# Startup Audit > > - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-sorawit-w-agent-skills-startup-audit` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [sorawit-w](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sorawit-w) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [sorawit-w](https://github.com/sorawit-w) - **Source:** https://github.com/sorawit-w/agent-skills/tree/main/skills/startup-audit ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-sorawit-w-agent-skills-startup-audit ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Startup Audit Read an already-built product and give a fast, code-grounded **Continue / Pivot / Kill** triage call. Ingest the codebase (and optionally a live URL), infer the business model **into a Lean Canvas**, diff coded reality against the claimed story, and ship a self-contained interactive HTML dossier that opens with the verdict. This skill is a **fast triage, not a deep adversarial verdict.** Its Stage 2 is a single-pass per-lens findings sweep — no rebuttal round — so the verdict is an honest *first read*, not a grilled one. For a consequential call (especially **Kill or Pivot**), the dossier points to `startup-grill` for the adversarial confirmation. Every claim is tiered by confidence and pinned to a provenance pointer; overclaiming is the cardinal sin. **The verdict is opinion, not advice** — the disclaimer ships with every run. A pure-diligence dossier (evidence only, **no verdict**) is available on request — see Phase 0 mode detection. --- ## STOP — When NOT to use this skill Hand off — do not run the audit — if any of these apply: - **The product doesn't exist yet** (idea / pre-build) → use `startup-launch-kit` or `validation-canvas`. There is no codebase to read; this skill would have nothing to infer from. - **The product exists, but the user wants the full 5-artifact kit** (brand → canvas → RAT → deck → grill), not a fast verdict → use `startup-launch-kit`. This skill produces only the Continue/Pivot/Kill triage; the kit is the full-pipeline path (and it reuses this skill's `mode=diligence` as its code-reader — see Cross-Skill Integration). The split is by **output**: want the verdict → here; want the kit → there. - **The user wants a DEEP adversarial verdict** on belief artifacts (a Lean Canvas or pitch deck), or wants to **confirm a consequential Kill/Pivot** this skill flagged → use `startup-grill`. This skill gives the *fast code-grounded triage*; grill gives the heavier *3-round adversarial verdict* on text artifacts. They are siblings split by **input** (built code/URL vs belief artifacts) and **rigor** (triage vs adversarial). - **The user wants deep UI/UX review** of an AI feature → use `ai-ux-review` (and `ai-eval-review` for the eval layer). This skill *delegates* the UI/UX layer to those skills rather than rebuilding it. - **The user wants to audit a SKILL.md's rule adherence** → use `skill-evaluator`. Different "audit" — that one reads skill text, this one reads a product. **Bright-line rule:** if there is no built artifact to read (no repo, no live URL), this is not the skill — pre-build work routes to `startup-launch-kit`. If the user wants the *deep adversarial* verdict on a canvas/deck, that's `startup-grill`. **Redirect discipline.** When the STOP gate fires and you route to `startup-grill` or `team-composer`, describe the *kind of lens* needed — don't coin role tags. The canonical persona catalog is `skills/team-composer/references/role-personas.md`; defer naming specific roles to those skills. --- ## Skill Boundaries | Request | Skill | |---|---| | "Grill my startup from the codebase / repo / URL" | `startup-audit` (this skill) | | "Should I continue, pivot, or kill — from the code?" | `startup-audit` | | "Score my built product / does my code match my pitch?" | `startup-audit` | | "Grill my pitch deck / Lean Canvas (deep adversarial)" | `startup-grill` | | "Confirm the Kill/Pivot this audit flagged" | `startup-grill` | | "Build the full kit from my repo (not just a verdict)" | `startup-launch-kit` (reuses this skill as its code-reader) | | "Validate my idea / build my lean canvas (pre-build)" | `validation-canvas` / `startup-launch-kit` | | "Review my AI feature's UX" | `ai-ux-review` | | "Audit my eval setup" | `ai-eval-review` | | "Audit whether my SKILL.md rules land" | `skill-evaluator` | The split with `startup-grill` is **input + rigor**, not evidence-vs-verdict: this skill reads a **built artifact** and gives a **fast triage** verdict; grill reads **belief artifacts** and gives a **deep adversarial** verdict. When this skill returns a Kill or Pivot, it recommends grill for the heavier confirmation — that's a handoff, not a boundary the user has to manage. --- ## What this skill produces Every run produces files inside the resolved audit root (see Phase 0 for path resolution; default `docs/audit/` for solo runs, `docs/startup-kit/audit/` when invoked under the kit root): 1. **`startup-audit.html`** — the single self-contained interactive dossier. In **default (verdict) mode** it opens with the **Continue / Pivot / Kill** verdict + Red/Amber/Green band + the disclaimer, then the evidence. In **diligence-only mode** the verdict section is omitted (evidence only). Format + template: `references/dossier-html-template.md`. 2. **`startup-audit.md`** — canonical, editable Markdown mirror of the dossier. 3. **`inferred-canvas.md`** — the inferred Lean Canvas using `validation-canvas`'s exact headings, every field carrying a provenance pointer + confidence tier. **The handoff bridge (read carefully — this is where the chain connects).** Downstream skills do **not** read `inferred-canvas.md`: `startup-grill` and `pitch-deck` grep `/validation-canvas.md`, and `riskiest-assumption-test` reads its own `assumption-test-plan.md`. So `inferred-canvas.md` is this skill's **evidence artifact**, not an auto-consumed pipeline input. The bridge is the **offer-to-seed** step (Phase 2): if no founder `validation-canvas.md` exists, this skill offers to seed one — and *that seeded file* is what grill consumes when the user takes a Kill/Pivot for confirmation. For `riskiest-assumption-test`, the handoff is a **pointer**: the dossier recommends running RAT on the `unknown` blocks. State this honestly — do not imply an automatic feed that isn't wired. Existing files from prior sessions are appended-to / re-rendered, never silently overwritten. **Never overwrite a founder-authored `validation-canvas.md`** — see Phase 2. --- ## Phase 0: Path resolution + mode + dependency pre-flight **Resolve the audit root** once, in this precedence order: 1. **Explicit `output_dir` arg** → use as-is. 2. **`STARTUP_KIT_DOCS_ROOT` env var set** → `${STARTUP_KIT_DOCS_ROOT}/audit/`. 3. **`docs/startup-kit/` exists** → `docs/startup-kit/audit/` (surface the smart-default notice: *"Writing to `docs/startup-kit/audit/`. Set `STARTUP_KIT_DOCS_ROOT=./docs` to write standalone instead."*). 4. **Solo fallback** → `docs/audit/`. Sibling reads (`/`, `/`) resolve as siblings of the audit root, matching `startup-grill`'s chain. **Mode detection.** Default mode emits the verdict. Switch to **diligence-only mode** (evidence dossier, no verdict / no score / no disclaimer-as-opinion) when the user asks for it — phrases like "diligence only", "evidence only", "no verdict", "just the dossier / no opinion", or an explicit `mode=diligence` arg. Record which mode ran; the dossier states it. **Dependency pre-flight (fail loud).** Before doing any work, check that the **required** sibling skills are present (see Dependencies). If a required reference is missing, **refuse with a clear message** — do not silently degrade: > *"`startup-audit` requires `team-composer`, `validation-canvas`, and > `riskiest-assumption-test` to be installed (it reads their reference files and > writes artifacts they consume). One or more is missing — install the full > agent-skills plugin, not just this skill."* **Capability gate (degrade with notice).** Detect optional runtime capabilities and pick the lane; record which lane ran so the dossier can state it: - **SocratiCode MCP** present (`mcp__socraticode__codebase_*`) → use it for the semantic map. Absent → glob/grep fallback over high-signal files. - **WebFetch / Playwright** present AND user supplied a URL AND URL fetch is explicitly opted-in → fetch the live surface. Absent / not opted-in → codebase-only; note the URL was skipped. **If a fetch is attempted but fails** (timeout, auth wall, error) → fall back to codebase-only, record the failure in the lane note, and continue — a failed URL fetch never blocks the audit. --- ## Phase 1: Signal extraction (Stage 1a) **Goal:** sweep the codebase for deterministic business signal. This is a structured extraction, not a judgment call — precision lives here. Apply `references/signal-extraction.md` end-to-end. Detect the ecosystem (JS/TS, Python, or generic fallback) and run the matching extractors over the universal source taxonomy: **dependency manifests · data model / schema · routes / pages · auth & tenancy · `.env(.example)` · money code · README / docs claims (+ roadmap markers) · commit recency / contributor count.** **Secret-redaction rule (hard).** Extract key *names / presence* only — never values. A `STRIPE_SECRET_KEY` entry in `.env.example` is signal that Stripe is wired; its value (if ever present) must never be read into any artifact. If a real secret is encountered, record only "" and move on. Output of this phase is a structured **signal set** (internal), each signal tagged with its source file/path — that tag becomes the provenance pointer in Phase 2. --- ## Phase 2: Inference (Stage 1b) → inferred canvas + build-vs-claim diff **Goal:** turn signals into an inferred business model, tiered by confidence, and surface the gap against the claimed story. Apply `references/inference-mapping.md`: 1. **Infer into the nine Lean Canvas blocks** using `validation-canvas`'s **exact** headings: `### Problem`, `### Customer Segments`, `### Unique Value Proposition`, `### Solution`, `### Channels`, `### Revenue Streams`, `### Cost Structure`, `### Key Metrics`, `### Unfair Advantage`. (These headings are grepped by `startup-grill` and `riskiest-assumption-test` — match byte-for-byte.) 2. **Derive the confidence tier from provenance — do not judge it:** - **observed** — a deterministic signal is directly present (e.g. an `invoice.paid` webhook handler + a populated plan table). - **inferred** — reasoned from a pattern (e.g. a Stripe dep + a `Subscription` entity → probably recurring SaaS). - **unknown** — no signal. The block renders empty. - **Hard gate: `provenance == null` → the field cannot render as a claim.** No provenance pointer, no claim. Unknowns stay unknown; they are not filled by reasoning about the market. 3. **Build-vs-claim diff (the headline evidence).** Contrast the inferred (coded) model against the *claimed* story (README / marketing copy / URL). Run it **bidirectionally**: claimed-but-not-built AND built-but-not-claimed. Parse README roadmap markers ("Future", "Coming soon", "Roadmap") — a feature the tagline sells but the roadmap marks "Future" is a diff finding. **Write `inferred-canvas.md`** to the audit root. The blocks code evidences poorly — typically `Problem`, `Unique Value Proposition`, `Unfair Advantage` — render as `unknown` and become the **`riskiest-assumption-test` handoff** (these are exactly the beliefs a built artifact can't prove). **Thin / greenfield repos are a valid result, not a failure.** A sparse repo (prototype, few deps, no schema) legitimately yields a mostly-`unknown` canvas. Still run the audit — report the unknowns honestly, **downgrade the verdict's confidence accordingly** (see Phase 3), and route the unknowns to `riskiest-assumption-test`. Do NOT pad the canvas with market reasoning to make it look complete; that trips the provenance gate. Yield scales with repo maturity. **Never overwrite a founder-authored `validation-canvas.md`.** Write to the separate `inferred-canvas.md`. If no `validation-canvas.md` exists at the canvas root, **offer to seed one** from the inferred canvas (the founder can then correct the machine's inference) — but only on explicit confirmation. **Orchestrated carve-out (no double-prompt):** when invoked with `mode=diligence` by `startup-launch-kit` (existing-project mode), the founder's Phase 0.3 opt-in ("read the code and pre-fill the canvas") *is* the seed confirmation — write the seed directly, do **not** re-prompt. Standalone invocation still requires the explicit confirmation above. **Seed-header contract (load-bearing — do not drop).** The seeded `validation-canvas.md` MUST retain the machine-inferred provenance header from `inferred-canvas.md` verbatim (the full blockquote in `references/inference-mapping.md`), plus each block's `_(TIER — provenance)_` tag. The header opens with the **detection marker** — the HTML comment `` — which `validation-canvas` keys on to run its tiered confirm (observed glance / inferred verify / unknown interview) instead of treating the seed as founder truth. This marker is the single source of truth (defined in `references/inference-mapping.md`): single-line, invisible when rendered, and absent from any founder-authored canvas. `validation-canvas` and `startup-launch-kit/references/state-detection.md` detect the seed by matching this exact comment. If you ever change the marker, update both readers in lockstep — a seed whose marker no longer matches reads as a founder-authored canvas downstream and silently launders machine guesses into belief (the exact failure the provenance gate prevents). This matters most when `startup-launch-kit` drives the seed in existing-project mode. --- ## Phase 3: Audit panel + verdict synthesis (Stage 2) **Goal:** apply domain-aware lenses to the inferred canvas + diff, then synthesize a **fast triage verdict**. This is a **single-pass per-lens findings pass, NOT a multi-round debate.** The adversarial opening/rebuttal/synthesis panel is `startup-grill`'s job — do not rebuild it here. The verdict here is an honest *first read* derived from that single pass; consequential calls route to grill for confirmation. Apply `references/audit-panel-resolution.md`, then `references/verdict-and-scoring.md`: 1. **Pre-fill team-composer Phase 1 signals from the inference** (not from a brief): tenancy model → `audience`; compliance configs / regulated entities → `is_regulated`; ML/LLM deps → `is_data_intensive` + AI-feature flag; i18n / locale dirs → `is_international`; voting / nudge / gamification code → `involves_behavior_design`; commit history / maturity → `stage`. 2. **Resolve the lens panel** using the selection algorithm in `audit-panel-resolution.md`, which **reads personas from `skills/team-composer/references/role-personas.md`** (capability-gated; generic lens fallback if absent). Do **not** invoke `team-composer` as a sub-skill — read its catalog, mirror `startup-grill`'s read-then-select pattern. 3. **Each composed lens emits exactly one findings block** against the inferred canvas + diff — focused, evidence-anchored, no debate. Every finding cites the canvas field / diff row / signal it rests on, and is tagged with a `finding-id` (F1, F2, …) and a severity×fixability per `verdict-and-scoring.md`. 4. **AI features detected** → add the AI-safety lens AND route to the conditional skills `ai-ux-review` (human-AI design + integrity surface) and `ai-eval-review` (eval rigor). If they run, embed/link their `docs/ai-ux/*.html` outputs into the dossier rather than re-assessing AI quality here. 5. **Options the evidence suggests.** Generate grounded options (including pivot directions). **Hard gate: every option must cite the finding that motivates it — no citation, the option is suppressed.** When the verdict is Pivot, these options ARE the code-grounded pivot directions. 6. **Verdict synthesis (default mode only; skipped in diligence-only mode).** Per `references/verdict-and-scoring.md`, derive from the tagged findings: - a **headline verdict — Continue / Continue-with-conditions / Pivot / Kill** (the headline carries the recommendation; never let the band stand in for it); - a **Red / Amber / Green** heat band (coarse, layered under the headline); - an **evidence-confide … ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [sorawit-w](https://github.com/sorawit-w) - **Source:** [sorawit-w/agent-skills](https://github.com/sorawit-w/agent-skills) - **License:** MIT 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:** yes - **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-sorawit-w-agent-skills-startup-audit - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sorawit-w - 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%.