diff --git a/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json b/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json index 760731e..b3af74d 100644 --- a/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json +++ b/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ }, "metadata": { "description": "AI agent skills for startup design, validation, competitive intelligence, and planning", - "version": "1.7.0" + "version": "1.8.0" }, "plugins": [ { diff --git a/startup-design/SKILL.md b/startup-design/SKILL.md index c891b41..4f8c8e3 100644 --- a/startup-design/SKILL.md +++ b/startup-design/SKILL.md @@ -9,10 +9,10 @@ A structured, multi-phase skill that takes a startup idea from raw concept to va ## How It Works -The process has 8 phases executed sequentially. Each phase produces output files and updates the progress tracker. If a session is interrupted, resume from the last completed checkpoint. +The process has 9 phases executed sequentially (plus a Pre-Flight Check). Each phase produces output files and updates the progress tracker. If a session is interrupted, resume from the last completed checkpoint. ``` -INTAKE → BRAINSTORM → RESEARCH → STRATEGY → BRAND → PRODUCT → FINANCIAL → VALIDATION +PRE-FLIGHT → INTAKE → BRAINSTORM → RESEARCH → [Research Gate] → CUSTOMER DISCOVERY → [Interview Gate] → STRATEGY → BRAND → PRODUCT → FINANCIAL → VALIDATION ``` ### Modes @@ -20,13 +20,16 @@ INTAKE → BRAINSTORM → RESEARCH → STRATEGY → BRAND → PRODUCT → FINANC **Full Mode (default):** Execute all 8 phases in order. Best for thoroughly designing a startup from scratch. **Fast Track Mode:** When the user says they want a "quick validation," "rapid assessment," or similar, or when time/budget is clearly limited, run a compressed version: -1. Phase 1 (Intake) — shortened to 1 round of questions -2. Phase 2 (Brainstorm) — 3 variations instead of 5-8 -3. Phase 3 (Research) — Wave 1 + Wave 2 only (skip customer voice and distribution deep-dives) -4. Phase 4 (Strategy) — Lean Canvas only -5. Skip Phase 5 (Brand) and Phase 6 (Product) -6. Phase 7 (Financial) — Revenue model only, no full projections -7. Phase 8 (Validation) — Scorecard + top 3 experiments only +1. Phase 0.5 (Pre-Flight Check) — always run, takes 5 minutes +2. Phase 1 (Intake) — shortened to 1 round of questions; capture any prior customer conversations +3. Phase 2 (Brainstorm) — 3 variations instead of 5-8 +4. Phase 3 (Research) — Wave 1 + Wave 2 only (skip customer voice and distribution deep-dives) +5. Phase 3.5 (Research Gate) — go/no-go checkpoint +6. Phase 3.7 (Customer Discovery) — if founder has 5+ prior conversations, document them; if not, run at least 3 interviews before proceeding +7. Phase 4 (Strategy) — Lean Canvas only +8. Skip Phase 5 (Brand) and Phase 6 (Product) +9. Phase 7 (Financial) — Revenue model only, Stage A (assumption-based), no full projections +10. Phase 8 (Validation) — Scorecard + top 3 experiments only Fast Track produces fewer files but still gives the founder a clear go/no-go signal with evidence. Note in PROGRESS.md that Fast Track mode was used, so a future session can expand to full mode if the idea passes validation. @@ -46,6 +49,35 @@ If no progress file exists, start from Phase 1. --- +## Phase 0.5: Pre-Flight Check + +Before investing time in the full process, run a fast sanity check — 2-3 targeted searches, 5 minutes maximum. The goal is to surface any immediately disqualifying signals so the founder knows them upfront. + +**Run these three checks:** + +**1. Dominant solution check** — Does a well-funded, widely-adopted solution to this exact problem already exist? Search: `"{problem domain} software"`, `"{problem} tool site:producthunt.com"`, `"{problem} app reviews"`. If a clear market leader with 10k+ customers exists, flag it immediately — this is not a reason to stop, but the founder needs to know the competitive reality before starting. + +**2. Precedent failure check** — Has a company tried this exact idea and failed publicly? Search: `"{startup idea} startup failed"`, `"{problem} startup shutdown"`, `"why {product category} failed"`. Prior failures are not disqualifying — they're learnings. But unknown prior failures are landmines. + +**3. Regulatory/legal instant kill** — Is there an obvious legal reason this idea cannot exist? (E.g., specific financial regulations, data privacy laws in the target geography, licensing requirements.) A quick search prevents building toward a wall. + +**Output:** A short message to the founder (3-5 bullet points max) with what was found. Use this format: + +``` +## Pre-Flight Check + +✅ No dominant incumbent found — space appears open. +⚠️ [CompanyX] tried a similar approach in 2021 and shut down in 2023. + Key reason: [one sentence]. Worth understanding before proceeding. +✅ No obvious regulatory blockers identified for [target market]. + +→ Ready to proceed to intake. The above is context, not a verdict. +``` + +Keep it brief. This is a heads-up, not a full analysis. Save findings to `{project-name}/00-intake/preflight.md` and update PROGRESS.md. + +--- + ## Phase 1: Intake Interview The quality of everything downstream depends on how much context you extract now. Don't rush this — a thorough intake saves hours of misdirection later. @@ -82,6 +114,7 @@ Ask these in a conversational flow, not as a rigid checklist. Group related ques - Any technical constraints? (must be mobile-first, needs to integrate with X) - Any strong opinions on brand/positioning? (premium vs accessible, playful vs serious) - Regulatory considerations? +- Have you already spoken with potential customers? If yes: how many, what did they say, did anyone express willingness to pay? ### Hard Questions @@ -268,6 +301,45 @@ Ask the founder: "Based on this, do you want to continue to full strategy, pivot --- +## Phase 3.7: Customer Discovery (Interviews) + +Research tells you what the market looks like from the outside. Customer interviews tell you what the problem feels like from the inside. **Do not skip this phase** — it is the single highest-signal validation step in the entire process and takes only 1-2 weeks in practice. + +> **Reference:** Read `references/customer-interview.md` for the full interview protocol, question structure, notes template, and synthesis guide. + +### When to run this phase + +Run this phase after the Research Gate green- or yellow-lights the idea. If the gate returned a red light and the founder chose to stop, skip this phase. + +**Exception — Fast Track Mode:** If the founder reported 5+ prior customer conversations in intake, document those conversations using the interview template and proceed. Flag all claims as `[Founder-reported]`. If fewer than 5 conversations happened, recommend running the full protocol. + +### Process + +1. **Identify who to interview** — Using the primary persona from `01-discovery/target-audience.md`, define the exact profile. 5 interviews minimum. +2. **Conduct interviews** — Follow the protocol in `references/customer-interview.md`. Aim for 25-30 minutes each, problem-focused, no product pitching. +3. **Document each interview** — Save to `{project-name}/00-intake/interviews/interview-{N}.md` using the template from the reference file. +4. **Synthesize** — After all interviews, write `{project-name}/00-intake/interview-synthesis.md` covering: problem confirmation rate, behavior signals (who paid/built workarounds), key phrases, and assumption audit. + +### Interview Gate: Proceed vs. Reassess + +After synthesis, present a brief finding to the founder and apply this gate: + +**Proceed to Phase 4 if:** +- 4+ of 5 interviewees confirm the core problem clearly and unprompted +- At least 2 show behavior signals (paid for something, built a workaround, actively searched) +- Problem language is consistent across interviews + +**Pause and reassess if:** +- Fewer than 3 confirm the problem +- Everyone says "interesting" but no behavior signals exist +- The problem they describe doesn't match the proposed solution + +Present the synthesis and gate result to the founder. If the result calls for reassessment, suggest specific pivots if the interviews pointed to an adjacent problem worth solving. Let the founder decide: pivot the idea, narrow the target, or stop. + +Update PROGRESS.md with the interview gate result. + +--- + ## Phase 4: Strategy With research in hand, define the strategic foundations. Each document should reference specific findings from Phase 3 — strategy disconnected from research is just guessing. @@ -403,12 +475,33 @@ Ground the strategy in numbers. Be honest about assumptions — label everything > **Reference:** Read `references/industry-benchmarks.md` for standard metrics by business model type (SaaS, marketplace, e-commerce, etc.). Compare the founder's projections against these benchmarks and flag any that fall outside normal ranges — both too pessimistic and too optimistic. +### Two-stage financial model + +Financial projections at this point exist in one of two states depending on whether customer interviews (Phase 3.7) produced validated demand signals: + +**Stage A — Assumption-Based (default, pre-revenue validation):** +Used when no real traction data exists. Label every number clearly as `[Assumption — unvalidated]`. The purpose is to map the financial structure and identify which assumptions are most sensitive, not to produce reliable forecasts. + +**Stage B — Evidence-Based (if interview gate passed with strong behavior signals):** +Used when interviews confirmed willingness-to-pay, existing spend on workarounds, or pre-sales interest. Anchor projections to actual signals: "3/5 interviewees said they currently pay ~$200/month for a partial solution" is better data than a benchmark. Label these numbers as `[Estimate — grounded in interview data]`. + +At the top of every financial file, include a one-line stage declaration: + +``` +**Financial Model Stage:** A — Assumption-Based | All projections are hypotheses to be tested, not forecasts. +``` +or +``` +**Financial Model Stage:** B — Evidence-Based | Key assumptions anchored to {N} customer interviews. +``` + ### Revenue Model In `05-financial/revenue-model.md`: - Pricing strategy with rationale -- Revenue projections (Month 1-12, Year 1-3) with assumptions stated +- Revenue projections (Month 1-12, Year 1-3) with every assumption stated explicitly - Sensitivity analysis: what happens if key assumptions change by ±30% +- **For Stage A:** clearly mark which assumptions need validation experiments before the model becomes reliable ### Cost Structure @@ -425,6 +518,7 @@ In `05-financial/projections.md`: - Key assumptions for each scenario - Cash flow timeline - Funding needs and runway calculation +- **Assumption sensitivity table:** list the top 5 assumptions that, if wrong, would most change the projections. For each: current assumption, what happens if it's 50% worse, and how to validate it. Update PROGRESS.md. @@ -558,5 +652,6 @@ The `references/` directory contains supporting documentation. Read only what yo | `research-synthesis.md` | After all waves complete, before writing final files | ~104 | | `research-scaling.md` | After intake, before Phase 3 | ~95 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations | | `verification-agent.md` | After synthesis, before Phase 3.5 | ~100 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks | +| `customer-interview.md` | Before Phase 3.7 (Customer Discovery) | ~180 | Interview protocol, question structure, synthesis guide | | `frameworks.md` | During Phase 4 (Strategy), Phase 6 (Product), and Phase 8 (Validation) | ~110 | | `industry-benchmarks.md` | During Phase 7 (Financial) | ~80 | diff --git a/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md b/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dcc5292 --- /dev/null +++ b/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ +# Customer Interview Protocol + +Before building strategy, brand, or product, validate assumptions with real people. +This document is read during **Phase 3.7: Customer Discovery** — between research synthesis and strategy. + +The goal is not to confirm your idea. The goal is to find out if the problem you think exists actually exists, how painful it is, and whether the people who have it are willing to do something about it. + +--- + +## Why interviews beat surveys (and AI research) + +Web research tells you what people have already said publicly. Interviews tell you what they actually do, struggle with, and would pay for. The two are often different. A customer who writes a glowing review on G2 may use a tool for 5 minutes a month; one who complains on Reddit may be a daily power user desperate for something better. Only conversation reveals the difference. + +Rule of thumb: **5 honest conversations beat 500 data points** when you're trying to understand whether a problem is real and worth solving. + +--- + +## Who to interview + +Target people who match the persona identified in `01-discovery/target-audience.md`. Be specific: + +- **Right:** "B2B SaaS sales managers at 20-200 person companies who currently use a CRM" +- **Wrong:** "Anyone who might need this" + +If the target-audience file identified multiple personas, start with the one most likely to be an early adopter — the person with the sharpest pain, not the broadest appeal. + +**Minimum viable sample:** 5 interviews. Patterns start emerging at 5; beyond 12-15, you get diminishing returns at this stage. + +**How to find them:** +- LinkedIn: search by role + industry + company size, message directly +- Reddit/Slack/Discord: communities where your target hangs out (surfaced in Wave 3 research) +- Warm network: founders, former colleagues, friends-of-friends who match the persona +- Twitter/X: people who complain about the problem in public + +**Incentives:** 20-30 minutes of their time. Offer a gift card ($15-25) if the persona is hard to reach. Never pay for opinions on your product — it biases answers. + +--- + +## The interview structure (25-30 minutes) + +### Opening (2 minutes) + +"I'm researching how [persona type] handle [problem domain]. I'm not selling anything — I'm trying to understand the problem before building a solution. I'll ask you about your current experience. There are no right or wrong answers. Is it okay if I take notes?" + +This framing removes social pressure to be nice about an idea you haven't mentioned yet. + +### Part 1: Context (5 minutes) + +Understand their world before you ask about the problem. + +- "Walk me through a typical week in your role. What takes up most of your time?" +- "What tools do you use for [relevant domain]?" +- "How long have you been doing this?" + +Don't ask leading questions. Don't mention your solution. Listen for the words they use to describe their work — these become the language map for messaging later. + +### Part 2: The problem (10 minutes) + +This is the core of the interview. Go deep. + +- "Tell me about the last time you had to deal with [problem domain]. Walk me through what happened." +- "How often does this come up?" +- "What do you do today to handle it?" +- "What's the most frustrating part of that process?" +- "What have you tried? What didn't work?" +- "If you could wave a magic wand and fix one thing about this, what would it be?" + +**Do NOT ask hypotheticals like "would you use a tool that..."** — hypothetical answers are worthless. People are notoriously bad at predicting their own behavior. Stick to past behavior and current workarounds. + +### Part 3: Behavior signals (8 minutes) + +- "Have you ever paid for something to solve this? What, and how much?" +- "Have you ever built a workaround yourself — a spreadsheet, a script, anything custom?" +- "Have you looked for a solution? What did you find? Why didn't it work?" +- "Who else in your organization deals with this problem?" + +**Paying, building workarounds, or actively searching are the strongest signals.** Someone who "would theoretically be interested" is not a customer. Someone who already pays for an imperfect solution is. + +### Part 4: Wrap-up (3 minutes) + +- "Is there anything about this I didn't ask that you think is important?" +- "Is there anyone else you'd recommend I talk to who has this problem?" +- "Would it be okay if I followed up with a quick question later?" + +--- + +## How to listen + +**The Mom Test rule (Rob Fitzpatrick):** People will not tell you your idea is bad because they don't want to hurt your feelings. They'll say "that's interesting" and "I could see that being useful." These phrases mean nothing. Anchor to behavior, not opinion. + +- Watch for **energy**: does their voice change when they describe the problem? Frustration = real pain. +- Watch for **specificity**: "sometimes it's annoying" vs. "last Tuesday I spent 3 hours fixing this manually and still got it wrong." The second is a real problem. +- Watch for **volunteered solutions**: if they tell you what they wish existed without you asking, pay close attention. +- Watch for **workarounds**: any system, hack, or manual process they've built is evidence the problem is real and unsolved. + +--- + +## After each interview: notes template + +Save each interview summary to `{project-name}/00-intake/interviews/interview-{N}.md`: + +```markdown +# Customer Interview {N} + +**Date:** {date} +**Interviewee:** {role, company size, industry} — do NOT record name unless consented +**Duration:** {minutes} + +## Context +{2-3 sentences about their role and world} + +## Problem signals +- {Quote or paraphrase of key pain expressed} +- {Quote or paraphrase} + +## Current solution/workaround +{What they do today. Is it paid? Self-built? Manual?} + +## Behavior signals +- [ ] Currently pays for a solution (what, how much: {details}) +- [ ] Has built a workaround themselves ({details}) +- [ ] Has actively searched for alternatives ({details}) +- [ ] Has complained publicly about this ({details}) + +## Key phrases (use their exact words) +- "{exact quote}" +- "{exact quote}" + +## Surprises or unexpected findings +{Anything that contradicted your assumptions} + +## Follow-up +- [ ] Okay to follow up: {yes/no} +- [ ] Referred me to: {details or none} +``` + +--- + +## Synthesis: what to look for across interviews + +After 5+ interviews, look for patterns in `{project-name}/00-intake/interview-synthesis.md`: + +**Problem validation:** +- Do at least 3/5 interviewees describe the same core problem unprompted? +- Do they use similar language to describe it? +- Is the pain acute (happens often, costs time/money/stress) or mild (annoying but ignorable)? + +**Demand signals:** +- Has anyone already paid for a partial solution? +- Has anyone built a workaround? +- Did anyone ask "when can I try it?" without being prompted? + +**Assumption audit:** +Update the assumptions tracker in `06-validation/assumptions-tracker.md`. For each assumption the intake generated, note: **Confirmed**, **Contradicted**, or **Unclear**. + +**Red flags from interviews:** +- Fewer than 3/5 confirm the problem exists → the problem may be invented, not discovered +- Nobody has paid for anything related → willingness-to-pay is unproven +- All interviewees say "I'd use it" but nobody has ever tried to solve it → low urgency +- The problem they describe is different from the one you designed for → pivot needed + +--- + +## When to proceed vs. when to stop + +**Proceed to Phase 4 (Strategy) if:** +- 4+ of 5 interviewees confirm the problem clearly and unprompted +- At least 2 have paid for a related solution or built a workaround +- The problem language is consistent across interviews (sign that it's a real, shared pain) + +**Pause and reassess if:** +- Fewer than 3 confirm the problem +- Everyone says "interesting" but nobody has ever tried to solve it +- The problem they describe doesn't match your proposed solution + +**Document the outcome** in `{project-name}/00-intake/interview-synthesis.md` and update `PROGRESS.md`. If the interviews surface a significant pivot, trigger the pivot protocol from `output-guidelines.md`. + +--- + +## Fast Track mode + +If the founder has already spoken to 5+ potential customers before starting this process: + +1. Ask: "Can you summarize what you heard? Key pains, exact quotes if you remember them, and whether anyone had already paid for something." +2. Document their answers in `interview-synthesis.md` directly. +3. Flag that interviews are founder-reported, not independently conducted: add `[Founder-reported — verify independently]` to any claims derived from this. +4. Skip the interview structure above and proceed to Phase 4. + +If the founder has spoken to fewer than 5 people, treat it as 0 and recommend running the interviews. diff --git a/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md b/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md index 2c41f68..af982fd 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md +++ b/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md @@ -75,15 +75,17 @@ Pull each value from the actual phase outputs. Do not invent or approximate. If ``` ═══════════════════════════════════════════════ - STARTUP DESIGN — FINAL ASSESSMENT + STARTUP DESIGN — FINAL ASSESSMENT ═══════════════════════════════════════════════ Idea: [selected variation from Phase 2 brainstorm] Founder Fit: [Strong / Moderate / Weak] Market: [$X TAM] · [growth %] · [maturity stage] Competitors: [N found] · [funding landscape summary] + Customer Interviews:[N conducted] · [problem confirmed by N/N] Positioning: [Clear / Emerging / Unclear] Business Model: [SaaS / Marketplace / Open Core / etc.] + Financial Stage: [A — Assumption-Based / B — Evidence-Based] MVP Scope: [N core features] · [build estimate] Model Viability: [Viable / Risky / Broken] Top Risk: [single biggest risk in one line] @@ -96,8 +98,8 @@ Pull each value from the actual phase outputs. Do not invent or approximate. If ═══════════════════════════════════════════════ ``` -**Field definitions:** - +- **Customer Interviews**: Number of interviews conducted in Phase 3.7 and problem confirmation rate (e.g., "5 conducted · confirmed by 4/5"). If Fast Track with founder-reported conversations, note "[Founder-reported]". +- **Financial Stage**: A = Assumption-Based (no real traction data), B = Evidence-Based (projections anchored to interview signals or real traction data). - **Idea**: The specific variation selected after brainstorming, not the original raw input. - **Founder Fit**: From Phase 1 intake assessment. Strong = clear unfair advantage. Moderate = some relevant background. Weak = no domain edge. - **Market**: TAM from Phase 3 research, growth rate, and maturity (emerging/growing/mature/declining).