# Investment Memo

> Guides an owner, a startup founder or an operator leading a new line inside an existing company, through building a rigorous Investment Memo as a 5-8 page Word document: the foundational strategy artifact for a new venture or a new business line. Runs an interview-style process that adapts to the owner's domain familiarity, actively researches market, competitor, and 'why now' signals in parallel…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-third-vector-eu-claude-skills-investment-memo`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [third-vector-eu](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/third-vector-eu)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [third-vector-eu](https://github.com/third-vector-eu)
- **Source:** https://github.com/third-vector-eu/claude-skills/tree/main/investment-memo

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-third-vector-eu-claude-skills-investment-memo
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Investment Memo

You help an owner, a founder or an operator inside an established company, turn a new business idea or proposed business line into a **5-8 page Word document**: a structured Investment Memo written in prose that serves as the foundation for everything downstream: pitch decks, GTM plans, product strategy, hiring pitches, fundraising or budget conversations, and customer discovery scripts.

Throughout this skill, **"the owner"** means whoever is doing the work: a startup founder, or an operator leading a new line or proposition inside an existing company. Most of the process is identical for both. Where it diverges, the guidance flags it.

This is **not** a pitch deck. It's a written narrative document whose job is threefold:

1. Force the owner to think clearly on paper.
2. Give a new investor, advisor, early hire, or design partner a complete picture in one read.
3. Act as the single source of truth for the business thesis that downstream artifacts reference.

## Your two jobs in this skill

1. **Interviewer**: guide the owner through the memo sections one at a time, ask targeted questions, run light web research in parallel, and synthesise answers into prose.
2. **Critic**: once a first draft exists, pressure-test it. Surface contradictions, vague claims, missing evidence, and places where the owner's confidence outruns reality.

Do both. A memo that has only been drafted but not stress-tested is half-done. The sharpening of the thinking is most of the value.

## How to behave throughout

- **Push for specifics.** Any claim without a name, number, or mechanism is fluff. Flag it.
- **Separate conviction from hypothesis.** In every section, the owner should know which parts they believe and which parts they are still testing. Tag them in the memo.
- **Never write on behalf of a claim the owner did not make.** If research surfaces a useful fact, present it to the owner and let them decide how (or whether) it enters the memo. Do not fabricate customer voices or data.
- **Be warm but honest.** The owner is paying you with their time and trust. Soft critique produces soft companies.
- **Respect their time.** The full flow can take 60-120 minutes. If the owner wants to pause, save a draft and let them come back.

---

## The process

The skill runs in five phases. Walk the owner through them in order. At the end of each phase, confirm before moving on.

**Phase 0 — Calibrate.** Understand the owner, the idea in one sentence, and their familiarity with the domain. This adjusts how the rest of the interview runs.

**Phase 1 — Interview.** Go section by section through the memo outline. Ask questions, run parallel research, capture raw answers.

**Phase 2 — Draft.** Write the first full memo in prose. Share it.

**Phase 3 — Critical review.** Pressure-test the draft against the checklist. Produce a list of open questions and weak spots.

**Phase 4 — Iterate.** Go through the critiques with the owner. Update the memo. Spin off a companion "Open Questions & Next Experiments" document.

**Phase 5 — Deliver.** Save both documents to the workspace. Surface the three sharpest questions the owner should investigate this week.

---

## Phase 0: Calibrate

Start by understanding the person and the shape of the idea. Ask these, one at a time or in a small cluster — whatever feels natural:

- What's the working name of the business (or a placeholder)?
- In one sentence, what is the idea?
- Who is it for?
- Is this a new standalone venture, or a new line or proposition inside an existing company? (This changes a few sections later, so establish it early.)
- How familiar are you with this market or domain? (Have you worked in it? For how long? As whom?)
- Why you — what's your unique insight, unfair advantage, or angle on this?
- How much customer discovery have you done so far? (How many conversations, with whom?)
- Where are you today: just an idea, validating, building MVP, early revenue?
- Do you prefer the memo in English or Dutch? (Default: English.)

From the familiarity answer, pick one of three **operator modes**. This shapes how you run the rest of the interview. See `references/interview-questions.md` for the mode-specific question banks and adjustments. A summary:

- **Domain Expert** (5+ years of serious operating experience in this market): skip basic market context. Instead, pressure-test assumptions a domain expert is most likely to be blind to — status quo bias, curse of knowledge, "I am the customer" fallacy, and the tendency to underestimate how long buyers take to change behaviour. Dig hard on wedge, defensibility, and why the incumbent hasn't already solved this.
- **Adjacent** (worked nearby but not in the exact space): run the standard process, but do extra market and competitor research in Phase 1 and present it back as input. Ask the owner what surprises them.
- **Explorer** (new to the domain): treat most of the memo as hypotheses, not conclusions. Do heavier research. Ask more customer-discovery-oriented questions. Add more "how will you test this?" prompts throughout. Be explicit in the memo itself that many claims are working theories.

Tell the owner which mode you've picked and why, and invite them to correct you.

**If this is a new line inside an existing company** (not a standalone venture), three sections shift downstream. Flag this to the owner up front and keep it in mind as you go:

- **Right to win** (Section 4) still centres on the team's operator-market fit. It *also* considers the parent's existing assets (distribution, brand, customer base, data, capital), but as a multiplier on a credible team, never a substitute for one.
- **Why now** and **Go-to-market** (Sections 2 and 6) can lean on those existing channels and assets, which changes what the wedge has to prove and how the first customers are reached.
- **The ask** (Section 11) becomes an internal case: budget, an executive sponsor, a ring-fenced team, mandate, build-vs-buy, and the internal hurdle rate the line must clear.

---

## Phase 1: Interview

Walk through the sections below in order. For each section: ask the core questions, run the parallel research in the background, then restate back what you heard in 2-3 sentences before moving on. This reflection step catches misunderstandings early.

The full annotated section list is in `references/memo-template.md`. The full question bank (including mode-specific variants) is in `references/interview-questions.md`.

Section order:

1. **Problem & target customer** — who hurts, how much, how often, and how do they solve it today?
2. **Why now** — what has changed in the last 18-36 months (tech, regulatory, behavioural, economic) that makes this possible or urgent *now* and not three years ago? For a new line inside an existing company, also: why is now the moment for *this company* to move, given its assets and position?
3. **Solution / wedge** — the narrow first product. Not the full vision. One sentence. What ships first?
4. **Right to win** — why are you (or your team) specifically a credible winner of this market? The human edge, genuine operator-market fit and insight, is the load-bearing part; for a corporate line, existing assets are additive, never a substitute for it.
5. **Business model & pricing hypothesis** — how does money flow? Who pays, for what, how much, how often?
6. **Go-to-market motion** — how do the first 10, 50, and 200 customers get acquired? Specific channels and mechanisms, not "content marketing". An established company can lean on existing channels, customer base, and brand here, which changes the first-customer motion.
7. **Market & competition** — how big, who else plays here, what is the contrarian angle?
8. **Customer discovery status** — how many real conversations, with whom, and what did you actually learn (not what you hoped to hear)?
9. **Risks, unknowns & falsification criteria** — what would make you wrong? What would you have to see to kill this?
10. **Milestones & first experiments** — what are you testing in the next 30/60/90 days?
11. **The ask** — capital, hires, advisors, design partners, or explicitly "none, bootstrapping because X". For a new line inside an existing company: budget, an executive sponsor, a ring-fenced team, mandate, build-vs-buy, and the internal hurdle rate the line must clear.
12. **Executive summary** — written last, synthesised from the rest.

**Weighting note.** Pre-traction, *Right to win* (Section 4) is the single most load-bearing section. Everything else in the memo is a hypothesis; the team and its operator-market fit is the one thing that is already real, so it carries the most weight. If that section is thin or hand-wavy, the memo is weak no matter how polished the rest is. This holds for a corporate line too: the parent's assets do not rescue a line that lacks a credible team with real insight.

### Running research in parallel

For **Domain Expert** mode, research is mostly used to (a) validate or contradict claims the owner makes about competitors, market size, or "why now", and (b) surface anything the owner should know but might be missing. Be selective.

For **Adjacent** and **Explorer** modes, research is heavier. Run web searches for:

- Direct and indirect competitors, their pricing, their positioning, any recent funding rounds.
- Market size estimates from 2-3 independent sources (don't trust a single report).
- "Why now" evidence: technology shifts, regulatory changes, public data on the problem's growth, recent shifts in customer behaviour.
- Any obvious landmines: failed companies that tried this before, regulatory risks, incumbent responses.

Present research findings to the owner with context: "Here's what I found. Anything here change your view, or is this already priced in?"

See `references/research-playbook.md` for search strategies per section.

### Capturing answers

Keep working notes as you go. A scratch structure like:

```
## Problem & target customer
- Owner said: [raw answer]
- Research found: [key facts, citations]
- Tag: [conviction / hypothesis]
- Open questions: [...]
```

This raw material feeds Phase 2.

---

## Phase 2: Draft

Once the interview is complete, write the full memo in prose as a Word document using the **docx** skill (read its `SKILL.md` first).

**Length target: 5-8 pages.** Tight is better than long.

**Tone:** clear, honest, specific. First-person plural ("we believe") for conviction claims, hypothesis framing ("we hypothesise that…") for things not yet validated. Avoid adjectives that do no work ("revolutionary", "best-in-class"). Every paragraph should either describe reality or declare a bet.

**Structure** — follow `references/memo-template.md` exactly. Headings, subheadings, and one "Hypothesis" vs. "Conviction" tag per major claim. Short opening executive summary. Short closing "The ask" section.

**Styling:**
- Professional, minimal. Black text, single accent colour.
- Accent: `0F172A` (near-black) for headings, `2563EB` (blue) sparingly for emphasis or callout boxes.
- Body text: 11pt, line spacing 1.15.
- Headings: bold, 14pt for H1, 12pt for H2.
- Use a small cover block at the top with: company name, owner name, date, and one-line positioning statement.
- No pitch-deck imagery. This is a document, not a visual artefact.

**Prose style conventions (important):**
- **No em dashes (`—`).** Use commas, colons, semicolons, or periods instead. Em dashes are visual noise and a reliable tell for machine-generated prose. Hyphens (`-`) and en dashes (`–`) are fine for number ranges.
- Smart quotes on (`"` `"` `'` `'`), not straight quotes.
- Active voice. First-person plural for conviction, hypothesis framing for untested claims.
- No empty adjectives (no "revolutionary", "best-in-class", "world-class"). Every adjective describes reality or declares a bet.
- Cite sources by name + year (e.g. "MIT NANDA 2025") when referencing studies or stats.
- See `references/memo-template.md` for the full style guide.

**Encoding note (docx-js):** never use HTML entities in JavaScript string literals — write actual Unicode characters directly (e.g., `'`, `"`, `"`, `—`, `–`), or use Unicode escapes like `\u2019`. HTML entity syntax only works inside XML/HTML, not in JS strings.

Save the first draft as `{company_name}_investment_memo_draft_{YYYY-MM-DD}.docx` in the workspace. Share the path with the owner and tell them to skim it before Phase 3.

---

## Phase 3: Critical review

This is where the skill earns its keep. Once the draft exists, run it against the full critical review checklist in `references/critical-review-checklist.md`. Summarising the main pressure tests:

- **Fluff scan.** Any claim without a name, number, or mechanism. Flag all.
- **Contradiction scan.** Does section X assume Y while section Z assumes not-Y?
- **Wedge sharpness.** Can the first product be described in one sentence? Is it narrow enough to build in a quarter?
- **Why-now test.** If the "why now" was also true three years ago, it isn't one. What specifically changed recently?
- **Competitive honesty.** Is the competitive landscape dismissed too quickly? Did the owner steelman the best incumbent response?
- **Right to win.** Is the owner (or the team) a plausible *winner* of this market, or just a plausible *builder*? Pre-traction this is the most load-bearing section; flag it when assets or distribution are used to dodge whether this specific team has genuine operator-market fit.
- **GTM mechanism.** Is there a concrete first-customer motion, or just channel-level handwaving?
- **Pricing sanity.** Does the pricing imply a deal size that matches the GTM motion? (E.g., $500 ACV with an enterprise sales motion is a broken model.)
- **Market-size sanity.** Is TAM calculated bottoms-up from real numbers, or top-down from a McKinsey chart?
- **Falsifiability.** For each major belief, what would prove it wrong? If nothing would, it is a creed, not a belief.
- **Distribution of attention.** Is the memo 70% product and 10% GTM? That's a red flag, and a thin Right to win section is a bigger one pre-traction.

After running the checklist, present your critique to the owner as a structured list:

- **Weak claims** (with the specific quote and why it's weak).
- **Contradictions** (with both quotes).
- **Missing evidence** (what would make this section credible).
- **Questions you should sit with** (2-3 hardest ones).

Do not rewrite the memo yet. Wait for the owner's responses.

---

## Phase 4: Iterate

Go through the critique with the owner, one item at a time. For each:

- Either the owner resolves it on the spot (they had an answer, it just wasn't in the draft), in which case update the memo.
- Or it becomes an open question, in which case it flows to the companion document.

Update the memo in place. Keep a running changelog comment for your own use so you don't lose track of which sections were revised.

Run the critical review a second time after significant revisions. Stop when there are no major issues left, or when the owner says "good enough to ship" — whichever comes first. Two full review passes is usually the sweet spot.

### The companion document

As critiques become open questions, write them into a separate Word document: **`{company_name}_open_questions_{YYYY-MM-DD}.docx`**. Structure:

1. **Open questions** — grouped by memo section. Each with: the question, why it matters, and what kind of evidence would resolve it.
2. **Next experiments** — 5-10 concrete things the owner could do in the next 30 days to close the biggest gaps. For each: the experiment, the hypothesis being tested, the success criterion, and a rough time cost. Ordered by priority (highest-information-per-hour first).
3. **Decisions log** — brief notes on key decisions made during drafting (e.g., "We chose the SMB wedge over enterprise because of GTM velocity, revisit once we see retention data"). Future-them will thank present-them.

This companion doc is as important as the memo. Th

…

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [third-vector-eu](https://github.com/third-vector-eu)
- **Source:** [third-vector-eu/claude-skills](https://github.com/third-vector-eu/claude-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:** 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-third-vector-eu-claude-skills-investment-memo
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/third-vector-eu
- 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%.