/validate

Validate a startup idea end-to-end: search KB, run Manifest alignment, S.E.E.D. niche check, Devil's Advocate inversion, STREAM 6-layer analysis, pick stack, generate PRD.

Philosophy: Validation should be honest, not optimistic. Better to kill a bad idea in 5 minutes than waste 3 months building it. The goal is truth, not encouragement.

MCP Tools (use if available)

If MCP tools are available, prefer them over CLI:

• kb_search(query, n_results) — search knowledge base for related docs
• project_info() — list active projects with stacks
• web_search(query) — search for dead startups, competitor failures

If MCP tools are not available, fall back to Grep/Glob/WebSearch.

Steps

• Parse the idea from $ARGUMENTS. If empty, ask the user what idea they want to validate.
• Search for related knowledge:

If MCP kb_search tool is available, use it directly:

• kb_search(query="", n_results=5)

Otherwise search locally:

• Grep for idea keywords in .md files across the project and knowledge base

Summarize any related documents found (existing ideas, frameworks, opportunities).

• Deep research (optional): Check if research.md exists for this idea (look in docs/ or the current working directory).
• If it exists: read it and use findings to inform STREAM analysis and PRD filling (competitors, pain points, market size).
• If it does not exist: ask the user if they want to run deep research first. If yes, tell them to run /research and come back. If no, continue without it.
• Manifest Alignment Check (with teeth):

Consult references/manifest-checklist.md (bundled with this skill) for the full checklist of 9 principles and 6 red flags. Check the idea against EACH one. This is not a formality — a manifest violation is a soft kill flag.

For each principle, assess: comply or violate? If violating — cite the specific principle.

Key principles (see checklist for details):

• Privacy-first / offline-first
• One pain -> one feature -> launch
• AI as foundation, not feature
• Speed over perfection (MVP in days)
• Antifragile architecture
• Money without overheating
• Against exploitation
• Subscription fatigue
• Creators, not robots

Scoring: 0 violations = perfect, 1-2 = caution, 3+ = strong KILL signal.

Be honest. If the idea conflicts with principles, SAY SO. Don't rationalize alignment.

• S.E.E.D. niche check (quick, before deep analysis):

Score the idea on four dimensions:

• S — Searchability: Can you rank? Forums/Reddit in top-10, few fresh giants, no video blocks?
• E — Evidence: Real pain with real quotes/URLs? Or hypothetical?
• E — Ease: MVP in 1-2 days on existing stack? No heavy dependencies?
• D — Demand: Long-tail keywords exist? Clear monetization path?

Kill flags (stop immediately if any):

• Top-10 SERP dominated by media giants or encyclopedias
• Fresh competing content (<60 days old) already covers it well
• No evidence of real user pain (only founder's hypothesis)
• MVP needs >1 week even on best-fit stack

If any kill flag triggers → recommend KILL with explanation. Don't proceed to STREAM.

• Devil's Advocate (Inversion):

> "Flip the question: how would you guarantee failure?" — STREAM Layer 3 (Inversion)

This step is mandatory — before scoring positively, actively try to kill the idea. The goal is to find reasons NOT to build it.

6a. Inversion — 5 ways this fails: List 5 specific, concrete ways this idea could fail. Not generic risks ("competition") but specific scenarios with evidence:

• What specific competitor could crush this? (name, funding, strategy)
• What user behavior makes this unviable? (churn data, willingness to pay)
• What regulatory/legal event kills this? (specific laws, precedents)
• What technical limitation blocks this? (latency, cost, accuracy)
• What market dynamic makes the "opportunity" a mirage?

6b. Dead startup search: Search for startups that tried something similar and failed or pivoted:

• WebSearch: "" startup failed OR pivoted OR shut down
• WebSearch: "" pivot OR layoffs OR shutdown
• If any found: what killed them? Does the same risk apply here?

6c. Unit economics stress test (if research.md exists): Recalculate unit economics with PESSIMISTIC assumptions:

| Metric | Optimistic | Realistic | Pessimistic | |--------|-----------|-----------|-------------| | Monthly churn | 10% | 30-40% (industry data) | 50%+ (first year) | | Average lifetime | 10 months | 2.5-3 months | 1.5 months | | LTV | (price × 10) | (price × 2.5) | (price × 1.5) | | CAC | <$20 | $30-50 | $50-80 | | LTV:CAC | >3:1 | ~1:1 | <1:1 (UNPROFITABLE) |

If pessimistic LTV:CAC < 1 → flag as critical risk.

6d. "Empty market" test: If the analysis found an "empty" market segment or pricing gap, ask:

• Why is it empty? Is it opportunity or graveyard?
• Search for companies that tried this exact positioning and failed
• Is the segment empty because demand doesn't exist at that price point?

6e. Manifest conflict honesty: Re-check findings from step 4. For each manifest violation found, state the conflict clearly: "This requires X, which violates principle Y because Z." Do NOT rationalize conflicts away. The user decides whether to proceed — not the skill.

• STREAM analysis: Walk the idea through all 6 layers.

Consult references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill) for the complete 6-layer framework with questions per layer.

For EACH layer, provide BOTH positive and negative assessment. Use the actual framework questions:

• Layer 1 (Scope): Map!=Territory, Simplicity, Boundaries — what assumptions are unproven?
• Layer 2 (Time): Entropy, Lindy — will this exist in 5 years?
• Layer 3 (Route): Inversion (use Devil's Advocate findings), Second-Order Effects — effects of effects?
• Layer 4 (Stakes): Asymmetry, Antifragility — real risk/reward with pessimistic numbers
• Layer 5 (Audience): Reputation, Network — deposit or withdrawal?
• Layer 6 (Meta): Mortality, Balance — worth finite time? Aligns with mission?

Scoring rules:

• Each layer scored 1-10
• If Devil's Advocate found critical issues, the affected layer score MUST be reduced
• If Manifest alignment has violations, Layer 6 (Meta) score MUST be reduced
• Final score = weighted average (Meta and Stakes weighted 1.5x)
• Stack selection: Auto-detect from research data, then confirm or ask.

Auto-detection rules (from research.md product_type field or idea keywords):

• product_type: ios → ios-swift
• product_type: android → kotlin-android
• product_type: web + mentions AI/ML → nextjs-supabase (or nextjs-ai-agents)
• product_type: web + landing/static → astro-static
• product_type: web + content site + needs SSR for some pages (CDN data, transcripts, dynamic) → astro-hybrid
• product_type: web (default) → nextjs-supabase
• product_type: api → python-api
• product_type: cli + Python keywords → python-ml
• product_type: cli + JS/TS keywords → nextjs-supabase (monorepo)
• Edge/serverless keywords → cloudflare-workers

If auto-detected with high confidence, state the choice and proceed. If ambiguous (e.g., could be web or mobile), ask via AskUserQuestion with the top 2-3 options. If MCP project_info is available, show user's existing stacks as reference.

• Generate PRD: Create a PRD document at docs/prd.md in the current project directory. Use a kebab-case project name derived from the idea.

PRD must pass Definition of Done:

• [ ] Problem statement ≥ 30 words (who suffers, when, why now)
• [ ] ICP + JTBD — target segment + 2-3 jobs-to-be-done
• [ ] 3-5 features, each with measurable acceptance criteria
• [ ] 3-5 KPIs with units (daily/weekly) and target values
• [ ] Kill/Iterate/Scale thresholds for each KPI
• [ ] 3-5 risks with mitigation plans
• [ ] Honest Assessment section (from Devil's Advocate step)
• [ ] Unit economics: optimistic AND pessimistic (both columns)
• [ ] Dead startup precedents (who tried this and failed?)
• [ ] Manifest conflicts (explicit list of principle violations)
• [ ] Tech stack with key packages
• [ ] Architecture principles (SOLID, DRY, KISS, schemas-first)
• [ ] Evidence-first — numbers/claims have source URLs (from research.md if available)
• Output summary:
• Idea name and one-liner
• S.E.E.D. score (S/E/E/D each rated low/medium/high)
• Manifest alignment (X/9 principles met, list violations)
• Two scores:
• Optimistic score (0-10): best-case assumptions
• Realistic score (0-10): pessimistic unit economics, real churn, funded competitors
• Devil's Advocate top finding (the single strongest reason NOT to build)
• Key risk and key advantage
• Path to generated PRD
• "If I'm wrong about..." — state the single assumption that, if wrong, changes the verdict
• Recommended next action (one of):
• /research — if evidence is weak, get data first
• /scaffold — if realistic score ≥ 7, build it
• Fake-Door Test — if realistic score 5-7, spend $20 on a landing stub before coding
• KILL — if realistic score < 5 or kill flags triggered
• PIVOT — if the idea has merit but current angle fails (suggest specific pivot)

Important

• Do NOT skip the Devil's Advocate step (step 6). It is mandatory.
• Do NOT skip reading references/manifest-checklist.md and references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill). They contain the actual checklists.
• Quality and honesty are more important than speed. Take your time on steps 4, 6, and 7.
• A KILL recommendation is a valid and valuable outcome. It saves months of wasted effort.

When to use

• Before building anything non-trivial
• After /research or /swarm to score and generate PRD
• When deciding between multiple ideas (run on each, compare realistic scores)
• When friends ask for feedback on their startup (be honest, not nice)

Common Issues

S.E.E.D. kill flag triggered

Cause: Idea fails basic niche viability (SERP dominated, no evidence, MVP too complex). Fix: This is by design — kill flags save time. Consider pivoting the idea or running /research for deeper evidence.

No research.md found

Cause: Skipped /research step. Fix: Skill asks if you want to research first. For stronger PRDs, run /research before /validate.

Stack auto-detection wrong

Cause: Ambiguous product type (could be web or mobile). Fix: Skill asks via AskUserQuestion when ambiguous. Specify product type explicitly in the idea description.

Score seems too high

Cause: Confirmation bias — you found evidence FOR and stopped looking. Fix: Devil's Advocate step is now mandatory. If you skipped it, the score is invalid. Re-run with full inversion.

Manifest conflicts rationalized away

Cause: The idea is exciting but conflicts with principles. Fix: State conflicts explicitly. "This violates X because Y" is more useful than silence. The user decides whether to proceed — not the skill.