a verdict with a ❌ on the board.
Step 4: Design one test
Read references/experiments.md. Pick the cheapest test that closes the biggest gap. Specify all four before the founder runs anything:
- The test: conversations, landing page, fake door, pre-sale, or manual delivery
- The metric: one number
- The pass bar: set now, never after seeing the result
- The deadline: a date, usually 2–4 weeks out
If nobody else has shown they want this, the test is conversations first. Hand the founder references/interview-guide.md. A landing page cannot tell you whether a problem is real.
Step 5: Score the evidence
Only with real results in hand. Read references/scorecard.md and assign all six scores. A dimension with no evidence scores 1. If market size is unknown, use the bottom-up method in the scorecard.
Run the script. The path is relative to the folder that holds this SKILL.md:
python3 scripts/score.py \
--frequency 3 --intensity 3 --willingness 1 \
--market 3 --advantage 5 --solutions 3Take the verdict from the script, not from your own reading of the bands. The script applies the two override rules: willingness to pay of 1 caps the verdict at "One more experiment", and a high unique-advantage score never rescues a low total. Show all six numbers in the brief.
Step 6: Write the brief
# Validation: <idea>
**Date:** <YYYY-MM-DD> · **Stage:** <idea / prototype / paying customers>
## Verdict
**Build** / **One more experiment** / **Pivot the angle** / **No-go**
<2–3 plain sentences on why.>
## Pressure test
| # | Question | Answer | Evidence |
## Test run
**Test:** … · **Metric:** … · **Bar:** … · **Result:** …
## Score
<the six scores and the total, from the script>
## Next test
<the weakest dimension, and the cheapest test that would move it>
## Revisit
**<YYYY-MM-DD>**: <what to look for>Never soften the verdict. "Leaning towards maybe" wastes the brief.
Ask how the founder wants the brief saved. The default is a Markdown file in a folder the founder names. Do not choose the folder yourself. Suggest saving a No-go brief too: killed ideas come back, and the brief stops the same argument from happening twice.
Then offer the next step:
- Build: "Build" means the idea has earned a first version, and that first version is done by hand. Run the manual delivery test (
references/experiments.md, Level 5). Use pricing and first-customers to get 10 paying customers before writing code. - One more experiment: design that test. Use landing-page if it needs a page.
- Pivot the angle: re-run with a different customer or a narrower wedge.
- No-go: save the brief and return to Step 2.
Rules
- The founder's own excitement is never evidence. "I'd use this," said by the founder, is the most common false positive.
- Interest is not demand. Signups, compliments, and "I'd definitely pay" are interest. Money, time, and switching effort are demand.
- One test at a time. Three tests at once teach nothing and burn a month.
- Refusing to score is a valid output. With no evidence, the answer is "run this test first," not a scorecard built on guesses.
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.

