Skill: jk-0001/idea-validation (version 0.1.0)

--- name: idea-validation description: Validate a business idea before investing time or money. Use whenever a solopreneur has a raw idea and needs a structured process to stress-test it against reality — covering problem definition, demand evidence, competitive context, customer discovery, riskiest-assumption testing, and a scored go/no-go decision. Trigger on phrases like "validate my idea", "is this worth building", "should I pursue this", "test my business idea", "does this idea have legs". --- # Idea Validation ## Overview Kill bad ideas fast, confirm good ones cheaply. Walk through every phase in order. Each phase has a kill-check — if the idea fails, document why and stop before wasting further time. --- ## Phase 1: Problem Definition Everything starts here. A vague problem = a vague business. **Answer these four questions precisely:** 1. **Who** — The exact person. Not "small businesses." Something like "freelance graphic designers juggling 3-8 client projects at once." 2. **What** — The specific painful moment. "They spend 4+ hours/week manually exporting deliverables and coordinating revision feedback via email chains." 3. **Why it hurts** — The real cost: time lost, revenue lost, stress, missed deadlines, damaged relationships. Quantify where possible. 4. **What they do now** — Their current workaround. This IS your real competition — not just competitor apps, but the status quo itself. **Kill check:** Cannot answer all four concretely → problem is not well-defined. Do more discovery first. --- ## Phase 2: Demand Signal Gathering Prove real people care. Do not rely on assumptions or polite friends. **Check 3+ of these signal sources:** | Signal | Where | Positive Signal | |---|---|---| | Search volume | Google Trends, Ubersuggest free | Stable or growing volume on core problem keywords | | Forum pain | Reddit, HN, Slack/Discord | Threads with 10+ comments describing this exact pain | | Existing tool gaps | G2, App Store reviews | Tools solving adjacent problems with reviews citing the gap you'd fill | | Job postings | LinkedIn, Indeed | Roles that exist only because this problem is expensive to solve manually | | Social venting | Twitter/X search, LinkedIn | People publicly complaining about this unprompted | **Kill check:** Fewer than 3 positive signals → problem may not be painful enough. Pivot or kill. --- ## Phase 3: Solution Fit Check Pressure-test whether your proposed solution actually solves the problem well enough to build a business on. 1. **10x rule:** Is your solution 10x better (not 10%) than the current workaround in speed, cost, ease, or quality? Marginally better won't make people switch. 2. **Workflow change audit:** Map exactly what the user must change in their current routine. High friction = low adoption. 3. **Solo-build feasibility:** Can a working MVP be built by one person in weeks-to-a-few-months? If it needs a 10-person engineering team, that's a different company. 4. **Unfair advantage:** Why you specifically? Skills, industry access, data, network, credibility — something competitors can't easily replicate. **Kill check:** Fail the 10x rule or have zero unfair advantage → move on. --- ## Phase 4: Customer Discovery (Talk to Humans) 10-15 conversations with real potential customers. Non-negotiable. No amount of desk research replaces this. **Finding people:** - Post in 2-3 relevant communities asking for 15-min feedback chats. - DM matching personas on LinkedIn or Twitter. - Offer a small incentive if needed (gift card, free future access). **Conversation flow (15-20 min):** ``` 1. CONTEXT (2 min) "Tell me about your work. Walk me through a typical week around [problem area]." → Listen only. Do NOT pitch or explain your idea. 2. PAIN EXPLORATION (5 min) "What's the most frustrating part of [workflow]?" "How often does that come up?" "What have you already tried to fix it?" "What's still missing?" → Ask "why" and "what happens when" repeatedly. Dig. 3. OUTCOME PROBING (3 min) "If a tool could [describe the outcome, not your feature set], how would that change things?" "What would that be worth — in time, money, stress?" → Let them quantify. Never suggest a number first. 4. WILLINGNESS TO PAY (2 min) "Would you pay for something like that? What range feels fair?" → Discount stated numbers by ~50% when planning. 5. WARM REFERRAL (1 min) "Know anyone else who hits this same wall? Mind if I reach out?" ``` **Track across all conversations:** - % who described the problem without prompting (pain signal) - % currently spending real money or time on workarounds (revenue signal) - % with clear willingness to pay (demand signal) - Features multiple people independently requested (product signal) - Assumptions you held that conversations proved wrong (kill features early) **Kill check:** Fewer than 60% confirm pain + willingness to pay → rework or kill. --- ## Phase 5: Riskiest Assumption Test (RAT) One assumption, if wrong, kills everything. Find it. Test it in under 2 weeks and $200. **Common riskiest assumptions and cheap tests:** | Assumption | Minimum Test | Pass Threshold | |---|---|---| | People will pay | Landing page + "pre-order" button. Drive 200 targeted visitors. | 3-5% convert to payment/deposit | | CAC is affordable | Run $100 targeted ad campaign. Measure cost-per-lead. | CPL < 20% of planned customer lifetime value | | People will change workflow | Offer a manual version of the service to 5 people for free. See if they actually use it. | 3+ out of 5 use it consistently | | I can build it solo | Build the single hardest technical feature as a prototype first. | Working prototype in ≤ 2 weeks | **Process:** 1. State the assumption. 2. Define what "confirmed" looks like (a concrete, measurable number). 3. Design the cheapest possible test. 4. Set a hard deadline (max 2 weeks). 5. Run it. Record results with zero spin. **Kill check:** RAT fails → idea in current form is not viable. Pivot the solution, the customer, or the model — or kill entirely. --- ## Phase 6: Go / No-Go Scorecard | Dimension | Score (1-5) | Weight | |---|---|---| | Problem severity & clarity | __ | 20% | | Demand evidence gathered | __ | 15% | | Customer discovery confirmation | __ | 20% | | Solution fit (10x + feasibility) | __ | 15% | | RAT result | __ | 20% | | Your unfair advantage | __ | 10% | **Weighted score = Σ (score × weight)** - **4.0–5.0 → GO.** Move to MVP planning + business model canvas. - **3.0–3.9 → CONDITIONAL GO.** Resolve the weakest dimension with one more test round first. - **< 3.0 → NO-GO.** Kill or fundamentally pivot. Write down lessons. --- ## Meta-Rules - Document everything in one "Idea Validation" doc — it becomes raw material for your business plan. - Time-box the whole process: 2-3 weeks max. Validation paralysis is a real trap. - Run 2-3 ideas in parallel when possible. Comparing sharpens judgment.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis:  | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)