business-investigation
Business Investigation
Systematic root cause analysis for business problems. Engineering debugging adapted for CEO tasks.
Triggers: "why no signups", "why churn", "figure out why X", "what's wrong with Y", "investigate", "dig into"
Iron Law
DO NOT PROPOSE SOLUTIONS WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THE ROOT CAUSE.
- Not "let's redesign the landing page" -> first "WHY signups = 0?"
- Not "let's hire sales" -> first "WHY is the current approach not working?"
- Symptomatic treatment creates whack-a-mole debugging. Find the root cause.
Phase 1: Symptom Collection
- Define the problem specifically: not "growth is slow", but "0 signups in 7 days with X visitors" or "3 out of 5 customers didn't complete onboarding"
- Gather data:
- Analytics tool: query quantitative data (see posthog-analytics skill or your analytics setup)
- MEMORY.md: what do we already know about this problem?
- Daily logs: were there similar problems before? What was tried?
- Hypotheses.json: are there related hypotheses?
- Timeline: when did the problem start? What changed? Regression = cause is in the change.
Phase 2: Pattern Matching
Check typical startup patterns:
Funnel Problems
| Where the problem is | Common cause | Where to look |
|---|---|---|
| Traffic -> signup | Positioning / channel / trust | Language, source quality, proof, CTA |
| Signup -> activation | Product / onboarding / TTFV | Steps to first value, friction points |
| Activation -> paid | Outcome proof / buyer / pricing | Value clear? Right buyer? |
| Paid -> retained | Problem frequency / workflow embed | Recurring job? In daily workflow? |
| Retained -> expansion | Narrow value / weak multi-user | Team hooks, second use case |
Structural Problems
| Pattern | Symptom | Root cause |
|---|---|---|
| Wrong ICP | Every customer wants something different | Wedge too broad |
| Wrong channel | High effort, low response | Message-channel mismatch |
| Wrong timing | "Interesting, but not now" | No urgent trigger |
| Wrong buyer | User loves it, buyer won't pay | Value doesn't connect to budget |
| Feature != product | Demo wow, usage dead | Solves interesting != painful problem |
| Trust gap | Enterprise stalls at procurement | No case studies, no compliance, no social proof |
Phase 3: Hypotheses (3-Strike Rule)
Formulate 1-3 root cause hypotheses. For each:
HYPOTHESIS: [specific statement]
Evidence FOR: [what supports it]
Evidence AGAINST: [what refutes it]
How to test: [concrete action in 1-2 days]
If true we'll see: [observable outcome]
If false we'll see: [observable outcome]
3-Strike Rule: if 3 hypotheses turn out to be wrong -> STOP. The problem is likely architectural (wrong market, wrong product, wrong channel). Escalate:
3 hypotheses tested, none confirmed.
The problem may be deeper — not tactics, but strategy.
A) Continue investigation with a new hypothesis: [describe]
B) Launch strategic-review to reassess wedge/ICP
C) Talk to customers directly (CEO = best investigator)
Phase 4: Root Cause -> Recommendation
When root cause is identified:
- Name the cause specifically. Not "bad marketing", but "positioning says 'AI platform' instead of a specific outcome we deliver for engineering leads"
- Minimal intervention. The smallest change that eliminates the cause.
- Tie to constraint. Does the solution exploit the constraint (market learning speed) or not?
- Kill signal. At what result do we abort the solution?
Phase 5: Report
INVESTIGATION REPORT
---
Symptom: [what we observe]
Root cause: [why this is happening]
Evidence: [data confirming]
Recommendation: [what to do]
Metric: [what to measure]
Kill signal: [when to abort]
Status: DONE / DONE_WITH_CONCERNS / BLOCKED
---
Log to memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md via structured-log.
Telegram Format
Investigation: [problem]
Root cause: [1-2 lines]
Evidence: [key proof]
Recommendation: [action]
Metric: [what to measure]
Status: [DONE/BLOCKED/NEEDS_CONTEXT]
Follow output preferences from USER.md (language, format, platform constraints).
Rules
- Data -> hypothesis -> test -> conclusion. Not the other way around.
- Don't say "should fix it". Show evidence.
- If you can't test — say NEEDS_CONTEXT and request specific data.
- Don't expand scope. Investigate one problem, don't switch.
More from codealive-ai/ai-cofounder
exa-code-search
Code search using Exa. Finds real code snippets, API docs, and examples from GitHub, StackOverflow, and technical docs. Use when searching for code examples, API syntax, library documentation, or debugging help.
2exa-people-research
People research using Exa search. Finds LinkedIn profiles, professional backgrounds, experts, team members, and public bios. Use when searching for people, finding experts, or looking up professional profiles.
2strategic-review
Deep multi-phase strategic review of a specific decision — premise challenge, alternatives, risk map, adversarial review. Use for big choices (wedge, pricing, channel, hire, pivot). For quick framework lookup, use decision-playbook. For diagnosing why something is broken, use business-investigation.
2enterprise-sales
Help users navigate enterprise sales. Use when someone is closing large deals, managing complex buying committees, handling procurement, or converting PLG users to enterprise contracts.
2web-browser
Browse the web using agent-browser CLI with Lightpanda engine. Read pages, extract content, interact with elements.
2daily-recap
End-of-day consolidation — summarize daily log, promote durable facts to MEMORY.md, identify open threads
2