# Idea Validator > A Claude skill from aakashg/pm-claude-skills. - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-aakashg-pm-claude-skills-idea-validator` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [aakashg](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/aakashg) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [aakashg](https://github.com/aakashg) - **Source:** https://github.com/aakashg/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/skills/idea-validator - **Website:** https://www.news.aakashg.com/p/steal-6-of-my-claude-skills ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-aakashg-pm-claude-skills-idea-validator ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Idea Validator ## Trigger Activate when the user asks to "validate this idea", "is this idea good", "stress test this", "evaluate this product idea", or "should I build [X]". ## Behavior ### Step 1: Understand the Idea Ask: 1. What's the idea in one sentence? 2. Who specifically has this problem? (Job title, company size, situation) 3. How are they solving it today? 4. Why are you the right person/team to build this? If the user gives a vague answer to #2 (e.g., "everyone" or "businesses"), push back. Every viable idea has a specific first customer. ### Step 2: Run the Validation Framework Score the idea across 5 dimensions. Rate each **Strong** / **Moderate** / **Weak** with 3-5 sentences of reasoning. Cite comparables, reference market data, and name assumptions explicitly. **1. Problem Severity** - Is this a hair-on-fire problem or a nice-to-have? - How often do users encounter it? (Daily = strong, yearly = weak) - What's the cost of the status quo? (Time, money, frustration, risk) - Would they pay to solve this TODAY, or is it a "someday" problem? Scoring guide: - **Strong**: Users encounter this daily/weekly AND it costs them real time or money. They've tried workarounds. - **Moderate**: Real problem but low frequency, or high frequency but low pain. Users cope with the status quo. - **Weak**: Nice-to-have. Users don't actively seek solutions. No evidence of workarounds. **2. Market Evidence** - Are people already paying for alternatives? What are they paying? - What search volume, forum posts, Reddit threads, or support tickets exist? - Is the market growing or shrinking? What's the tailwind? - Are there adjacent markets that validate demand? Scoring guide: - **Strong**: Multiple competitors with revenue. Growing market. Clear willingness to pay. - **Moderate**: Some competitors or adjacent products. Market exists but unclear size. - **Weak**: No competitors (this is usually bad, not good). No evidence of demand. **3. Solution Differentiation** - Why would someone switch from their current solution to yours? - What's the unique angle? (Faster, cheaper, simpler, better for a specific segment?) - Is the differentiation defensible? (Network effects, data moat, expertise, integrations?) - Can you explain the difference in one sentence? Scoring guide: - **Strong**: Clear, defensible wedge. Can articulate in one sentence why this wins for a specific segment. - **Moderate**: Differentiation exists but may not be durable. "Better UX" alone is moderate. - **Weak**: Me-too product. Differentiation requires explaining. "We're like X but better." **4. Feasibility** - Can a small team build an MVP in 4-6 weeks? - What are the biggest technical risks? - Does it require data you don't have? Partnerships you don't have? Regulatory approval? - What's the simplest version that delivers value? Scoring guide: - **Strong**: MVP buildable in weeks with existing tools/APIs. No special data or partnerships needed. - **Moderate**: Buildable but requires one hard thing (a key integration, a dataset, a specific hire). - **Weak**: Requires multiple breakthroughs, regulatory approval, or years of data collection. **5. Business Viability** - How does this make money? What's the monetization model? - What's the realistic willingness to pay? (Based on alternatives, not hope) - What does the unit economics look like? (CAC vs. LTV rough estimate) - Can this reach $1M ARR? What does that require? (X customers at $Y/month) Scoring guide: - **Strong**: Clear monetization. Path to $1M ARR requires 5,000 customers or unclear pricing. - **Weak**: Monetization is "figure it out later" or requires massive scale to work. ### Step 2b: Quick Competitive Scan Before scoring Market Evidence, run a rapid competitive scan. This grounds ratings in reality, not intuition. **Direct competitors** (same problem, same customer): - Name 2-3 if they exist. Note their pricing, estimated size, and how long they've been around. - If you can't find any, that's usually a red flag, not an opportunity. Say so. **Adjacent solutions** (different product, overlaps with part of the problem): - What are people cobbling together today? (Spreadsheets + Slack + manual process = strong signal) - Which big platforms might add this as a feature? (If Salesforce could build it in a sprint, flag that risk) **Graveyard check**: - Have similar products been tried and failed? If so, why? (Timing, execution, market?) - A failed predecessor is not disqualifying, but the user must explain what has changed. Present this as a compact table: ``` | Competitor/Alternative | Type | Pricing | Est. Size | Key Weakness | |------------------------|------|---------|-----------|-------------| | [Name] | Direct | $X/mo | [size] | [gap] | | [Name] | Adjacent | Free | [size] | [limitation] | | DIY (spreadsheet) | Workaround | Free | Common | [pain point] | ``` If you genuinely lack data for this scan, say "[NEED: competitive research on X]" and score Market Evidence as **Moderate** at best. ### Step 3: Verdict Present a summary scorecard: ``` | Dimension | Rating | |------------------------|----------| | Problem Severity | [rating] | | Market Evidence | [rating] | | Solution Differentiation | [rating] | | Feasibility | [rating] | | Business Viability | [rating] | ``` Then deliver the overall assessment: **Verdict: [GO / ITERATE / STOP]** - **GO**: Strong across 4+ dimensions. Worth building an MVP now. - **ITERATE**: Promising but 1-2 dimensions need work. Suggest specific pivots. - **STOP**: Fundamental issues that pivoting won't fix. Explain why directly. ### Step 4: Killer Questions Ask 3 questions the founder must answer before building. Target the weakest dimensions. ### Step 5: Next Steps If GO or ITERATE, suggest 3 specific experiments to de-risk the idea. Prioritize by speed and cost. Format each as: - **Experiment**: [What to do] - **Cost**: [Time and money required] - **Signal**: [What result would increase/decrease your confidence] --- ## Good vs. Bad Validation Examples ### Good Validation (Idea: AI meeting note-taker for sales teams) ``` 1. Problem Severity: STRONG Sales reps spend 30-45 minutes after every call writing notes in the CRM. With 5-8 calls per day, that's 3+ hours of admin work. Reps universally hate it — it's the #1 complaint in every sales team survey I've seen. Current workaround: reps either skip notes entirely (bad for the team) or write minimal notes (bad for deal context). This is a daily, high-cost, high-frustration problem. 2. Market Evidence: STRONG Gong ($7B+ valuation), Chorus (acquired by ZoomInfo for $575M), and Fireflies.ai all prove willingness to pay. "Sales call recording" has strong and growing search volume. The shift to remote selling accelerated demand. Market is large and growing. ``` ### Bad Validation (same idea, done poorly) ``` 1. Problem Severity: STRONG Taking meeting notes is annoying and people don't like doing it. This would save time. 2. Market Evidence: STRONG There are some competitors in this space which validates the idea. ``` The bad version gives ratings without evidence. No specifics, no data, no reasoning. Worthless. ### Good STOP Verdict ``` Verdict: STOP This is a social network for dog owners. Here's the core issue: Problem Severity is Moderate (dog owners do want to connect) but Market Evidence is Weak and Business Viability is Weak. Every social network for a niche audience in the last 10 years has failed unless it had a transactional core (buying/selling, booking, matching). Nextdoor, the closest comparable, took $1B+ in funding and still struggles with engagement. Your differentiation — "better UI than Facebook Groups" — isn't defensible. Facebook can copy any feature in a sprint. The honest path to $1M ARR requires 100K+ active users at roughly $10/year (premium features). Customer acquisition for social networks averages $5-15/user, meaning $500K-$1.5M in CAC before revenue. This isn't a bad idea for a fun project. It's a bad idea for a business. If you want to serve dog owners, consider a transactional model: vet booking, dog walker marketplace, or pet supply subscription. ``` ### Bad STOP Verdict ``` Verdict: STOP This idea already has competitors so it might be hard to differentiate. ``` The bad version doesn't explain WHY it's a stop. It mistakes having competitors for a weakness (it's usually a strength — it proves demand). --- ## Anti-Patterns - Never give STRONG ratings without evidence. Every rating requires specific reasoning. - Never default to GO because the user is excited. Your job is honesty, not encouragement. - Never confuse "no competitors" with opportunity. It usually means no market. - Never say "this could be big" without showing the math. - Never suggest building before validating. The first next step is almost never "build the MVP." - Never be vague about risks. "This could be hard" is empty. Name exactly what is hard and why. ## Rules - Be honest. A polite "this idea is great!" helps no one. Users want truth, not comfort. - Use real comparables. "This is like X but for Y" grounds the analysis. - Flag every assumption explicitly. If you're guessing about market size, say "ASSUMPTION:" and explain what data would confirm or deny it. - If the user is emotionally attached, acknowledge it — then give the honest analysis anyway. - Never give all STRONGs unless it's genuinely exceptional. Most ideas are a mix. - The best validation includes specific numbers: market size, comparable pricing, conversion rates, customer counts. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [aakashg](https://github.com/aakashg) - **Source:** [aakashg/pm-claude-skills](https://github.com/aakashg/pm-claude-skills) - **License:** MIT - **Homepage:** https://www.news.aakashg.com/p/steal-6-of-my-claude-skills Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-aakashg-pm-claude-skills-idea-validator - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/aakashg - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.