idea-validator

What this skill does

# 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, including commercial tools/services and open-source alternatives
- 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:

```bash
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:

```bash
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, perform live web research to find what already exists in the space. Do not rely on memory or training data for market, pricing, traction, competitor, or open-source claims — web search is mandatory so the report reflects the most up-to-date information.

Use the available web search tool (`WebSearch`, `web_search`, or equivalent) to run at least 4-6 varied queries covering:

**Commercial tools/services** — SaaS products, mobile apps, enterprise platforms, paid APIs, agencies, marketplaces, and other commercial offerings solving the same or adjacent problem. Search the core problem statement plus keywords like "app", "tool", "platform", "SaaS", "startup", "pricing", "alternative", and audience-specific terms.

**Open-source solutions** — GitHub/GitLab repositories, self-hosted tools, packages, frameworks, templates, and OSS alternatives that solve the same problem or provide a strong foundation. Search with terms like "open source", "GitHub", "self-hosted", "OSS", "alternative", "library", and relevant package registry names. If no credible OSS option is found, document the queries tried and state that no maintained open-source baseline was found.

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

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

For each competitor or OSS project found, capture:
- **Name and URL**
- **Type** (commercial, open-source, hybrid, adjacent, failed/abandoned)
- **What they do** (one sentence)
- **Pricing or license** (free, freemium, paid, enterprise, OSS license if available)
- **Traction or health** (reviews, ratings, users, funding, GitHub stars/forks, recent commits, open issues, community activity)
- **Key weakness or gap** the user's idea could exploit
- **Reuse/build-on potential** for open-source options (fork, plugin, library dependency, contribution path, or not suitable)

Aim for 3-8 total competitors and at least one commercial and one open-source search path. If fewer than 3 credible results are found, that's a signal — either the market is niche, the terms need refining, or the idea may be framed in unfamiliar language.

When an open-source solution already solves a meaningful part of the idea, evaluate more carefully before recommending a greenfield build. Compare license fit, maintenance health, architecture, extensibility, deployment burden, community, and whether the user should build on it, fork it, contribute to it, or differentiate sharply instead of redoing it.

Update `validate.md` with a **## Competitive Landscape** section containing:
1. A summary table of commercial and open-source competitors found
2. An **Open-source Alternatives & Reuse Potential** analysis
3. A "white space" analysis — what's missing in the current market
4. Honest assessment: is the user's differentiation real or imagined given what exists?
5. A build-vs-base recommendation when OSS foundations exist

If web search is unavailable or blocked, stop and ask the user before proceeding. Do not silently replace live research with general knowledge.

## Phase 4: Critical Evaluation

Evaluate honestly and update `validate.md`:

**Market Analysis:**
- Similar commercial products and open-source solutions
- 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?
- Could an existing OSS project be reused, forked, extended, or used as a reference instead of starting from scratch?

**Monetization:**
- Clear revenue path?
- Willingness to pay?

**Technical Risk:**
- Buildable with stated constraints?
- Key technical risks?
- License, maintenance, and dependency risks if building on open source?

**Duplication / Reuse Risk:**
- Is the idea mostly a reimplementation of an existing commercial or OSS solution?
- Is there a credible build-on, plugin, fork, or contribution path that would reduce risk?

**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 t