Idea Validator

Critically evaluate ideas with honest feedback on market viability, technical feasibility, and actionable improvements.

When to Use

Trigger this skill when the user asks to:

• Evaluate, validate, or score an app idea or startup concept
• Get honest feedback on whether an idea is worth building
• Research what competitors already exist in a space
• Turn a vague concept into a structured validation report

Instructions

Follow the 5-phase pipeline in order: Clarify → Technical Context → Competitive Landscape Research → Critical Evaluation → Improvements. Do not skip phases or reorder them.

Repo Sync Before Edits (mandatory)

Before creating/updating/deleting files in an existing repository, sync the current branch with remote:

branch="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"
git fetch origin
git pull --rebase origin "$branch"

If the working tree is not clean, stash first, sync, then restore:

git stash push -u -m "pre-sync"
branch="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"
git fetch origin && git pull --rebase origin "$branch"
git stash pop

If origin is missing, pull is unavailable, or rebase/stash conflicts occur, stop and ask the user before continuing.

Setup

0. Resolve storage location (tool-agnostic, ask once per environment)

   • Prefer env var IDEAS_ROOT if set.
   • Else use shared marker file: ~/.config/ideas-root.txt.
   • Backward compatibility: if shared marker is missing but legacy ~/.openclaw/ideas-root.txt exists, reuse its value and write it into ~/.config/ideas-root.txt.
   • If no marker exists (new environment), ask user once where to store generated docs.
   • Suggested default: ~/workspace/ideas.
   • Save chosen root to ~/.config/ideas-root.txt.
   • Only ask again if the user explicitly asks to change location.

1. Create project folder under resolved root: YYYY_MM_DD_<short_snake_case_name>/

2. Create idea.md: Document the idea and clarifications

3. Create validate.md: Document evaluation and recommendations

4. Echo the absolute project folder path in your response so downstream skills can auto-pick it.

If no idea provided in $ARGUMENTS, ask user to describe their concept.

Phase 1: Clarify the Idea

Ask user (via AskUserQuestion):

• What problem does this solve? Who has this pain?
• Who is your target user? Be specific.
• What makes this different from existing solutions?
• What does success look like in 6-12 months?

Update idea.md with responses.

Phase 2: Gather Technical Context

Ask user:

• Preferred tech stack?
• Timeline and team size?
• Budget situation (bootstrapped/funded/side project)?
• Existing assets (code, designs, research)?

Update idea.md technical section.

Phase 3: Competitive Landscape Research

Before evaluating the idea, search the internet to find what already exists in the space. This grounds the analysis in real-world data instead of guessing about competitors — it prevents the user from unknowingly building something that's already been done, and reveals gaps they can exploit.

Use WebSearch to find:

Direct competitors — products/services solving the same problem for the same audience. Search for the core problem statement plus keywords like "app", "tool", "platform", "SaaS", "startup". Try 2-3 different search queries to cover variations (e.g., both the problem description and the solution category).

Adjacent solutions — products that solve a related problem or serve the same audience differently. These reveal how users currently cope without the proposed solution.

Failed attempts — startups or products that tried something similar and shut down. Search for "[concept] startup failed", "[concept] post-mortem", or check product directories. Understanding why predecessors failed is often more valuable than knowing who succeeded.

For each competitor found, capture:

• Name and URL
• What they do (one sentence)
• Pricing model (free, freemium, paid, enterprise)
• Apparent traction (user reviews, app store ratings, social media presence, funding if findable)
• Key weakness or gap the user's idea could exploit

Aim for 3-8 competitors total (direct + adjacent). If fewer than 3 are found, that's a signal — either the market is very niche (potential opportunity) or the search terms need refining.

Update validate.md with a ## Competitive Landscape section containing:

1. A summary table of competitors found
2. A "white space" analysis — what's missing in the current market
3. Honest assessment: is the user's differentiation real or imagined given what exists?

If WebSearch is unavailable, note it in the report and proceed to Phase 4 with best-effort analysis based on general knowledge. Flag that the competitive section should be verified manually.

Phase 4: Critical Evaluation

Evaluate honestly and update validate.md:

Market Analysis:

• Similar existing products
• Market size and competition
• Unique differentiation

Demand Assessment:

• Evidence people will pay
• Problem urgency level

Feasibility:

• Can this ship in 2-4 weeks MVP?
• Minimum viable features
• Complex dependencies?

Monetization:

• Clear revenue path?
• Willingness to pay?

Technical Risk:

• Buildable with stated constraints?
• Key technical risks?

Verdict: Build it / Maybe / Skip it

Ratings (1-10):

• Creativity
• Feasibility
• Market Impact
• Technical Execution

Phase 5: Improvements

Update validate.md with:

• How to Strengthen: Specific, actionable improvements
• Enhanced Version: Reworked, optimized concept
• Implementation Roadmap: Phased approach (if applicable)

Expected Output

After all phases complete, the output includes:

## Quick Verdict
**Build it**

## Ratings
| Dimension         | Score |
|-------------------|-------|
| Creativity        | 7/10  |
| Feasibility       | 8/10  |
| Market Impact     | 6/10  |
| Technical Execution | 8/10 |

## Top Concerns
1. Three direct competitors already exist with significant traction
2. Monetization path unclear — target users expect free tools
3. MVP scope likely exceeds 2-4 week estimate

Edge Cases

• No clear target user: If the idea is too broad (e.g., "an app for everyone"), push back in Phase 1 — ask the user to name one specific person who has this pain today. Do not proceed to evaluation without a defined user segment.
• Duplicate idea already exists: If Phase 3 research finds a near-identical product, surface it immediately with evidence (URL, feature comparison) and ask whether the user still wants to proceed. Evaluation continues only if the user identifies a genuine differentiator.
• Technical feasibility unclear: If the idea requires unproven technology, undisclosed APIs, or capabilities the stated team cannot build, flag it as a hard blocker in Phase 4 and lower the Feasibility score accordingly. Do not give a Build it verdict when fundamental technical risk is unresolved.

Acceptance Criteria

• All 5 phases are completed in order (Clarify → Technical Context → Competitive Landscape → Evaluation → Improvements)
• Competitive landscape research is performed via web search with at least 2-3 queries; competitors table populated in validate.md
• A clear verdict (Build it / Maybe / Skip it) is given with a supporting rationale
• All four ratings (Creativity, Feasibility, Market Impact, Technical Execution) are provided as scores out of 10
• idea.md and validate.md are committed and pushed to the remote repository
• GitHub links to both files are reported in the completion message

Step Completion Reports

After completing each major step, output a status report in this format:

◆ [Step Name] ([step N of M] — [context])
··································································
  [Check 1]:          √ pass
  [Check 2]:          √ pass (note if relevant)
  [Check 3]:          × fail — [reason]
  [Check 4]:          √ pass
  [Criteria]:         √ N/M met
  ____________________________
  Result:             PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Adapt the check names to match what the step actually validates. Use √ for pass, × for fail, and — to add brief context. The "Criteria" line summarizes how many acceptance criteria were met. The "Result" line gives the overall verdict.

Phase-specific checks

Setup

◆ Setup (step 1 of 6 — [idea name])
··································································
  Storage resolved:   √ pass ([path])
  Folder created:     √ pass ([YYYY_MM_DD_name/])
  ____________________________
  Result:             PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Phase 1 — Clarify

◆ Clarify (step 2 of 6 — [idea name])
··································································
  Questions answered: √ pass ([N] responses collected)
  idea.md updated:    √ pass | × fail — [missing sections]
  ____________________________
  Result:             PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Phase 2 — Gather Technical Context

◆ Gather Technical Context (step 3 of 6 — [idea name])
··································································
  Context sources identified: √ pass ([N] inputs collected)
  Technical feasibility assessed: √ pass | × fail — [gaps noted]
  idea.md technical section updated: √ pass | × fail — [missing fields]
  ____________________________
  Result:             PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Phase 3 — Competitive Landscape

◆ Competitive Landscape (step 4 of 6 — [idea name])
··································································
  Web searches executed: √ pass ([N] queries run)
  Competitors found:     √ pass ([N] direct + [N] adjacent)
  Failed attempts checked: √ pass | × fail — [no results or skipped]
  validate.md updated:   √ pass | × fail — [missing sections]
  ____________________________
  Result:                PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Phase 4 — Evaluate

◆ Evaluate (step 5 of 6 — [idea name])
··································································
  Feasibility scored: √ pass ([score]/10)
  Market assessed:    √ pass | × fail — [gaps in analysis]
  validate.md updated:√ pass | × fail — [missing sections]
  ____________________________
  Result:             PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Phase 5 — Improve

◆ Improve (step 6 of 6 — [idea name])
··································································
  Enhancements identified:    √ pass ([N] improvements listed)
  Recommendations added:      √ pass | × fail — [what's missing]
  ____________________________
  Result:                     PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL

Tone

• Brutally honest: Don't sugarcoat fatal flaws
• Constructive: Every criticism includes a suggestion
• Specific: Concrete examples, not vague feedback
• Balanced: Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses

README Maintenance (when running inside ideas repo)

If the current working directory looks like the root of an ideas repo (contains README.md + multiple YYYY_MM_DD_* idea folders):

• After creating/updating idea.md + validate.md, update README.md by inserting/updating an ## Ideas index table with:
• link to each idea.md
• PRD/tasks status
• verdict link to validate.md

Commit and push (mandatory)

After file updates are complete:

• Commit immediately with a clear message.
• Push immediately to remote.
• If push is rejected: git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main && git push.

Do not ask for additional push permission once this skill is invoked.

Reporting with GitHub links (mandatory)

When reporting completion, include:

• GitHub link to idea.md
• GitHub link to validate.md
• GitHub link to README.md when it was updated
• Commit hash

Link format (derive <owner>/<repo> from git remote get-url origin):

• https://github.com/<owner>/<repo>/blob/main/<relative-path>

Output Summary

After all phases:

1. Confirm folder/files created
2. State verdict and key ratings
3. Top 3 strengths, top 3 concerns
4. Single most important next step

File Templates

idea.md

# Idea: [Name]

## Original Concept
[From $ARGUMENTS]

## Clarified Understanding
[After Phase 1]

## Target Audience
[Specific user profile]

## Goals & Objectives
[Success criteria]

## Technical Context
- Stack:
- Timeline:
- Budget:
- Constraints:

## Discussion Notes
[Updates from conversation]

validate.md

# Validation: [Name]

## Quick Verdict
**[Build it / Maybe / Skip it]**

## Why
[2-3 sentence explanation]

## Competitive Landscape

| Competitor | What They Do | Pricing | Traction | Key Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name](URL) | [One sentence] | [Model] | [Evidence] | [Gap to exploit] |

### White Space Analysis
[What's missing in the current market]

### Differentiation Assessment
[Is the proposed differentiation real or imagined given existing competitors?]

### Failed Predecessors
[Products that tried and failed — and why]

## Similar Products
[Competitors]

## Differentiation
[Unique angle]

## Strengths
-

## Concerns
-

## Ratings
- Creativity: /10
- Feasibility: /10
- Market Impact: /10
- Technical Execution: /10

## How to Strengthen
[Actionable improvements]

## Enhanced Version
[Optimized concept]

## Implementation Roadmap
[Phased approach]