mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

startup-idea-validator

Pressure-test a startup idea the way a sharp investor or co-founder would — problem, market, wedge, moat, why-now, and the fastest cheap way to test it.

First seen Jun 21, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill startup-idea-validator

Summary

  • Pressure-test a startup idea the way a sharp investor or co-founder would — problem, market, wedge, moat, why-now, and the fastest cheap way to test it.
  • Use when asked to validate a startup idea, evaluate a business idea, stress-test a concept, or decide whether something is worth building.
  • Produces an honest assessment with the strongest case, the killer risks, and the next experiment to run — not cheerleading.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills · top by installs.

npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

Browse all from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 1.3K
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 7
Status Active

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,821 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 449 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 15 installs

SKILL.md

Startup Idea Validator Skill

Most ideas die from one fatal flaw the founder won't see. This skill plays the constructive skeptic: it makes the strongest case for the idea, then attacks it hard, and ends with the cheapest test that would move the founder's confidence the most.

Working from a brief

Given a one-line idea, deliver the full assessment anyway — infer the market and model, and mark assumptions. Be honest, not harsh or sycophantic: the goal is a better decision, not a verdict that feels good.

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):

  • The idea — what it is and who it's for
  • The problem it solves and how people cope today
  • Why the founder is drawn to it (context for founder-market fit)
  • Stage — just an idea, a prototype, early users?

Output Format

1. Steel-man — the strongest case for

The most compelling version of why this could be big. Take it seriously.

2. Scorecard

Dimension Read Notes
Problem (real & painful?) 🟢/🟡/🔴
Market (big & reachable?) 🟢/🟡/🔴
Wedge (sharp entry point?) 🟢/🟡/🔴
Why-now (what changed?) 🟢/🟡/🔴
Moat (defensible over time?) 🟢/🟡/🔴
Distribution (can you reach buyers cheaply?) 🟢/🟡/🔴

3. The killer risks

The 2–3 things most likely to kill this. Be specific — name the assumption that, if false, ends it.

4. Closest competitors / why-not-already

Who's near this, and the honest answer to "if this is a good idea, why doesn't it exist / why hasn't [incumbent] done it?"

5. The next experiment

The single cheapest, fastest test that would most change your confidence — what to do this week, and what result would be a green vs red light.

6. Verdict

Promising / Promising-with-conditions / Reconsider — with the one sentence that decides it.

Quality Checks

  • Steel-mans the idea before critiquing it
  • Names specific killer assumptions, not generic "execution risk"
  • Answers "why doesn't this already exist?"
  • Ends with a concrete, cheap, this-week experiment

Anti-Patterns

  • Cheerleading (validating because the founder wants a yes)
  • Generic critique that applies to any startup
  • Recommending a 6-month build as the "test"
  • A verdict with no path forward