From 20fe06f150099634609de795a05994afb500ef87 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: nguyenthuykhoilqpq61112-tech Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 13:42:58 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] feat: localize startup skills for China --- .claude-plugin/marketplace.json | 25 - .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml | 2 +- AGENTS.md | 216 +------- CLAUDE.md | 199 ------- CONTRIBUTING.md | 102 +--- README.md | 156 ++---- startup-competitors/SKILL.md | 291 ++-------- .../references/honesty-protocol.md | 76 +-- .../references/research-principles.md | 59 +- .../references/research-scaling.md | 109 +--- .../references/research-synthesis.md | 242 +-------- .../research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md | 187 +------ .../research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md | 198 +------ .../references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md | 200 +------ .../references/verification-agent.md | 132 +---- startup-design/SKILL.md | 513 ++---------------- .../references/customer-interview.md | 190 +------ startup-design/references/frameworks.md | 108 +--- startup-design/references/honesty-protocol.md | 73 +-- .../references/industry-benchmarks.md | 67 +-- startup-design/references/intake-questions.md | 57 +- .../references/output-guidelines.md | 129 +---- startup-design/references/output-specs.md | 170 +----- .../references/research-principles.md | 59 +- startup-design/references/research-scaling.md | 125 +---- .../references/research-synthesis.md | 115 +--- .../references/research-wave-1-market.md | 207 +------ .../references/research-wave-2-competitors.md | 221 +------- .../references/research-wave-3-customers.md | 234 +------- .../research-wave-4-distribution.md | 133 +---- .../references/verification-agent.md | 123 +---- startup-pitch/SKILL.md | 444 ++------------- startup-pitch/references/honesty-protocol.md | 66 +-- startup-pitch/references/pitch-frameworks.md | 262 +-------- .../references/research-principles.md | 69 +-- startup-pitch/references/research-scaling.md | 99 +--- .../references/research-synthesis.md | 472 +--------------- .../research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md | 165 +----- .../research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md | 160 +----- .../references/verification-agent.md | 135 +---- startup-positioning/SKILL.md | 322 ++--------- startup-positioning/references/frameworks.md | 133 +---- .../references/honesty-protocol.md | 76 +-- .../references/research-principles.md | 69 +-- .../references/research-scaling.md | 99 +--- .../references/research-synthesis.md | 426 +-------------- .../research-wave-1-alternatives.md | 237 +------- .../research-wave-2-market-frame.md | 209 +------ .../references/verification-agent.md | 134 +---- 49 files changed, 498 insertions(+), 7797 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 .claude-plugin/marketplace.json delete mode 100644 CLAUDE.md diff --git a/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json b/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json deleted file mode 100644 index 8950264..0000000 --- a/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json +++ /dev/null @@ -1,25 +0,0 @@ -{ - "name": "startup-skill", - "owner": { - "name": "Ferdinando Bons", - "email": "ferdinandobons@gmail.com" - }, - "metadata": { - "description": "AI agent skills for startup design, validation, competitive intelligence, and planning", - "version": "1.10.0" - }, - "plugins": [ - { - "name": "startup", - "description": "Design, validate, and plan a startup from scratch. Covers market research, competitive analysis, business model, brand identity, product definition, financial projections, and validation experiments.", - "source": "./", - "strict": false, - "skills": [ - "./startup-design", - "./startup-competitors", - "./startup-positioning", - "./startup-pitch" - ] - } - ] -} diff --git a/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml b/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml index 9f68333..beee5da 100644 --- a/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml +++ b/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug-report.yml @@ -43,6 +43,6 @@ body: id: agent attributes: label: AI agent used - placeholder: "Claude Code, Cursor, etc." + placeholder: "Qwen Code、Ollama、Gemini CLI 等" validations: required: false diff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md index 2e3f128..ba4e71f 100644 --- a/AGENTS.md +++ b/AGENTS.md @@ -1,210 +1,18 @@ # AGENTS.md -Guidelines for AI agents working in this repository. +本仓库包含四个面向中国市场的通用 Agent Skills：`startup-design`、`startup-competitors`、`startup-positioning` 和 `startup-pitch`。 -## Repository Overview +## 修改规则 -This repository contains the **startup** plugin for AI agents. The plugin namespace is `startup`, and it includes multiple skills organized in 3 categories: Design, Analyze, and Build (4 skills total). +- 技能目录名必须与 `SKILL.md` frontmatter 的 `name` 一致，使用小写英文和连字符。 +- `description` 为 1—1024 个字符，包含清晰的中文触发场景；`SKILL.md` 不超过 500 行。 +- 默认使用简体中文；中国市场数据必须注明来源、日期、地域、币种和统计口径。 +- 阶段细节放入 `references/`，研究轮次文件使用 `research-wave-N-` 前缀并按需加载。 +- 不绑定特定商业模型，不要求付费订阅或 API Key；优先兼容通用 Agent Skills、免费额度模型和 Ollama 本地模型。 +- 搜索不可用时进入知识库模式，明确标记假设和待验证项，不伪造实时来源。 +- 四个技能的研究轮次必须顺序执行；轮内是否并行由当前 Agent 环境决定。 +- 修改后检查 YAML frontmatter、相对路径、文件行数和平台耦合词。 -- **Name**: Startup Skills -- **GitHub**: [ferdinandobons/startup-skill](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill) -- **Creator**: Ferdinando Bons -- **License**: MIT +## Git -## Skill Taxonomy - -| Category | Purpose | Skills | -|----------|---------|--------| -| **Design** | Full process, idea to validated plan | `startup-design` | -| **Analyze** | Deep standalone analysis of one area | `startup-competitors`, `startup-positioning` | -| **Build** | Post-validation execution tools | `startup-pitch` | - -## Repository Structure - -``` -startup-skill/ # Plugin namespace (startup:*) -├── .claude-plugin/ -│ └── marketplace.json # Plugin definition (name must be "startup") -├── startup-design/ # Skill: startup:startup-design -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~476 lines, 8 phases + pre-flight & customer discovery) -│ └── references/ # Supporting documents loaded on demand -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-market.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-competitors.md -│ ├── research-wave-3-customers.md -│ ├── research-wave-4-distribution.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ ├── customer-interview.md -│ ├── intake-questions.md -│ ├── output-specs.md -│ ├── frameworks.md -│ ├── industry-benchmarks.md -│ ├── honesty-protocol.md -│ └── output-guidelines.md -├── startup-competitors/ # Skill: startup:startup-competitors -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~268 lines, 3 waves) -│ └── references/ -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md -│ ├── research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ └── honesty-protocol.md -├── startup-positioning/ # Skill: startup:startup-positioning -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~302 lines, 2 waves) -│ └── references/ -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-alternatives.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-market-frame.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ ├── frameworks.md -│ └── honesty-protocol.md -├── startup-pitch/ # Skill: startup:startup-pitch -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~424 lines, 2 waves) -│ └── references/ -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ ├── pitch-frameworks.md -│ └── honesty-protocol.md -├── CLAUDE.md -├── AGENTS.md -├── CONTRIBUTING.md -├── LICENSE -└── README.md -``` - -## Key Conventions - -### Naming Convention - -- **Plugin name** (`startup`): defined in `.claude-plugin/marketplace.json` → becomes the namespace prefix -- **Skill name** (`startup-design`, `startup-competitors`): defined in `SKILL.md` frontmatter → must match directory name -- **Command**: `/startup:startup-design`, `/startup:startup-competitors`, `/startup:startup-positioning`, `/startup:startup-pitch` — `plugin-name:skill-name` -- Future skills go in the same repo as separate directories - -### Skill Format - -- `SKILL.md` uses YAML frontmatter with `name` and `description` fields -- `name` must match directory name exactly (lowercase, hyphens) -- `description` must be 1-1024 characters with trigger phrases -- Keep `SKILL.md` under 500 lines; move details to `references/` -- References are loaded progressively (only when needed for current phase) -- Reference files use `research-wave-N-` prefix for consistency across skills - -### Research Architecture - -**startup-design** Phase 3 uses 4 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Market Landscape (3 agents) -- Wave 2: Competitive Analysis (3 agents) -- Wave 3: Customer & Demand (3 agents) -- Wave 4: Distribution (2 agents) - -**startup-competitors** uses 3 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing Intelligence (2 agents) -- Wave 2: Customer Sentiment Mining (2 agents) -- Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals (2 agents) - -**startup-positioning** uses 2 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives + Customer Intelligence (2 agents) -- Wave 2: Market Frame + Trends (2 agents) - -**startup-pitch** uses 2 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Audience & Narrative Intelligence (2 agents) -- Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now (2 agents) - -Each wave must complete before the next starts. Agents use WebSearch for real data. All skills support Claude.ai (sequential fallback) and Knowledge-Based Mode when WebSearch is unavailable. - -### Research Scaling - -All skills use dynamic research scaling. After intake, a complexity score (3-9) is calculated from market breadth, known competitors, and geographic scope. This maps to three tiers: - -- **Light** (3-4): Merged agents, 2-3 search rounds. Quick scan for niche markets. -- **Standard** (5-7): Default behavior, unchanged from current wave structure. -- **Deep** (8-9): Extra agents per wave, 5-6 search rounds. Thorough due diligence. - -Users can override with "light", "deep", or "ok". See each skill's `references/research-scaling.md` for wave configurations per tier. - -### Verification Agent - -All skills run a **V1: Verification** agent after synthesis. It audits deliverables for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration. Each skill adds domain-specific checks (e.g., cross-phase consistency for startup-design, battle card coherence for startup-competitors). Output: `verification-report.md`. Critical issues pause the flow for user review. See each skill's `references/verification-agent.md`. - -### Output Structure - -**startup-design** generates files in subdirectories: -- `00-intake/` — Brief, brainstorm, preflight, customer interviews -- `01-discovery/` — Market research (raw + synthesized) -- `02-strategy/` — Lean canvas, positioning, business model, GTM -- `03-brand/` — Mission, vision, tone of voice -- `04-product/` — MVP, features, user journey -- `05-financial/` — Revenue, costs, projections -- `06-validation/` — Experiments, risks, scorecard - -**startup-competitors** generates files in `{project-name}/`: -- `intake.md` — Product and market context -- `competitors-report.md` — Main deliverable with strategic analysis -- `competitive-matrix.md` — Feature comparison table -- `pricing-landscape.md` — Pricing analysis and positioning -- `battle-cards/{competitor}.md` — Per-competitor one-pagers -- `raw/` — Raw research data from each wave - -**startup-positioning** generates files in `{project-name}/`: -- `intake.md` — Product and market context -- `positioning-doc.md` — Main deliverable (Dunford 5 components) -- `positioning-statement.md` — Moore + Neumeier statements + elevator pitch -- `competitive-alternatives.md` — JTBD-informed alternatives map -- `market-category-analysis.md` — Category candidates + recommendation -- `messaging-implications.md` — Bridge from positioning to copy -- `raw/` — Raw research data from each wave - -**startup-pitch** generates files in `{project-name}/`: -- `intake.md` — Product, team, and pitch context -- `pitch-full.md` — Full 10-minute pitch narrative -- `pitch-5min.md` — Compressed 5-minute version -- `pitch-2min.md` — Verbal 2-minute pitch script -- `pitch-1min.md` — Elevator pitch (formal + casual) -- `pitch-email.md` — Investor cold email + follow-up -- `pitch-appendix.md` — Q&A preparation, objection handling -- `pitch-deck-outline.md` — Slide-by-slide deck structure with headlines, visuals, speaker notes -- `pitch-scorecard.md` — Pitch quality scoring rubric -- `raw/` — Raw research data from each wave - -### Integration Between Skills - -`startup-competitors` can detect and leverage prior `startup-design` output. If files like `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` exist, it uses them as a starting point instead of re-interviewing. - -`startup-positioning` can detect and leverage output from BOTH `startup-design` (intake, discovery, strategy) and `startup-competitors` (battle cards, pricing landscape). It uses prior data as a head start and skips redundant intake questions. - -`startup-pitch` can detect and leverage output from ALL three other skills. `startup-design` is the recommended prior work (provides market data, business model, validation scorecard). It also reads `startup-competitors` (battle cards for Q&A prep) and `startup-positioning` (positioning statements, messaging hierarchy). - -### Testing - -Eval cases are in `{skill}-workspace/evals/evals.json`. To test: -1. Run each eval prompt through the skill -2. Grade against assertions in `eval_metadata.json` -3. Compare with/without skill performance - -## Git Workflow - -### Commit Messages - -Follow conventional commits: -- `feat: add new phase or capability` -- `fix: improve skill instructions` -- `docs: update README or CLAUDE.md` -- `test: add or update eval cases` - -### Branch Naming - -- `feature/description` -- `fix/description` -- `docs/description` +提交信息使用 Conventional Commits：`feat:`、`fix:`、`docs:` 或 `test:`。分支使用 `feature/`、`fix/` 或 `docs/` 前缀。 diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md deleted file mode 100644 index c5b655d..0000000 --- a/CLAUDE.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,199 +0,0 @@ -# CLAUDE.md - -Guidelines for AI agents working in this repository. - -## Repository Overview - -This repository contains the **startup** plugin for AI agents. The plugin namespace is `startup`, and it includes multiple skills organized in 3 categories: Design, Analyze, and Build (4 skills total). - -- **Name**: Startup Skills -- **GitHub**: [ferdinandobons/startup-skill](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill) -- **Creator**: Ferdinando Bons -- **License**: MIT - -## Skill Taxonomy - -| Category | Purpose | Skills | -|----------|---------|--------| -| **Design** | Full process, idea to validated plan | `startup-design` | -| **Analyze** | Deep standalone analysis of one area | `startup-competitors`, `startup-positioning` | -| **Build** | Post-validation execution tools | `startup-pitch` | - -## Repository Structure - -``` -startup-skill/ # Plugin namespace (startup:*) -├── .claude-plugin/ -│ └── marketplace.json # Plugin definition (name must be "startup") -├── startup-design/ # Skill: startup:startup-design -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~476 lines, 8 phases + pre-flight & customer discovery) -│ └── references/ # Supporting documents loaded on demand -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-market.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-competitors.md -│ ├── research-wave-3-customers.md -│ ├── research-wave-4-distribution.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ ├── customer-interview.md -│ ├── intake-questions.md -│ ├── output-specs.md -│ ├── frameworks.md -│ ├── industry-benchmarks.md -│ ├── honesty-protocol.md -│ └── output-guidelines.md -├── startup-competitors/ # Skill: startup:startup-competitors -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~268 lines, 3 waves) -│ └── references/ -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md -│ ├── research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ └── honesty-protocol.md -├── startup-positioning/ # Skill: startup:startup-positioning -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~302 lines, 2 waves) -│ └── references/ -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-alternatives.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-market-frame.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ ├── frameworks.md -│ └── honesty-protocol.md -├── startup-pitch/ # Skill: startup:startup-pitch -│ ├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (~424 lines, 2 waves) -│ └── references/ -│ ├── research-principles.md -│ ├── research-scaling.md -│ ├── research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md -│ ├── research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md -│ ├── research-synthesis.md -│ ├── verification-agent.md -│ ├── pitch-frameworks.md -│ └── honesty-protocol.md -├── CLAUDE.md -├── CONTRIBUTING.md -├── LICENSE -└── README.md -``` - -## Key Conventions - -### Naming Convention - -- **Plugin name** (`startup`): defined in `.claude-plugin/marketplace.json` → becomes the namespace prefix -- **Skill name** (`startup-design`, `startup-competitors`): defined in `SKILL.md` frontmatter → must match directory name -- **Command**: `/startup:startup-design`, `/startup:startup-competitors`, `/startup:startup-positioning`, `/startup:startup-pitch` — `plugin-name:skill-name` -- Future skills go in the same repo as separate directories - -### Skill Format - -- `SKILL.md` uses YAML frontmatter with `name` and `description` fields -- `name` must match directory name exactly (lowercase, hyphens) -- `description` must be 1-1024 characters with trigger phrases -- Keep `SKILL.md` under 500 lines; move details to `references/` -- References are loaded progressively (only when needed for current phase) -- Reference files use `research-wave-N-` prefix for consistency across skills - -### Research Architecture - -**startup-design** Phase 3 uses 4 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Market Landscape (3 agents) -- Wave 2: Competitive Analysis (3 agents) -- Wave 3: Customer & Demand (3 agents) -- Wave 4: Distribution (2 agents) - -**startup-competitors** uses 3 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing Intelligence (2 agents) -- Wave 2: Customer Sentiment Mining (2 agents) -- Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals (2 agents) - -**startup-positioning** uses 2 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives + Customer Intelligence (2 agents) -- Wave 2: Market Frame + Trends (2 agents) - -**startup-pitch** uses 2 sequential waves of parallel agents: -- Wave 1: Audience & Narrative Intelligence (2 agents) -- Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now (2 agents) - -Each wave must complete before the next starts. Agents use WebSearch for real data. All skills support Claude.ai (sequential fallback) and Knowledge-Based Mode when WebSearch is unavailable. - -**Research Scaling:** All skills dynamically adjust research depth. After intake, a complexity score (3-9) maps to Light/Standard/Deep tiers, changing agent count and search rounds per wave. Users can override. See each skill's `references/research-scaling.md`. - -**Verification Agent:** All skills run a V1: Verification agent after synthesis. It audits deliverables for consistency, unlabeled claims, and skill-specific coherence. Critical issues pause for user review. See each skill's `references/verification-agent.md`. - -### Output Structure - -**startup-design** generates files in subdirectories: -- `00-intake/` — Brief, brainstorm, preflight, customer interviews -- `01-discovery/` — Market research (raw + synthesized) -- `02-strategy/` — Lean canvas, positioning, business model, GTM -- `03-brand/` — Mission, vision, tone of voice -- `04-product/` — MVP, features, user journey -- `05-financial/` — Revenue, costs, projections -- `06-validation/` — Experiments, risks, scorecard - -**startup-competitors** generates files in `{project-name}/`: -- `intake.md` — Product and market context -- `competitors-report.md` — Main deliverable with strategic analysis -- `competitive-matrix.md` — Feature comparison table -- `pricing-landscape.md` — Pricing analysis and positioning -- `battle-cards/{competitor}.md` — Per-competitor one-pagers -- `raw/` — Raw research data from each wave - -**startup-positioning** generates files in `{project-name}/`: -- `intake.md` — Product and market context -- `positioning-doc.md` — Main deliverable (Dunford 5 components) -- `positioning-statement.md` — Moore + Neumeier statements + elevator pitch -- `competitive-alternatives.md` — JTBD-informed alternatives map -- `market-category-analysis.md` — Category candidates + recommendation -- `messaging-implications.md` — Bridge from positioning to copy -- `raw/` — Raw research data from each wave - -**startup-pitch** generates files in `{project-name}/`: -- `intake.md` — Product, team, and pitch context -- `pitch-full.md` — Full 10-minute pitch narrative -- `pitch-5min.md` — Compressed 5-minute version -- `pitch-2min.md` — Verbal 2-minute pitch script -- `pitch-1min.md` — Elevator pitch (formal + casual) -- `pitch-email.md` — Investor cold email + follow-up -- `pitch-appendix.md` — Q&A preparation, objection handling -- `pitch-deck-outline.md` — Slide-by-slide deck structure with headlines, visuals, speaker notes -- `pitch-scorecard.md` — Pitch quality scoring rubric -- `raw/` — Raw research data from each wave - -### Integration Between Skills - -`startup-competitors` can detect and leverage prior `startup-design` output. If files like `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` exist, it uses them as a starting point instead of re-interviewing. - -`startup-positioning` can detect and leverage output from BOTH `startup-design` (intake, discovery, strategy) and `startup-competitors` (battle cards, pricing landscape). It uses prior data as a head start and skips redundant intake questions. - -`startup-pitch` can detect and leverage output from ALL three other skills. `startup-design` is the recommended prior work (provides market data, business model, validation scorecard). It also reads `startup-competitors` (battle cards for Q&A prep) and `startup-positioning` (positioning statements, messaging hierarchy). - -### Testing - -Eval cases are in `{skill}-workspace/evals/evals.json`. To test: -1. Run each eval prompt through the skill -2. Grade against assertions in `eval_metadata.json` -3. Compare with/without skill performance - -## Git Workflow - -### Commit Messages - -Follow conventional commits: -- `feat: add new phase or capability` -- `fix: improve skill instructions` -- `docs: update README or CLAUDE.md` -- `test: add or update eval cases` - -### Branch Naming - -- `feature/description` -- `fix/description` -- `docs/description` diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 3a7ba07..91c25d5 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -1,96 +1,12 @@ -# Contributing +# 贡献指南 -Thanks for your interest in contributing to Startup Skills! This guide will help you improve existing skills or add new capabilities. +欢迎修正文案、补充中国行业来源、优化研究流程或提交评测案例。 -## Ways to Contribute +1. 从主分支创建 `feature/说明`、`fix/说明` 或 `docs/说明` 分支。 +2. 技能目录名必须与 `SKILL.md` 的 `name` 完全一致；描述须包含中文触发场景。 +3. `SKILL.md` 保持在 500 行以内，阶段细节放入 `references/`，所有文档使用简体中文。 +4. 新增市场数据时写明来源、发布日期、访问日期、地域和统计口径，不提交受版权保护的完整报告。 +5. 不提交 API Key、个人信息、抓取到的用户身份信息或无法验证的营销数据。 +6. 检查 YAML、相对链接、中文默认规则及无特定付费模型依赖后再提交拉取请求。 -- **Improve skill instructions** — Make phases clearer, fix edge cases -- **Add reference files** — New frameworks, research templates -- **Improve research agents** — Better search queries, output formats -- **Add eval cases** — New test scenarios for different startup types -- **Fix bugs** — Report or fix issues with the skill - -## Getting Started - -1. Fork the repository -2. Clone your fork -3. Create a feature branch (`git checkout -b feature/your-improvement`) - -## Skill Structure - -Each skill follows the same directory pattern: - -``` -{skill-name}/ -├── SKILL.md # Main skill file (keep under 500 lines) -└── references/ # Supporting documents loaded on demand - ├── research-principles.md - ├── research-wave-*.md - ├── research-synthesis.md - └── frameworks.md (if applicable) -``` - -Current skills: `startup-design/`, `startup-competitors/`, `startup-positioning/`, `startup-pitch/`. - -### Guidelines - -- **SKILL.md** should stay under 500 lines. Move detailed content to `references/` -- **Reference files** should be self-contained and loaded only when needed -- **YAML frontmatter** must have valid `name` and `description` fields -- `name` must match directory name exactly (lowercase, hyphens only) -- `description` should include trigger phrases for skill discovery - -## Testing Your Changes - -1. Start a conversation with Claude Code in the repo directory -2. Test with different startup ideas (vague, detailed, non-English) -3. Verify the skill triggers correctly -4. Check that outputs follow the expected directory structure -5. Confirm PROGRESS.md is updated properly - -### Eval Cases - -Eval cases for each skill are in `{skill-name}-workspace/evals/evals.json`. Example from startup-design: - -| Test | Scenario | Phases Tested | -|------|----------|---------------| -| 1 | Vague idea (mechanic app) | Phase 1 | -| 2 | Detailed B2B (invoice AI) | Phase 1 + 2 | -| 3 | Italian language (food marketplace) | Phase 1 | -| 4 | Validation focus (Slack extension) | Phase 1 + 2 | -| 5 | Checkpoint resume (parking app) | Phase 4 | - -## Submitting Your Contribution - -1. Make your changes -2. Test locally with an AI agent -3. Submit a pull request using the appropriate template - -## Release Checklist - -When creating a new release: - -- [ ] Rebuild zip files for each changed skill: - - `zip -r startup-design.zip startup-design/` - - `zip -r startup-competitors.zip startup-competitors/` - - `zip -r startup-positioning.zip startup-positioning/` - - `zip -r startup-pitch.zip startup-pitch/` -- [ ] Create a git tag: `git tag -a vX.Y.Z -m "description"` -- [ ] Push code and tag: `git push origin main && git push origin vX.Y.Z` -- [ ] Create a GitHub release and attach zip files as assets (Claude.ai users download these) - -The zip files are used by Claude.ai web app users who install skills via Settings → Skills → Add Skill. They must be updated with every release that changes skill files. - -## Quality Checklist - -- [ ] `SKILL.md` is under 500 lines -- [ ] YAML frontmatter is valid -- [ ] `name` matches directory name -- [ ] No sensitive data or credentials -- [ ] Tested locally with AI agent -- [ ] Changes are focused and minimal -- [ ] Zip files rebuilt for any changed skills - -## Questions? - -Open an issue if you have questions or need help with your contribution. +提交信息使用 Conventional Commits，例如 `feat: 增加中国电商渠道研究`、`fix: 修正人民币价格口径`、`docs: 更新免费模型安装说明`。 diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index d5f2f83..1ab7283 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,143 +1,67 @@ -# Startup Skill +# 中国创业技能包 -[![Version](https://img.shields.io/github/v/release/ferdinandobons/startup-skill?label=version)](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill/releases) -[![License: MIT](https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-blue.svg)](LICENSE) -[![GitHub stars](https://img.shields.io/github/stars/ferdinandobons/startup-skill)](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill/stargazers) +一套面向中国市场、默认使用简体中文的开放式 AI Agent 技能。它帮助创业者完成市场验证、竞品研究、定位和融资路演，并将事实、推断与假设严格分开。 -

- Startup Skill — From startup idea to validated strategy. In one afternoon. Radically honest. Completely free. -

+## 技能 -What a $10K strategy consultant would deliver: market research, competitive battle cards, positioning, financial projections, and a 30-day action plan. If your idea should die, it will tell you. +| 技能 | 用途 | 主要交付 | +|---|---|---| +| [`startup-design`](startup-design/SKILL.md) | 从想法到验证计划 | 市场、客户、商业模式、产品、财务与 30 天实验 | +| [`startup-competitors`](startup-competitors/SKILL.md) | 中国市场竞品情报 | 竞品报告、价格图谱、矩阵和对战卡 | +| [`startup-positioning`](startup-positioning/SKILL.md) | 中国市场定位 | 替代方案、品类选择、定位陈述和信息表达 | +| [`startup-pitch`](startup-pitch/SKILL.md) | 中文融资与合作路演 | 多时长讲稿、邮件、逐页大纲、问答和评分表 | -Works with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/claude-code) and any agent that supports skills. +四个技能均默认： -**Website:** [startupskill.me](https://startupskill.me) +- 使用简体中文沟通和交付，金额使用人民币并注明数据日期与口径； +- 优先政府、统计部门、交易所、企业官网等中国一手来源； +- 覆盖微信、知乎、小红书、抖音、B站、微博、电商、应用商店和行业社区，但明确平台样本偏差； +- 检查个人信息、数据跨境、生成式 AI、广告、电商及行业许可等中国市场风险； +- 在无法联网时切换为“知识库模式”，绝不伪造实时搜索与来源。 -**Latest release:** [v1.10.0](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill/releases/tag/v1.10.0) +## 免费 AI 运行方式 -**Contributions welcome!** [Open a PR](#contributing) or [an issue](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill/issues). +本仓库采用通用 `SKILL.md` 格式，不绑定任何特定商业模型或付费订阅。可复制到支持 Agent Skills 的工具目录，也可将 `SKILL.md` 作为系统/项目指令交给任意模型。 -## Available Skills - -| Skill | What you get | -|-------|-------------| -| [startup-design](startup-design/) | Complete startup strategy: market research, customer discovery, competitive analysis, brand, product definition, financial projections, and validation experiments. 8 phases plus pre-flight check and customer interview gate, 30+ structured deliverables. | -| [startup-competitors](startup-competitors/) | Battle cards for every competitor, pricing landscape, feature matrix, and strategic report. Built from real reviews, forums, web data, and reviewed social/community source packets when provided. | -| [startup-positioning](startup-positioning/) | Market positioning using April Dunford's framework. Positioning doc, competitive alternatives map, market category analysis, and messaging implications. | -| [startup-pitch](startup-pitch/) | Investor-ready pitch in multiple formats: 10-min, 5-min, 2-min, 1-min elevator, email, and a slide-by-slide deck outline. Includes scoring rubric, Q&A prep, and investor roleplay practice. | - -## Usage - -Describe what you need — skills trigger automatically: - -> *"I want to build a SaaS for real estate agents that automates follow-up emails. Is it worth building?"* - -**→ `startup-design`** runs the full process: pre-flight check, 8 phases, customer discovery gate - ---- - -> *"Who are my competitors in the project management space for creative agencies? I need battle cards and a pricing comparison."* - -**→ `startup-competitors`** profiles 5-8+ competitors across 3 research waves - ---- - -> *"Quick validation — fast track mode."* - -**→ `startup-design`** runs a compressed go/no-go analysis - ---- - -> *"How should we position our product? We're in the project management space but we're different from Asana and Monday."* - -**→ `startup-positioning`** builds positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components - ---- - -> *"Prepare my pitch — I'm raising 500K pre-seed. We have 45 active customers growing 20% MoM."* - -**→ `startup-pitch`** builds pitch narratives in multiple formats with scoring and Q&A prep - -Or invoke directly: `/startup:startup-design`, `/startup:startup-competitors`, `/startup:startup-positioning`, `/startup:startup-pitch` - -> **Token usage:** These skills run multiple research agents and can consume a large number of tokens. For the best experience, use [Claude Max 5x](https://claude.ai/upgrade). If a session hits the limit, just ask Claude to "resume from where you left off" — it will pick up the process. - -## Installation - -### Claude Code Plugin (Recommended) +### 方案一：Qwen Code 或其他支持技能的免费 CLI ```bash -claude plugin marketplace add ferdinandobons/startup-skill -claude plugin install startup@startup-skill +git clone https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill.git +mkdir -p ~/.agents/skills +cp -r startup-skill/startup-* ~/.agents/skills/ ``` -
-Claude.ai (Web App) +随后在 CLI 中直接描述任务，例如： -Download `.skill` files from the [Releases page](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill/releases), then upload in **Settings → Skills**. +> 请使用 startup-design，验证一个面向中国二线城市宠物主的上门护理平台。 -
+### 方案二：Ollama 本地开源模型 -
-Other Methods +安装 Ollama 后选择适合设备的 Qwen、DeepSeek 等开源模型，把所需 `SKILL.md` 和当前阶段参考文件加入上下文。模型名称、许可与硬件需求以模型发布页为准。 -```bash -# CLI Install -npx skills add ferdinandobons/startup-skill +### 方案三：有免费额度的网页或 CLI 模型 -# Clone and copy -git clone https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill.git -cp -r startup-skill/startup-design .agents/skills/ -cp -r startup-skill/startup-competitors .agents/skills/ -cp -r startup-skill/startup-positioning .agents/skills/ -cp -r startup-skill/startup-pitch .agents/skills/ - -# Git submodule -git submodule add https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill.git .agents/startup-skill +通义千问、DeepSeek、豆包、Kimi、智谱清言、Gemini CLI 等产品通常提供免费使用方式或额度。免费政策与联网能力会变化，请在使用前查看各产品官方条款。本仓库不会保存 API Key，也不要求接入任何云端服务。 -# SkillKit (works with Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, etc.) -npx skillkit install ferdinandobons/startup-skill -``` +> 深度研究会消耗较多上下文。免费模型建议选择“轻量”研究档位，并在每一轮完成后把结果写入文件，再开启下一轮。 -
+## 使用 -
-Updating +复制整个技能目录，确保 `SKILL.md` 与 `references/` 保持相对路径。直接说出目标即可触发对应流程： -**Claude Code Plugin:** -```bash -claude plugin update startup@startup-skill -``` - -> If the update doesn't pick up new changes, refresh the marketplace source and reinstall: -> ```bash -> claude plugin uninstall startup@startup-skill -> claude plugin marketplace remove startup-skill -> claude plugin marketplace add ferdinandobons/startup-skill -> claude plugin install startup@startup-skill -> ``` - -**Claude.ai:** Download the latest `.skill` files from the [Releases page](https://github.com/ferdinandobons/startup-skill/releases) and re-upload in **Settings → Skills**. - -**CLI / SkillKit:** Re-run the install command — it overwrites the previous version: -```bash -npx skills add ferdinandobons/startup-skill -# or -npx skillkit install ferdinandobons/startup-skill -``` - -**Git Submodule:** -```bash -git submodule update --remote .agents/startup-skill +```text +我想验证一个给县域餐饮店做私域复购的工具，预算 3 万元，请用轻量模式。 +帮我研究中国低代码客服市场的竞品、价格和用户差评。 +我们不想被称为 CRM，应该如何定位？ +把已有材料改成面向人民币种子基金的 5 分钟中文路演。 ``` -
+研究过程会创建 `PROGRESS.md`，中断后可从已完成阶段续跑。 -## Contributing +## 重要声明 -See [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md) for details. +技能提供商业研究与决策辅助，不构成法律、财税、证券、医疗或其他专业意见。涉及备案、许可、数据、广告或融资合规时，请咨询中国境内具备相应资质的专业人士。 -## License +## 贡献与许可 -[MIT](LICENSE) +贡献方式见 [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md)。本项目采用 [MIT 许可证](LICENSE)。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/SKILL.md b/startup-competitors/SKILL.md index d5a0903..538bc45 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/SKILL.md +++ b/startup-competitors/SKILL.md @@ -1,268 +1,63 @@ --- name: startup-competitors -description: Deep competitive intelligence for any market. Analyzes competitors' products, pricing, customer sentiment, GTM strategy, and growth signals using real web data. Produces battle cards, pricing landscape, and feature matrix. Use when the user wants to understand their competitive landscape, analyze competitors, compare products in a market, or research who they're competing against. Triggers for "who are my competitors", "competitive analysis", "competitor research", "battle cards", "pricing comparison", "competitor pricing", "market players", "competitive intelligence", "competitive landscape", "who else is in this space", "competitive moat", or any request to profile, compare, or map competitors in a category. Works standalone — no prior startup-design session needed. +description: 面向中国市场的竞品情报技能，研究直接竞品、替代方案、定价、用户口碑、获客渠道、备案资质与增长信号，输出竞品报告、矩阵、价格图谱和对战卡。适用于竞品分析、价格对比、竞争格局、替代品、护城河等请求。 --- -# Startup Competitors +# 中国市场竞品分析 -Deep competitive intelligence that goes beyond surface-level profiles. Produces actionable battle cards, pricing landscape analysis, and strategic vulnerability mapping using real web data. +需求确认 → 研究深度评估 → 三轮研究 → 综合分析 → 核验 -## How It Works +默认全程输出简体中文，以可追溯证据服务中国市场决策。 -``` -INTAKE → RESEARCH (3 sequential waves) → SYNTHESIS → BATTLE CARDS -``` +## 中国市场通用规则 -The process is focused: understand the product, research competitors deeply across 3 dimensions, synthesize findings, and produce actionable output. Typical runtime: 15-25 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 30-45 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential). +- 默认使用简体中文提问、检索、分析和交付；用户明确要求其他语言时再切换。 +- 金额默认以人民币（CNY）表示，同时写清含税/未税、月付/年付及数据日期。 +- 先确认目标区域是中国大陆、港澳台还是出海市场；不得把“中文市场”等同于中国大陆。 +- 检索优先级：政府与监管部门、国家统计局/地方统计局、交易所公告、企业官网/公众号、主流电商与应用商店，再到可信行业报告和社区内容。 +- 社区信号可来自微信、知乎、小红书、抖音、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、少数派及垂直论坛；受登录限制时说明缺口，不伪造浏览结果。 +- 涉及个人信息、数据跨境、生成式 AI、算法推荐、广告、电商、金融、医疗、教育、地图或出版时，只做风险识别并建议咨询中国执业专业人士，不输出无依据的“合规确认”。 +- 明确区分事实、推断、假设和建议；事实附可访问链接、发布日期/访问日期，关键结论至少两类独立来源交叉验证。 +- 禁止把媒体转载链当作多个独立来源，禁止虚构市场规模、融资、客户数、价格、备案或牌照。 +- 免费工具优先：具备免费额度的通义千问/Qwen、DeepSeek、豆包、Kimi、智谱清言、Gemini CLI，或通过 Ollama 本地运行 Qwen/DeepSeek 等开源模型。免费政策会变化，使用前由用户确认；不得要求特定付费模型或订阅。 +- 工具不可用时进入“知识库模式”：只产出假设、检索清单和待验证项，不把模型记忆包装成实时调研。 -### Language -Default output language is **English**. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead. +## 执行流程 ---- - -## Phase 0: Resume Check - -Before anything else, check if a `PROGRESS.md` created by this skill exists in the working directory or a project subdirectory (the skill name field says `startup-competitors`). If it does, read it and resume from the last incomplete phase. Tell the user: "I found progress from a previous session. You completed [phases]. Picking up from [next phase]." - -If no progress file exists — or the one found belongs to a different skill — start from Phase 1. - ---- - -## Phase 1: Intake - -Short and focused — 1-2 rounds of questions, not an extended interview. The goal is just enough context to run targeted research. - -### Check for Prior startup-design Work - -Before asking questions, check if a `startup-design` session has already been completed for this project. Look for these files in the working directory or subdirectories: - -- `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` — competitor profiles and analysis -- `01-discovery/market-analysis.md` — market size, trends, regulatory -- `01-discovery/target-audience.md` — customer personas, pain points -- `00-intake/brief.md` — product description and context - -If these files exist, read them and use the data as a head start: -- Extract the product description, target market, and known competitors from the brief -- Use the competitor list from `competitor-landscape.md` as the starting point for deeper analysis (startup-design profiles 5-8 competitors at surface level — this skill goes much deeper on each) -- Pull market size and trends from `market-analysis.md` to contextualize the competitive landscape -- Use customer pain points from `target-audience.md` to focus the sentiment mining on what matters most - -Tell the user: "I found data from a previous startup-design session. I'll use it as a starting point and go deeper on the competitive analysis." - -Skip the intake interview entirely if the startup-design files provide enough context. Go straight to research. - -### What to Ask (if no prior data exists) - -**Round 1 — The basics:** -- What's your product/idea? (one sentence is fine) -- What problem does it solve and for whom? -- What market/category are you in? -- Do you know any competitors already? (names, URLs) - -**Round 2 — Sharpening (only if needed):** -- What geography/market are you targeting? -- What's your pricing model or range? -- What do you consider your key differentiator? - -Don't over-interview. If the user gives a clear description upfront, skip straight to research. The competitive analysis itself will surface what matters. - -### Output - -Save to `{project-name}/intake.md` — a brief summary of the product, market, and known competitors. If built on startup-design data, note the source files used. The project name should be derived from the product/market (kebab-case, e.g., `ai-email-assistant`). - -Create `{project-name}/PROGRESS.md` with: project name, skill name (`startup-competitors`), start date, language, research mode (Live / Knowledge-Based), and a phase checklist. Update it after each phase completes. If PROGRESS.md already exists from a previous session, resume from the last incomplete phase. - ---- - -## Phase 1.5: Research Depth Assessment - -After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-scaling.md` for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template. - -### Process - -1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1-3), known competitors (1-3), geographic scope (1-3) -2. Sum the scores (range 3-9) and map to a tier: Light (3-4), Standard (5-7), Deep (8-9) -3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see `research-scaling.md` for the exact template) -4. Wait for user response: **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation -5. Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md - -The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See `research-scaling.md` for exact wave configurations per tier. - ---- - -## Phase 2: Research - -Three sequential research waves, each attacking the competitive landscape from a different angle — agents within a wave run in parallel. Together they produce a 360-degree view. - -### Environment Detection - -Check if the `Agent` tool is available: - -- **Agent tool available (Claude Code):** Spawn all agents within each wave in parallel. This is faster. -- **Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web):** Execute research sequentially, following the same templates. Same depth, just slower. - -### Web Search - -This skill requires WebSearch for real data. If WebSearch is unavailable or denied, fall back to **Knowledge-Based Mode**: use training data, mark all findings with **[Knowledge-Based — verify independently]**, and reduce confidence ratings by one level. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-principles.md` before starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross-referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps. - -### Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing Intelligence - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md` for agent templates. - -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): - -**A1: Competitor Deep-Dives** — Identify and profile 5-8 direct competitors plus 2-3 adjacent solutions (broader platforms, manual alternatives, tools from neighboring categories that compete for the same budget). For each: product, features, team size, funding, traction signals, strengths, weaknesses. Go beyond their marketing page — check reviews, job postings, and funding data. +### 0—1. 续跑与需求确认 +查找本技能的 `PROGRESS.md`，并复用已有创业设计产物。确认产品、目标客户、地域、已知竞品、价格口径和决策问题；创建 `{项目名}/intake.md`。 -**A2: Pricing Intelligence** — For each competitor: reverse-engineer the pricing model. Not just "it costs $49/mo" but: what's the value metric (per seat? per usage? flat?), how do tiers differentiate, what pricing psychology do they use (anchoring, decoy, charm pricing), what's the switching cost (technical, contractual, emotional). Build a tier-by-tier comparison. +### 1.5 研究深度 +按市场宽度、已知竞品数和地域跨度各计 1—3 分，选择轻量（3—4）、标准（5—7）或深度（8—9），将选择写入进度文件。 -### Wave 2: Customer Sentiment Mining +### 2. 三轮研究 +1. **企业与定价**：官网、应用商店、企查类公开信息、备案/许可、套餐、合同门槛、渠道价和免费策略。 +2. **用户口碑**：应用商店、电商评论、知乎/小红书/B站/微博/垂直社区；记录样本量、时间窗和偏差，引用短摘录不得暴露个人信息。 +3. **获客与战略信号**：搜索、内容、私域、直播、电商、代理/生态、招投标、招聘、融资和产品更新。 -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md` for agent templates. +### 3—4. 综合与核验 +区分直接竞品、间接竞品、替代流程和“不行动”。给出可利用缺口、我方风险和可验证行动。核验代理检查价格日期、同口径对比、重复来源、无证据结论和战卡一致性。 -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): +## 交付文件 -**B1: Review Mining** — Mine G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, Product Hunt, and App Store reviews for each competitor. Extract patterns: what do people praise? What do they complain about? What features do they request? Organize by competitor and by pain theme. Include verbatim quotes. +`competitors-report.md`、`competitive-matrix.md`、`pricing-landscape.md`、`battle-cards/{竞品}.md`、`verification-report.md`，以及 `raw/` 中的逐轮证据。所有价格写明日期、币种、含税情况和适用条件。 -**B2: Forum & Community Mining** — Mine Reddit, Indie Hackers, Hacker News, Quora, and niche communities. Find: complaints about existing tools, "what do you use for X?" threads, migration stories, workaround discussions. Build a **language map** — the exact words customers use to describe their problems and desires. Identify **churn signals** — why people leave each competitor. - -### Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md` for agent templates. - -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): - -**C1: Go-to-Market Analysis** — For each competitor: primary acquisition channel, sales motion (self-serve vs. sales-led), content strategy (blog frequency, topics, quality), social presence, paid advertising signals, partnership plays. Build a **channel opportunity map** showing competitor saturation vs. opportunity per channel. - -**C2: Strategic & Growth Signals** — Funding trajectory (rounds, investors, timing), hiring patterns (engineering-heavy = building, sales-heavy = scaling, support-heavy = struggling), content/SEO footprint (what keywords they rank for, where the gaps are), product roadmap signals from changelogs and public statements. Identify **content pillars** each competitor owns and which topics nobody covers well. - ---- - -### Post-Research Checkpoint - -After all three waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: how many competitors were profiled, the top customer pain themes, the most notable strategic signals (funding, hiring, GTM patterns). Ask: "Does this align with your expectations? Any competitors to add or remove before I synthesize?" - -Keep it to one message — this is a quick alignment check, not a full report. - ---- - -## Phase 3: Synthesis - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-synthesis.md` for synthesis protocol and battle card template. - -After the checkpoint, synthesize raw findings into strategic deliverables. This step creates the real value — it's not reporting, it's pattern-matching across data sources. - -### How to Synthesize - -Synthesis is where raw competitor data becomes strategy — it's reasoning, not formatting. Before writing, think hard about how the findings interlock: a pricing gap means little until you connect it to a recurring customer complaint and a hiring signal. This is the highest-leverage thinking in the analysis, so if the model supports extended thinking, spend it here. Then work through these steps deliberately: - -1. Read all raw files before writing anything -2. Connect findings across waves: pricing gaps + customer complaints + hiring signals = strategic opportunities -3. Identify contradictions between sources and explain which to trust -4. Rate confidence for each major claim (High / Medium / Low) -5. Surface strategic implications — not just facts, but what they mean -6. Aggregate all data gaps from raw files into a dedicated "Data Gaps & Research Limitations" section in the competitors-report — every analysis has blind spots, and being explicit about them prevents false confidence -7. Include adjacent solutions (broader platforms, manual alternatives, tools from neighboring categories) — customers don't just choose between direct competitors, they choose between "good enough" options from adjacent spaces - -### Output Files - -Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: `# {Title}: {product}` followed by `*Skill: startup-competitors | Generated: {date}*`. Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections. - -**`{project-name}/competitors-report.md`** — The main deliverable: -- Executive summary (5-sentence competitive landscape overview) -- Market concentration assessment (fragmented / consolidating / dominated) -- Key findings per research dimension -- Strategic opportunities (where to compete) -- Strategic risks (where to avoid) -- Competitive moat assessment (network effects, switching costs, data moat, brand, scale) -- Data gaps & research limitations (mandatory — aggregate from all raw files) -- Red flags and yellow flags - -**`{project-name}/competitive-matrix.md`** — Feature comparison table: -- Features as rows, competitors as columns -- Rating: strong / adequate / weak / missing -- Highlight gaps where no competitor serves well -- Your product included (or placeholder if pre-launch) - -**`{project-name}/pricing-landscape.md`** — Dedicated pricing analysis: -- Tier-by-tier comparison across all competitors -- Value metric analysis (what each charges for and why) -- Pricing psychology breakdown (anchoring, decoy, freemium strategies) -- Price positioning map (axes: price vs. feature depth) -- Pricing whitespace — where there's room to position -- Switching cost matrix (per competitor: technical, contractual, emotional) - -**`{project-name}/battle-cards/{competitor-name}.md`** — One per competitor: -- One-page format: who they are, their strengths, their weaknesses -- How to win against them (specific talking points) -- When they win over you (be honest) -- Customer objections and responses -- Key vulnerability to exploit -- Churn signals (why their customers leave) - -### Raw Data - -Keep raw research files in `{project-name}/raw/` for reference: -- `competitor-profiles.md` -- `pricing-intelligence.md` -- `review-mining.md` -- `forum-mining.md` -- `gtm-analysis.md` -- `strategic-signals.md` - ---- - -## Phase 3.5: Research Verification - -After synthesis completes and all deliverable files are written, run a verification pass. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/verification-agent.md` for the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks. - -### Process - -1. Spawn agent **V1: Verification** — it reads all deliverable files and checks for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration -2. V1 also runs startup-competitors-specific checks: battle card vs. report consistency, matrix vs. profiles alignment, pricing landscape vs. profiles consistency, cross-deliverable coherence -3. V1 produces `{project-name}/verification-report.md` -4. **If Critical issues found:** Pause and present issues to the user. Ask: fix first, or proceed as-is? -5. **If only Warnings/Info:** Show one-line summary - -In Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol. - ---- - -## Honesty Protocol - -> **Reference:** Read `references/honesty-protocol.md` for full protocol and anti-pattern details. - -Competitive intelligence is only useful if it's honest. Core rules apply (label claims, quantify, declare gaps), plus competitive-intelligence-specific additions: - -1. **No cheerleading.** If a competitor is objectively better at something, say so. Battle cards that ignore competitor strengths are useless in real sales conversations. -2. **Label claims.** Use **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, **[Opinion]** tags. Never present guesses as facts. -3. **Quantify.** "$12M ARR growing 40% YoY" not "they're growing fast." -4. **Date everything.** Flag data older than 12 months. -5. **Declare gaps.** "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]" is always better than fabrication. -6. **Surface red flags.** If the competitive landscape looks brutal, say so directly. -7. **Challenge confirmation bias.** When research confirms what the founder already believes, probe deeper. Look for disconfirming evidence. - -See `references/honesty-protocol.md` for the full anti-pattern table (6 entries) and detailed protocol. - ---- +## 质量闸门 -## Reference Files +- 每个关键数字都有来源、口径、日期和置信度；找不到就写“待验证”。 +- 将结果分为“已验证事实 / 有依据推断 / 创始人假设 / 建议动作”。 +- 发现关键矛盾、监管硬风险或证据不足时暂停，向用户展示问题与可选路径。 +- 每阶段完成后更新 `PROGRESS.md`，记录研究模式、深度、已完成文件和下一步。 +- 只读取当前阶段需要的参考资料，控制上下文和免费模型用量。 -Read only what you need for the current phase. +## 参考资料 -| File | When to Read | ~Lines | Purpose | -|------|-------------|--------|---------| -| `honesty-protocol.md` | Start of session | ~72 | Full honesty protocol with anti-patterns | -| `research-principles.md` | Before starting Phase 2 | ~54 | Source quality, cross-referencing, data gaps | -| `research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md` | When running Wave 1 | ~186 | Agent templates for profiles + pricing | -| `research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md` | When running Wave 2 | ~189 | Agent templates for review + forum mining | -| `research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md` | When running Wave 3 | ~192 | Agent templates for GTM + strategic signals | -| `research-synthesis.md` | After all waves complete | ~231 | How to synthesize + battle card template | -| `research-scaling.md` | After intake, before Phase 2 | ~106 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations | -| `verification-agent.md` | After synthesis | ~126 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks | +- `startup-competitors/references/honesty-protocol.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/research-principles.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/research-scaling.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/research-synthesis.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md` +- `startup-competitors/references/verification-agent.md` diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/honesty-protocol.md b/startup-competitors/references/honesty-protocol.md index c6d7f88..91cb9d8 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/honesty-protocol.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/honesty-protocol.md @@ -1,72 +1,16 @@ -# Radical Honesty Protocol +# 诚实与证据协议 -This skill exists to help founders make good decisions — not to feel good. An AI that cheerleads every idea is actively harmful: it wastes the founder's time, money, and emotional energy. These principles are non-negotiable and apply to every phase. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Tell the truth, even when it's uncomfortable +## 四类陈述 -- If the market is too small, say so directly. Don't soften "$12M and shrinking" into "room for a focused player." -- If the idea has a fatal flaw, name it up front. Don't bury it in a list of minor risks. -- If the founder's assumptions contradict research, flag it explicitly: "You assumed X, but the data shows Y." -- Challenge "everyone needs this" (who specifically?), "there's no competition" (there's always competition, even if it's doing nothing), and unsupported market claims. -- Never use vague positive language to avoid delivering bad news. Replace "interesting opportunity" with the specific finding. +1. **事实**：有可访问来源、日期和明确口径。 +2. **推断**：由事实推导，写出推理链和置信度。 +3. **假设**：尚无证据，必须进入验证清单。 +4. **建议**：说明依据、成本、风险和停止条件。 -## Separate facts from opinions +不得编造链接、引用、用户原话、价格、融资、牌照、备案、客户或市场规模。搜索不到不等于不存在。来源受登录、反爬或付费墙限制时直接说明。关键数据优先两类独立来源；转载不得算独立佐证。发现证据冲突时并列展示，不擅自取对自己有利的一项。 -- Label every major claim with its basis: - - **[Data]** — sourced finding with citation - - **[Estimate]** — calculated projection with stated assumptions - - **[Assumption]** — unverified belief that needs testing - - **[Opinion]** — your analytical judgment -- When data is missing or weak, say so. -- Never present estimates as facts. -- A confident-sounding fabrication is worse than an honest "I don't know." +## 中国市场敏感边界 -## Surface flags proactively - -In every output file, include a **Flags** section at the end: - -- **Red Flags** — Issues that could undermine the competitive analysis or the business. -- **Yellow Flags** — Concerns that need investigation or monitoring. - -If there are no flags, write "No flags identified" — don't skip the section. - -## Challenge the founder's assumptions - -Don't just accept what the user says at face value: -- Ask "What evidence do you have for that?" when the founder claims competitive advantages -- Push back on "we have no competitors" — there's always competition, even doing nothing -- Question "we're better at everything" — no product wins on every dimension -- When the founder dismisses a competitor, test that dismissal against data - -## Competitive Intelligence-Specific Rules - -1. **Acknowledge competitor strengths.** Battle cards that ignore competitor strengths are useless in real sales conversations. If a competitor is objectively better at something, say so directly. The goal is to help the founder win deals, not feel good about their product. - -2. **Challenge confirmation bias.** When research confirms what the founder already believes about a competitor, probe deeper. Confirmation bias is the #1 enemy of competitive intelligence. Look for disconfirming evidence. - -3. **Don't cherry-pick reviews.** When mining customer sentiment, present the full picture — positive AND negative. Three angry Reddit posts don't mean a product is failing if it has 4.5 stars on G2 with 500 reviews. Represent sentiment proportionally. - -4. **Flag intelligence gaps honestly.** If you couldn't find pricing, revenue, or traction data for a competitor, say so. A blank cell is better than a guess. Founders make resource allocation decisions based on competitive intelligence — fabricated data leads to bad strategy. - -5. **Rate competitor threat honestly.** The final report must include an honest threat assessment per competitor: - - **High threat** — Strong product, growing fast, well-funded, overlapping target - - **Medium threat** — Competitive on some dimensions, gaps on others - - **Low threat** — Weak product, stagnant, or targeting different segment - Don't inflate threats to create urgency or deflate them to comfort the founder. - -## Competitive Intelligence Anti-Patterns - -| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say | -|---|---|---| -| Cherry-picking weaknesses | Only listing competitor flaws | "What are they actually good at? Your sales team will face this in every deal." | -| Dismissing competitors | "They're not real competition" | "Their customers chose them over the alternatives. Why? What job are they doing well?" | -| Confirmation bias | Only finding data that confirms existing beliefs | "Let me look for evidence that contradicts this. What if we're wrong about [X]?" | -| Outdated intelligence | Using 2-year-old data for a fast-moving market | "This data is from {date}. The landscape may have shifted. Flag as potentially outdated." | -| Vanity comparisons | Comparing your best feature to their worst | "Compare apples to apples. Where do they win on dimensions that matter to buyers?" | -| Ignoring status quo | Not treating 'doing nothing' as competition | "Your biggest competitor might be inertia. What triggers someone to actually switch?" | - -## Ground rules - -- **Ground in evidence.** Every competitive claim should trace to research findings. -- **Make it actionable.** Intelligence that can't inform strategy is worthless. -- **No fabrication.** If data not found, say so. +不提供法律、税务、证券或医疗结论；只识别风险并建议咨询持证专业人士。处理社区内容时去标识化，不收集无关个人信息。不得建议刷量、虚假评价、诱导分享、绕过平台规则或监管。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/research-principles.md b/startup-competitors/references/research-principles.md index 3335632..e29798e 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/research-principles.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/research-principles.md @@ -1,54 +1,17 @@ -# Research Principles +# 中国市场研究原则 -These principles apply to ALL research agents across all waves. Every agent must follow them. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Iterative Deep Research +## 来源优先级 -Each agent performs **5-8 web searches minimum**, organized in sequential rounds that drill deeper: -- Round 1: Broad overview queries -- Round 2: Drill-down into specific findings from Round 1 -- Round 3: Cross-reference and validate -- Round 4: Reality check and edge cases +1. 国务院及部委、地方政府、国家/地方统计局、法院与交易所等一手公开材料； +2. 企业官网、公告、帮助中心、定价页、应用商店页面与官方账号； +3. 行业协会、学术机构、可信研究机构； +4. 主流媒体； +5. 知乎、小红书、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、电商评论和垂直论坛等用户信号。 -Do NOT stop after a single query. The first search gives you the surface — the follow-ups give you the insight. +社区内容适合发现语言、场景和抱怨，不适合直接推算全国市场。记录检索词、访问日期、样本量、平台偏差和缺失。中文与英文关键词并用，加入城市层级、行业俗称、政策用语和竞品品牌词。 -## Source Quality Tiers +## 数据口径 -Rank every finding by source reliability: - -| Tier | Source Type | Use For | -|------|-----------|---------| -| **Tier 1** | Industry reports (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, IBISWorld), SEC filings, government data, G2/Capterra aggregate data | Hard numbers, market share, verified metrics | -| **Tier 2** | Reputable tech press (TechCrunch, Bloomberg, WSJ), company press releases, Crunchbase, investor presentations | Funding data, company news, expert opinions | -| **Tier 3** | Blog posts, Reddit threads, individual reviews, social media | Sentiment, customer voice, anecdotal evidence | - -For competitive intelligence, Tier 3 sources are more valuable than usual — individual reviews and forum posts reveal the real customer experience that polished marketing hides. But don't use them for hard numbers. - -## Cross-Referencing - -Never trust a single source for important claims. For every key finding: -- Look for 2-3 independent sources -- If sources agree: note convergence and cite all -- If sources disagree: note both figures, explain the discrepancy, and state which you trust more and why - -## Quantification - -Vague claims are worthless. Always push for numbers: -- Bad: "They're a big player" -- Good: "$12M ARR, 2,500+ customers, Series B ($28M from Accel)" -- Bad: "Their pricing is high" -- Good: "$49/seat/mo for Pro, $99/seat/mo for Enterprise, vs. market median of $35/seat/mo" - -## Dating - -Always note when data was published. Flag anything older than 12 months as potentially outdated. Competitor landscapes shift fast — a funding round, pivot, or acquisition can change everything in weeks. - -## Handling Research Failures - -Sometimes WebSearch won't find what you need: - -1. **Try alternative queries.** Rephrase, use synonyms, try different angles. At least 3 variations before declaring a gap. -2. **Use proxy data.** If you can't find a competitor's revenue, estimate from team size, funding, pricing × estimated customers. Show your math. -3. **Declare the gap explicitly.** Write: "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]. Closest proxy: [Y]. Confidence: Low." -4. **Never fabricate.** An honest "unknown" is infinitely more valuable than a made-up number. -5. **Suggest how to fill the gap.** Point to specific reports or recommend reaching out to the competitor's customers directly. +市场规模注明年份、地域、含税口径和汇率；企业信息区分工商登记、官方披露和第三方推算；收入区分 GMV、合同额、回款和确认收入；用户量区分注册、月活、付费与企业客户。所有实时信息在交付前复核。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/research-scaling.md b/startup-competitors/references/research-scaling.md index 64d257b..1d7f128 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/research-scaling.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/research-scaling.md @@ -1,106 +1,13 @@ -# Research Scaling Protocol +# 动态研究深度 -Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Complexity Score +## 评分 -Assess three factors from the intake data: +市场宽度、已知竞品、地域跨度各 1—3 分，总分 3—9： -| Factor | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | -|--------|---------|------------|----------| -| **Market breadth** | Ultra-niche, few players, well-defined segment | Defined market, moderate competition | Broad market, many segments, diverse players | -| **Known competitors** | 0-2 identified | 3-5 identified | 6+ identified | -| **Geographic scope** | Single country | Regional (e.g., Europe, North America) | Global or multi-region | +- **轻量（3—4）**：每轮合并任务，2—3 组检索，适合单一城市或窄品类。 +- **标准（5—7）**：按技能默认轮次，3—4 组检索，覆盖主要渠道。 +- **深度（8—9）**：拆分更多研究任务，5—6 组检索，覆盖区域/细分差异与反证。 -**Complexity score** = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9) - -## Research Depth Tiers - -| Tier | Score Range | Manual Trigger | Description | -|------|-----------|----------------|-------------| -| **Light** | 3-4 | User says "light", "quick", or "fast research" | Quick scan, fewer agents, 2-3 search rounds | -| **Standard** | 5-7 | Default (no override needed) | Current behavior, balanced depth | -| **Deep** | 8-9 | User says "deep", "thorough", or "deep research" | More agents, 5-6 search rounds, extra coverage | - -**Manual override always wins.** If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep. - -## User Communication - -After calculating the score, show this to the user: - -``` -## Research Depth - -Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity: - -| Factor | Assessment | Score | -|------------------|---------------------|-------| -| Market breadth | {description} | {1-3} | -| Known competitors| {N} identified | {1-3} | -| Geographic scope | {description} | {1-3} | - -**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}** - -You can override this. Here's what each depth means: - -| Depth | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for | -|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------| -| **Light** | {N} | 2-3 rounds | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions | -| **Standard** | {N} | 3-4 rounds | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed | -| **Deep** | {N} | 5-6 rounds | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence | - -→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation. -``` - -The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below). - -## Wave Configuration: startup-competitors - -### Light (3-4 score or user override) - -**Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing** (1 agent) -- A1: Competitor Profiles & Pricing (merge A1+A2 into one agent, cover profiles and pricing together) - -**Wave 2: Customer Sentiment** (1 agent) -- B1: Review & Community Mining (merge B1+B2 into one agent, cover reviews and forums together) - -**Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals** (1 agent) -- C1: GTM & Growth Signals (merge C1+C2 into one agent, cover GTM and strategic signals together) - -**Total: 3 agents** (vs. 6 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent - -### Standard (5-7 score, default) - -No changes to current wave structure: -- Wave 1: 2 agents (A1, A2) -- Wave 2: 2 agents (B1, B2) -- Wave 3: 2 agents (C1, C2) - -**Total: 6 agents**, 3-4 search rounds per agent - -### Deep (8-9 score or user override) - -**Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing** (3 agents) -- A1: Competitor Deep-Dives (unchanged) -- A2: Pricing Intelligence (unchanged) -- A3: Adjacent Competitor Profiles (NEW: profile 3-5 adjacent/emerging competitors not in the direct set, including recent launches and stealth startups) - -**Wave 2: Customer Sentiment** (3 agents) -- B1: Review Mining (unchanged) -- B2: Forum & Community Mining (unchanged) -- B3: Social Media Sentiment (NEW: mine Twitter/X, LinkedIn, and YouTube for competitor mentions, sentiment patterns, and influencer opinions) - -**Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals** (3 agents) -- C1: Go-to-Market Analysis (unchanged) -- C2: Strategic & Growth Signals (unchanged) -- C3: Tech Stack & Product Analysis (NEW: analyze competitors' technology choices, API ecosystems, integration depth, and technical moats) - -**Total: 9 agents**, 5-6 search rounds per agent - -## PROGRESS.md - -Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md: - -```markdown -- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto}) -``` +向用户展示推荐档位、预计研究轮次、主要来源和局限，让用户回复“轻量 / 深度 / 按推荐”。免费模型上下文不足时分阶段落盘，不能通过删掉来源和反证来省 token。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/research-synthesis.md b/startup-competitors/references/research-synthesis.md index a5640d1..d3f25db 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/research-synthesis.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/research-synthesis.md @@ -1,237 +1,13 @@ -# Synthesis & Battle Cards +# 研究综合方法 -After ALL waves complete (6 agents), synthesize the raw findings into polished deliverables. This step creates the real analytical value — it connects dots across data sources to surface opportunities that individual research pieces can't reveal on their own. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Synthesis Protocol +## 综合顺序 -### Before Writing +1. 按研究问题整理证据，不按来源堆砌摘要。 +2. 合并重复转载，标记时间、地域和口径冲突。 +3. 提取共识、反证、异常值和重要空白。 +4. 用“事实—含义—行动”形成结论，并给高/中/低置信度。 +5. 生成未来 30 天可执行验证：负责人、成本、成功指标和停止条件。 -1. Read ALL raw files in `{project-name}/raw/` before writing anything -2. Look for patterns across sources — what themes repeat? -3. Identify contradictions between sources and explain which you trust more -4. Connect the dots: pricing gaps + customer complaints + hiring signals = opportunities - -### Cross-Wave Connections to Look For - -These are the high-value insights that come from combining data: - -- **Complaint + Pricing = Opportunity:** Customers complain about a feature AND the competitor charges a premium for it → undercut with better value -- **Hiring + Product Direction = Threat:** Competitor hiring AI engineers + recent AI mentions in changelog → they're coming for that space -- **Churn Signal + Switching Cost = Wedge:** People want to leave but data portability is hard → build easy migration as a differentiator -- **Content Gap + Search Volume = Quick Win:** Nobody ranks for a high-volume term → own it early -- **Review Pattern + Missing Feature = MVP Feature:** Multiple competitors lack something customers want → build it first -- **Funding + Team Size = Reality Check:** Well-funded competitor with 100+ engineers → don't compete on features, compete on focus - -### Confidence Rating - -Rate every major claim: -- **High:** Multiple Tier 1/2 sources agree, recent data -- **Medium:** Some evidence but gaps, or sources partially disagree -- **Low:** Limited data, mostly inferred, or data older than 12 months - ---- - -## Output File: competitors-report.md - -Structure: - -```markdown -# Competitive Intelligence Report: {market/product} -*Skill: startup-competitors | Generated: {date}* - -## Executive Summary -{5 sentences max: market concentration, key finding, biggest opportunity, biggest risk, overall assessment} - -## Market Concentration -- **Structure:** fragmented / consolidating / dominated -- **Number of active players:** {count} -- **Funding concentration:** {is money flowing in or drying up?} -- **Entry barriers:** low / medium / high — {why} - -## Key Players at a Glance -| Competitor | Stage | Funding | Strength | Weakness | Threat | -|-----------|-------|---------|----------|----------|--------| -| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | H/M/L | - -## Adjacent Solutions & Substitutes -{Broader platforms, manual alternatives, and tools from neighboring categories that compete for the same budget or job. Include: what job they solve, why buyers consider them, and how they compare to direct competitors.} - -## Strategic Opportunities -For each opportunity: -### Opportunity: {name} -- **What:** {description} -- **Evidence:** {data points from research} -- **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low -- **How to exploit:** {specific recommendation} - -## Strategic Risks -For each risk: -### Risk: {name} -- **What:** {description} -- **Evidence:** {data points} -- **Severity:** High / Medium / Low -- **Mitigation:** {how to protect against it} - -## Competitive Moat Assessment -Evaluate the market on 5 moat dimensions: -| Moat Type | Present in Market? | Who Has It | Strength | -|----------|-------------------|-----------|----------| -| Network effects | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak | -| Switching costs | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak | -| Data moat | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak | -| Brand/trust | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak | -| Economies of scale | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak | - -{Paragraph explaining what this means for a new entrant} - -## Data Gaps & Research Limitations -Aggregate all data gaps from raw research files into a single section. For each gap: -- What data is missing -- Why it matters for decision-making -- How to fill it (specific actions the founder can take) - -This section is mandatory — every competitive analysis has blind spots. Being explicit about them builds trust and prevents false confidence. - -## Red Flags -- {flag 1 — things that should worry the founder} -- {flag 2} - -## Yellow Flags -- {flag 1 — things to watch} -- {flag 2} -``` - ---- - -## Output File: competitive-matrix.md - -```markdown -# Competitive Feature Matrix: {market} - -## Feature Comparison -| Feature | {Your Product} | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} | -|---------|---------------|----------|----------|----------|----------| -| {feature 1} | {rating} | {rating} | ... | ... | ... | -| {feature 2} | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | - -Rating scale: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing / Unknown - -## Gap Analysis -Features where no competitor excels (all Weak or Missing): -- {gap 1} — {opportunity implication} -- {gap 2} — {opportunity implication} - -## Differentiation Opportunities -Based on the matrix, the clearest paths to differentiation: -1. {opportunity — what to build and why} -2. {opportunity} -3. {opportunity} -``` - ---- - -## Output File: pricing-landscape.md - -```markdown -# Pricing Landscape: {market} - -## Market Pricing Overview -- **Dominant value metric:** {what most charge for} -- **Price range:** {lowest — highest for comparable tiers} -- **Median price point:** {for standard tier} -- **Free tier prevalence:** {X of Y competitors offer free} - -## Tier-by-Tier Comparison -| | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} | -|---|----------|----------|----------|----------| -| Free tier | {what's included} | ... | ... | ... | -| Entry tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... | -| Mid tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... | -| Top tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... | -| Enterprise | {custom?} | ... | ... | ... | - -## Value Metric Analysis -| Competitor | Value Metric | Why It Works/Doesn't | Impact on Scaling | -|-----------|-------------|---------------------|-------------------| -| ... | per seat | {analysis} | {how costs grow} | - -## Pricing Psychology in Use -| Tactic | Used By | How | -|--------|---------|-----| -| Anchoring | {who} | {details} | -| Decoy tier | {who} | {details} | -| Charm pricing | {who} | {details} | -| Annual lock-in | {who} | {discount %} | - -## Switching Cost Matrix -| Competitor | Technical Cost | Contractual Cost | Emotional Cost | Overall | -|-----------|---------------|-----------------|----------------|---------| -| ... | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | - -## Pricing Whitespace -{Where there's room to position on price — underserved segments, untried models, price points nobody occupies} - -## Recommendations -- **If competing on price:** {strategy} -- **If competing on value:** {strategy} -- **If competing on model:** {alternative pricing approach that no competitor uses} -``` - ---- - -## Post-Synthesis Verification - -After writing all deliverables and battle cards, run the Verification Agent protocol. See `references/verification-agent.md` for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-competitors-specific coherence (battle card vs. report consistency, matrix vs. profiles alignment, pricing landscape vs. profiles consistency, cross-deliverable opportunity/risk traceability). - ---- - -## Output File: battle-cards/{competitor-name}.md - -One battle card per competitor. Keep each to ONE page — these are reference tools for quick use, not deep research docs. - -```markdown -# Battle Card: {Competitor Name} -*Last updated: {date}* - -## At a Glance -- **What they do:** {one sentence} -- **Founded:** {year} | **Funding:** {total} | **Team:** ~{size} -- **Price:** {range} | **Model:** {value metric} -- **Best for:** {their ideal customer} - -## Their Strengths (be honest) -- {strength 1 — with evidence} -- {strength 2} -- {strength 3} - -## Their Weaknesses (your openings) -- {weakness 1 — with evidence from reviews/forums} -- {weakness 2} -- {weakness 3} - -## How to Win Against Them -Specific talking points when a prospect is evaluating both: -- **When they say "{objection},"** respond: {counter with evidence} -- **When they say "{objection},"** respond: {counter} -- **Lead with:** {your strongest differentiator vs. this specific competitor} - -## When They Win Over You -Be honest about when the competitor is the better choice: -- {scenario 1 — e.g., "Enterprise teams needing SSO and audit logs"} -- {scenario 2} - -## Their Customers' Top Complaint -"{verbatim quote from review}" — {source} -This matters because: {strategic implication} - -## Key Vulnerability -{The single biggest weakness you can exploit — with evidence} - -## Churn Signals -Why their customers leave: -- {reason 1} — frequency: common / occasional -- {reason 2} - -## Watch For -{What this competitor is likely to do next based on strategic signals} -``` +综合报告必须包含执行摘要、关键证据表、风险与反方观点、数据缺口和来源清单。不得用漂亮框架掩盖证据不足。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md b/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md index d04feac..15ca7ad 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-1-profiles-pricing.md @@ -1,186 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 1: Competitor Profiles + Pricing Intelligence +# 第一轮：竞品档案与定价 -Read `research-principles.md` first. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent A1: Competitor Deep-Dives - -``` -Research task: Deep analysis of direct competitors for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Known competitors: {list from intake, if any} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL — identify and profile 5-8 direct competitors: - -ROUND 1 — Identify competitors (4-5 searches): -- "{problem} software/app/tool {current year}" -- "best {product category} tools {current year}" -- "{known competitor 1} vs alternatives" -- "G2 {product category} grid" -- "{product category} Product Hunt" -- "top {product category} startups" -- "{problem} solutions" OR "how do {customer type} currently handle {problem}" - (this catches adjacent solutions — inventory tools, platforms with overlapping features, manual/offline alternatives that compete for the same budget) - -ROUND 2 — Deep-dive each competitor (2-3 searches per competitor): -- Visit their website: capture positioning, features, messaging, social proof -- "{competitor name} review G2 Capterra" -- "{competitor name} crunchbase funding" -- "{competitor name} linkedin employees" (team size signals) -- "{competitor name} changelog" or "{competitor name} updates {current year}" - -ROUND 3 — Competitive dynamics (2-3 searches): -- "{product category} market share" -- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" comparison articles -- "{product category} landscape {current year}" - -For EACH competitor, build a complete profile: - -## {Competitor Name} -- **Website:** {url} -- **Founded:** {year} -- **Headquarters:** {location} -- **Team size:** {estimate from LinkedIn/Crunchbase} -- **Funding:** {total raised, last round, lead investors} -- **Stage:** bootstrapped / seed / Series A / Series B+ / public -- **Estimated revenue:** {if available, or proxy estimate} - -### Product -- **Tagline:** {their actual tagline/positioning statement} -- **Core offering:** {what they sell in one sentence} -- **Key features:** {top 5-8 features} -- **Tech stack signals:** {any public info} -- **Integrations:** {key integrations} -- **Platform:** {web / mobile / desktop / API} - -### Market Position -- **Target customer:** {who they serve — be specific} -- **Positioning:** {how they describe themselves} -- **Key differentiator:** {what they claim makes them unique} -- **Social proof:** {notable customers, case studies, logos} - -### Traction Signals -- **G2/Capterra:** {review count and average rating} -- **Product Hunt:** {launch date, upvotes} -- **Social media:** {follower counts, engagement level} -- **Job postings:** {number and type} -- **Web traffic signals:** {if available from Similarweb/press mentions} -- **Notable customers:** {logos or case studies} - -### Strengths -- {strength 1 — based on evidence, not speculation} -- {strength 2} -- {strength 3} - -### Weaknesses -- {weakness 1 — based on reviews, gaps, complaints} -- {weakness 2} -- {weakness 3} - -### Threat Level: Low / Medium / High -- {why — with evidence} - ---- - -After all profiles: - -## Landscape Summary -- **Total competitors identified:** {number profiled + number found but not profiled} -- **Market concentration:** fragmented / consolidating / dominated by 1-2 players -- **Average funding level:** {across profiled competitors} -- **Common positioning themes:** {what most competitors emphasize} -- **Gaps in the market:** {what no competitor does well} - -## Adjacent Solutions -Products that aren't direct competitors but compete for the same budget or solve an overlapping problem. These matter because customers often choose "good enough" adjacent tools over a dedicated solution. -- {adjacent solution 1} — what it does, how it overlaps, why someone might pick it instead -- {adjacent solution 2} -Include: broader platforms with partial feature overlap, manual/offline alternatives, tools from adjacent categories that could expand into this space. - -## Data Gaps -- [What you couldn't find and why it matters] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/competitor-profiles.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent A2: Pricing Intelligence - -``` -Research task: Pricing reverse-engineering for competitors in {product category} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Competitors to analyze: {list from A1 if available, otherwise discover during research} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Capture pricing pages (1 search per competitor): -- Visit each competitor's pricing page directly -- Screenshot or capture: tiers, prices, feature lists, CTAs -- Note: annual vs monthly pricing, currency, any free tier - -ROUND 2 — Deep pricing analysis (2-3 searches): -- "{competitor name} pricing" (for third-party breakdowns) -- "{competitor name} pricing changes" (for pricing history) -- "{product category} pricing comparison {current year}" -- "{competitor name} enterprise pricing" (often hidden) - -ROUND 3 — Value metric analysis (1-2 searches): -- "{product category} pricing model" (per-seat vs usage vs flat) -- "how much does {competitor name} cost" (real user discussions) - -For EACH competitor, analyze: - -## {Competitor Name} — Pricing Breakdown - -### Pricing Model -- **Value metric:** {what they charge for — per seat / per usage / flat / hybrid} -- **Why this metric:** {how it aligns with value delivered} -- **How it scales:** {does price grow linearly with usage? Are there volume discounts?} - -### Tier Structure -| | {Tier 1} | {Tier 2} | {Tier 3} | {Enterprise} | -|---|----------|----------|----------|-------------| -| Price (monthly) | | | | | -| Price (annual) | | | | | -| Annual discount | | | | | -| {Key feature 1} | | | | | -| {Key feature 2} | | | | | -| {Key feature 3} | | | | | -| {Key limit 1} | | | | | -| Target persona | | | | | - -### Pricing Psychology -- **Anchoring:** {do they use a high-price tier to make mid-tier attractive?} -- **Decoy effect:** {is there a tier designed to push people to a specific plan?} -- **Charm pricing:** {$49 vs $50? $99 vs $100?} -- **Social proof on pricing:** {which tier is "most popular"?} -- **Free tier strategy:** {what's free and what's gated?} -- **Annual lock-in:** {discount size, refund policy} - -### Switching Costs -- **Technical:** {data export? API migration? Integration rewiring?} -- **Contractual:** {annual contracts? Cancellation penalties?} -- **Emotional:** {brand loyalty? Learning curve for alternatives?} -- **Data portability:** {can you export your data easily?} - ---- - -After all competitors: - -## Pricing Landscape Summary -- **Dominant value metric:** {what most charge for} -- **Price range:** {lowest to highest for comparable tiers} -- **Median price point:** {for the most common tier} -- **Free tier prevalence:** {how many offer free plans} -- **Annual discount range:** {typical discounts} -- **Pricing whitespace:** {where there's room to position — underserved price points or models} -- **Switching cost patterns:** {are switching costs high or low in this market?} - -## Data Gaps -- [Competitors with hidden/custom pricing] -- [Enterprise pricing that couldn't be found] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/pricing-intelligence.md -``` +为每个竞品核实主体、产品、目标客户、功能、套餐、人民币价格、免费/试用、合同期限、部署方式、渠道折扣线索和更新时间。截图或链接保存证据，未知字段写“未公开”，不得估算成事实。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md b/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md index 7cacc48..3339fa3 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-2-sentiment-mining.md @@ -1,197 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 2: Customer Sentiment Mining +# 第二轮：口碑挖掘 -Read `research-principles.md` first. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent B1: Review Mining - -``` -Research task: Mine customer reviews for competitors in {product category} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Competitors to analyze: {list from Wave A} - -Review mining reveals what customers actually experience — not what competitor marketing promises. The gap between promise and reality is where opportunities live. - -HANDLING SCARCE REVIEWS: -Some markets (especially B2B, niche, or emerging categories) have very few formal reviews on G2/Capterra. When this happens: -1. Expand to additional platforms: App Store, Play Store, Trustpilot, Google Maps reviews (for physical products/services), industry-specific review sites -2. Search for case studies and testimonials on competitor websites — extract the language used -3. Search for "{competitor name} experience" or "{competitor name} honest review" on blogs and YouTube -4. Lean more heavily on forum mining (Wave B2) for unfiltered opinions -5. Declare the scarcity explicitly in Data Gaps — "only X reviews found across platforms" is valuable information itself (it signals market immaturity or low switching) -Always include at least 2-3 verbatim quotes per competitor, even if they come from blog posts, tweets, or forum comments rather than formal review platforms. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Aggregate review platforms (2 searches per competitor): -- "{competitor name} reviews G2" -- "{competitor name} reviews Capterra" OR "Trustradius" -- "{competitor name} reviews Product Hunt" -- "{competitor name} app store reviews" (if mobile product) - -ROUND 2 — Negative review deep-dive (1-2 searches per competitor): -- "{competitor name} complaints" -- "{competitor name} problems reddit" -- "{competitor name} worst things" - -ROUND 3 — Feature request patterns (1-2 searches): -- "{competitor name} feature request" -- "{competitor name} missing features" -- "{product category} wishlist" - -For EACH competitor, extract: - -## {Competitor Name} — Review Analysis - -### Review Volume & Ratings -- **G2:** {count} reviews, {avg} stars -- **Capterra:** {count} reviews, {avg} stars -- **TrustRadius:** {count} reviews, {avg} stars -- **Product Hunt:** {upvotes}, {comment sentiment} -- **App Store / Play Store:** {if applicable} - -### What People Love (top 3-5 themes) -For each theme: -- **Theme:** {e.g., "Easy onboarding"} -- **Frequency:** mentioned in ~{X}% of positive reviews -- **Verbatim quotes:** - - "{exact quote}" — {source, date} - - "{exact quote}" — {source, date} - -### What People Hate (top 3-5 themes) -For each theme: -- **Theme:** {e.g., "Pricing feels unfair at scale"} -- **Frequency:** mentioned in ~{X}% of negative reviews -- **Severity:** annoyance / blocker / deal-breaker -- **Verbatim quotes:** - - "{exact quote}" — {source, date} - - "{exact quote}" — {source, date} - -### Most Requested Features -- {feature 1} — mentioned {X} times -- {feature 2} — mentioned {X} times -- {feature 3} — mentioned {X} times - -### Churn Signals -Reasons people leave this competitor: -- {reason 1 — with evidence} -- {reason 2 — with evidence} -- {reason 3 — with evidence} - ---- - -After all competitors: - -## Cross-Competitor Pain Patterns -| Pain Theme | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} | Opportunity | -|-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|-------------| -| {pain 1} | severity | severity | severity | severity | {implication} | -| {pain 2} | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | - -Pains shared across multiple competitors = structural market problems = biggest opportunities. - -## Data Gaps -- [Competitors with few reviews] -- [Platforms not checked] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/review-mining.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent B2: Forum & Community Mining - -``` -Research task: Mine forums and communities for customer voice about {product category} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Competitors: {list from Wave A} - -Forum mining captures unfiltered opinions that people won't write in formal reviews. It also reveals the exact language customers use — gold for positioning and copywriting. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Reddit (3-4 searches): -- "site:reddit.com {product category} recommendations" -- "site:reddit.com {competitor name} alternative" -- "site:reddit.com {problem statement} tool" -- "site:reddit.com switching from {competitor name}" - -ROUND 2 — Indie communities (2-3 searches): -- "site:indiehackers.com {product category}" -- "site:news.ycombinator.com {product category}" -- "{product category} forum discussion" - -ROUND 3 — Q&A and niche (2 searches): -- "site:quora.com best {product category}" -- "{product category} community Slack Discord" - -ROUND 4 — Migration stories (1-2 searches): -- "switched from {competitor name} to" -- "migrating from {competitor name}" -- "why I left {competitor name}" - -OPTIONAL — Reviewed X/Twitter source packet: -If the user already has an approved X/Twitter export, search result, reply -thread, account summary, or monitor report from a tool such as TweetClaw, treat -it as an extra evidence packet for language mining. Do not ask for cookies, -sessions, API keys, screenshots, or raw account access. Extract only quoted -customer language, URLs, timestamps, and source labels, then mark the packet as -user-provided evidence in Data Gaps and Sources. - -OUTPUT FORMAT: - -## Forum & Community Findings - -### Discussion Themes -For each major theme found: -- **Theme:** {what people are discussing} -- **Volume:** {approximate number of threads/comments} -- **Sentiment:** positive / negative / mixed -- **Key threads:** - - [{thread title}]({url}) — {key takeaway} - -### Language Map -The exact words customers use — organized for reuse in positioning and copy: - -**To describe the problem:** -- "{exact phrase}" — used in {X} threads -- "{exact phrase}" — used in {X} threads - -**To describe desired solution:** -- "{exact phrase}" -- "{exact phrase}" - -**To describe frustrations with competitors:** -- "{exact phrase}" — about {competitor} -- "{exact phrase}" — about {competitor} - -**To describe switching triggers:** -- "{exact phrase}" -- "{exact phrase}" - -### "What do you use for X?" Threads -| Thread | Top Recommended | Runner Up | Common Criteria | -|--------|----------------|-----------|-----------------| -| {title} | {tool} ({why}) | {tool} | {what people care about} | - -### Migration Stories -For each migration story found: -- **From:** {competitor} → **To:** {competitor} -- **Why they switched:** {reason} -- **What they gained:** {benefit} -- **What they lost:** {trade-off} -- **Would they switch again?** {yes/no and why} - -### Churn Signal Summary -Aggregated reasons people leave competitors: -| Reason | Competitors Affected | Frequency | Severity | -|--------|---------------------|-----------|----------| -| {reason} | {which ones} | common / occasional | high / medium | - -## Data Gaps -- [Communities not found or not active for this category] -- [Competitors with no forum presence] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/forum-mining.md -``` +在应用商店、电商、知乎、小红书、B站、微博、脉脉及垂直社区寻找近期评价。按场景、优点、缺点、迁移原因和客服体验编码，保留样本量与偏差。短摘录去标识化，水军嫌疑和极端样本单独标注。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md b/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md index f3709f1..82a3c2d 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/research-wave-3-gtm-signals.md @@ -1,199 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 3: GTM & Strategic Signals +# 第三轮：获客与战略信号 -Read `research-principles.md` first. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent C1: Go-to-Market Analysis - -``` -Research task: How competitors in {product category} acquire and retain customers -Context: {product summary from intake} -Competitors: {list from Wave A} - -Understanding how competitors grow reveals where the market attention flows — and where there are underexploited channels. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Marketing presence (2-3 searches per top competitor): -- Check competitor websites: blog, resources, webinars, case studies -- "{competitor name} marketing strategy" -- "{competitor name} blog" (assess frequency, topics, quality) - -ROUND 2 — Advertising signals (2-3 searches): -- "{competitor name} ads" OR check Google Ads transparency center -- "{competitor name} Facebook Ad Library" -- "{product category} sponsored content" - -ROUND 3 — Sales motion (2 searches): -- "{competitor name} sales team linkedin" -- Analyze each competitor's CTA: self-serve signup vs demo vs contact sales - -ROUND 4 — Partnerships and community (1-2 searches): -- "{competitor name} integrations" -- "{competitor name} partner program" -- "{competitor name} community" OR "{competitor name} forum" - -For EACH competitor: - -## {Competitor Name} — GTM Breakdown - -### Acquisition Model -- **Primary channel:** {SEO / paid ads / outbound sales / partnerships / community / PLG} -- **Secondary channel:** {if identifiable} -- **Sales motion:** {self-serve / sales-assisted / enterprise sales} -- **Signup friction:** {free trial / freemium / demo required / contact sales} - -### Content & SEO -- **Blog frequency:** {posts per month, estimated} -- **Content quality:** {surface-level / solid / exceptional} -- **Content topics:** {what they write about} -- **SEO strength:** {do they rank for category terms?} -- **Resource library:** {ebooks, webinars, templates — what kind?} - -### Social & Community -- **LinkedIn:** {followers, posting frequency, engagement} -- **Twitter/X:** {followers, posting frequency, engagement} -- **Other platforms:** {YouTube, TikTok, Instagram — if relevant} -- **Community:** {own community? Active? Size?} - -### Paid Advertising -- **Google Ads:** {visible? what keywords?} -- **Social ads:** {Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter — visible?} -- **Messaging in ads:** {what do they emphasize?} - -### Partnerships -- **Integration partners:** {key integrations} -- **Channel partners:** {resellers, agencies} -- **Co-marketing:** {joint content, events} - ---- - -After all competitors: - -## Channel Opportunity Map -| Channel | Competitor Saturation | Opportunity Level | Est. Effort | Notes | -|---------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------|-------| -| SEO/Content | High / Medium / Low | High / Medium / Low | {S/M/L} | {why} | -| Paid Search | ... | ... | ... | ... | -| Social/Community | ... | ... | ... | ... | -| Outbound Sales | ... | ... | ... | ... | -| Partnerships | ... | ... | ... | ... | -| Product-Led Growth | ... | ... | ... | ... | - -## Key Takeaways -- What's working for competitors (proven channels) -- What channels are underexploited (opportunity) -- Where to win with limited budget (quick wins) - -## Data Gaps -- [Competitors with no visible marketing] -- [Channels you couldn't assess] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/gtm-analysis.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent C2: Strategic & Growth Signals - -``` -Research task: Strategic signals and growth trajectory for competitors in {product category} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Competitors: {list from Wave A} - -Hiring patterns, funding trajectory, and content investments reveal where competitors are heading — not just where they are today. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Funding trajectory (1-2 searches per competitor): -- "{competitor name} crunchbase" -- "{competitor name} funding {current year}" -- "{competitor name} acquisition" OR "{competitor name} acquired" - -ROUND 2 — Hiring signals (1-2 searches per competitor): -- "{competitor name} careers" OR "{competitor name} jobs" -- "{competitor name} hiring linkedin" -- Note: engineering-heavy = building new features; sales-heavy = scaling; support-heavy = struggling with growth - -ROUND 3 — Content & SEO footprint (2-3 searches): -- "site:{competitor domain} blog" (content volume) -- "{product category} {key topic}" (who ranks for important terms?) -- "{product category} comparison" OR "{product category} vs" (who owns comparison content?) - -ROUND 4 — Product direction signals (1-2 searches): -- "{competitor name} changelog" -- "{competitor name} roadmap" -- "{competitor name} new features {current year}" -- "{competitor name} AI" (if relevant to the category) - -OPTIONAL — Reviewed social signal packet: -If the user provides a reviewed X/Twitter source packet from TweetClaw or a -similar approved workflow, use it only to strengthen social and community -signals: posting cadence, engagement themes, launch language, partner mentions, -and customer objections. Keep it out of funding, hiring, and pricing claims -unless another primary source confirms the same fact. - -For EACH competitor: - -## {Competitor Name} — Strategic Signals - -### Funding Trajectory -- **Total raised:** {amount} -- **Last round:** {type, amount, date, lead investor} -- **Funding velocity:** {time between rounds} -- **Signal:** {growing fast / steady / slowing / bootstrapped by choice} -- **Potential exit signals:** {acquisition rumors, IPO filings} - -### Hiring Patterns -- **Total job openings:** {count} -- **Engineering roles:** {count} — signal: {building new product / scaling infra / maintaining} -- **Sales/Marketing roles:** {count} — signal: {scaling acquisition / entering new market} -- **Support/CS roles:** {count} — signal: {growing customer base / high churn needing management} -- **Key hires:** {notable recent senior hires and what they signal} -- **Location signals:** {hiring in new markets?} - -### SEO & Content Footprint -- **Keywords they rank for:** {top category terms} -- **Content pillars:** {what topics they own} -- **Content gaps:** {category topics they don't cover} -- **Blog authority:** {estimated domain authority / content maturity} - -### Product Direction -- **Recent major features:** {what they shipped in last 6 months} -- **Roadmap signals:** {where they're heading based on public info} -- **Tech bets:** {AI, mobile, API, integrations — what are they investing in?} -- **Platform plays:** {trying to become a platform? Building ecosystem?} - ---- - -After all competitors: - -## Strategic Landscape Summary - -### Where the Market Is Heading -- {trend 1 based on collective competitor signals} -- {trend 2} -- {trend 3} - -### Competitor Trajectory Map -| Competitor | Stage | Trajectory | Investing In | Biggest Risk | -|-----------|-------|-----------|-------------|-------------| -| {name} | {stage} | growing / stable / declining | {area} | {risk} | - -### Content/SEO Gap Analysis -| Topic/Keyword | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | Opportunity | -|--------------|----------|----------|----------|-------------| -| {keyword} | ranks / absent | ... | ... | {who could win this} | - -### Underexploited Content Pillars -Topics that matter to the market but no competitor covers well: -- {topic 1} — why it matters, why it's uncovered -- {topic 2} - -## Data Gaps -- [Competitors with no public hiring data] -- [Private companies with no funding info] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/strategic-signals.md -``` +观察官网 SEO、公众号/视频号、短视频、直播、电商、私域、代理商、生态合作、招投标、招聘和产品更新。区分真实采用信号与品牌曝光；融资与招聘不能直接等同增长。输出渠道假设、战略变化和可验证预测。 diff --git a/startup-competitors/references/verification-agent.md b/startup-competitors/references/verification-agent.md index 2e03107..a55cd26 100644 --- a/startup-competitors/references/verification-agent.md +++ b/startup-competitors/references/verification-agent.md @@ -1,126 +1,16 @@ -# Verification Agent Protocol +# 核验清单 -After synthesis completes, spawn a **Verification Agent (V1)** that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## When to Run +## 核验任务 -- After synthesis is complete and all deliverable files are written -- Before presenting the final output to the user -- Uses one agent: **V1: Verification** +独立复查全部交付物： -## Agent Task +- 数字是否有来源、日期、地域、单位和统一口径； +- 事实、推断、假设是否清楚标注； +- 是否存在自相矛盾、过期价格、重复来源假佐证； +- 是否遗漏中国的数据、广告、行业许可、税务或平台规则风险； +- 建议是否与证据一致，战卡/定位/路演之间是否冲突； +- 是否泄露个人信息或使用无法证明的绝对化表达。 -The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a `verification-report.md` in the project directory. - -## Universal Checks - -These apply to every skill in the startup plugin: - -### 1. Claims Without Source -Every quantitative claim must have a data label: **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, or **[Opinion]**. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label. - -### 2. Internal Contradictions -Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when: -- The same metric appears with different values in two files -- A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another -- Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium) - -### 3. Confidence Rating Consistency -Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence: -- A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated **High** -- A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated **Low** -- Every major section must have a confidence rating - -### 4. Data Gaps Declared -Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag: -- Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely -- Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared -- Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables - -### 5. Flags Present -Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag: -- Files missing these sections -- Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks - -### 6. Stale Data -Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated. - -### 7. Duplicate Sources -Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification. - -## Skill-Specific Checks: startup-competitors - -In addition to the universal checks above, verify: - -### Battle Card vs. Report Consistency -- Every competitor in the battle cards must appear in the `competitors-report.md` Key Players table -- Strengths/weaknesses in battle cards must not contradict the competitor profiles in the report -- Threat levels must be consistent between battle cards and the report - -### Matrix vs. Profiles Alignment -- Every competitor in `competitive-matrix.md` must have a profile in `competitors-report.md` -- Feature ratings (Strong/Adequate/Weak/Missing) in the matrix must be supported by evidence in the report or battle cards -- Gap analysis items must connect to actual findings, not assumptions - -### Pricing Landscape vs. Profiles Consistency -- Pricing data in `pricing-landscape.md` must match pricing mentioned in battle cards -- Value metrics must be consistent across the pricing landscape and competitor profiles -- Switching cost assessments must align between pricing landscape and battle cards - -### Cross-Deliverable Coherence -- Strategic opportunities in the report must be supported by evidence from at least two deliverables (e.g., pricing gap + customer complaint) -- Strategic risks must be traceable to specific competitor data -- Moat assessment must reference specific competitors and evidence - -## Output: verification-report.md - -```markdown -# Verification Report: {project-name} -*Generated: {date}* - -## Summary -- **Critical issues:** {count} -- **Warnings:** {count} -- **Info:** {count} - -## Critical Issues -Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Section:** {section name} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Warnings -Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Info -Minor improvements and observations. - -- {observation} -- {observation} - -## Verification Checklist -- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled -- [ ] No internal contradictions found -- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence -- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables -- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables -- [ ] No stale data unmarked -- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration -- [ ] Battle cards consistent with report (skill-specific) -- [ ] Matrix aligned with profiles (skill-specific) -- [ ] Pricing landscape consistent with profiles (skill-specific) -- [ ] Opportunities backed by multi-source evidence (skill-specific) -``` - -## Flow Control - -- **If Critical issues > 0:** Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?" -- **If only Warnings/Info:** Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See `verification-report.md` for details." Continue. +输出 `verification-report.md`，按严重/重要/建议分级，列出文件位置、问题、修正方式。严重问题必须暂停并请求用户决定；不得自行把问题标为已解决。 diff --git a/startup-design/SKILL.md b/startup-design/SKILL.md index 2dc2d3f..2801fba 100644 --- a/startup-design/SKILL.md +++ b/startup-design/SKILL.md @@ -1,476 +1,83 @@ --- name: startup-design -description: Design, validate, and plan a startup from scratch. Covers market research, competitive analysis, business model, brand identity, product definition, financial projections, and validation experiments. Trigger when the user has a startup idea to explore, wants to validate a business concept, needs a business plan or lean canvas, asks for market sizing or competitive landscape, wants brand positioning or go-to-market strategy, or says anything like "I have an idea for..." or "is this idea worth pursuing". Also handles resuming from a previous checkpoint. +description: 把创业想法从原始概念推进到可验证方案，覆盖预检、访谈、市场研究、商业模式、品牌、产品、财务与验证实验。适用于“我有个创业想法”“帮我验证项目”“商业计划”“市场规模”“商业模式”“进入中国市场”等请求，也支持根据 PROGRESS.md 续跑。 --- -# Startup Design +# 创业设计 -A structured, multi-phase skill that takes a startup idea from raw concept to validated design. It produces a complete set of markdown documents organized by domain, with built-in progress tracking so work survives session interruptions. +预检 → 需求访谈 → 方案发散 → 四轮研究 → 研究闸门 → 客户发现 → 战略 → 品牌 → 产品 → 财务 → 验证 -## How It Works +默认全程输出简体中文，以可追溯证据服务中国市场决策。 -The process has 8 numbered phases executed sequentially, plus a Pre-Flight Check (Phase 0.5) and a Customer Discovery gate (Phase 3.7). Each phase produces output files and updates the progress tracker. If a session is interrupted, resume from the last completed checkpoint. +## 中国市场通用规则 -``` -PRE-FLIGHT → INTAKE → BRAINSTORM → RESEARCH → [Research Gate] → CUSTOMER DISCOVERY → [Interview Gate] → STRATEGY → BRAND → PRODUCT → FINANCIAL → VALIDATION -``` +- 默认使用简体中文提问、检索、分析和交付；用户明确要求其他语言时再切换。 +- 金额默认以人民币（CNY）表示，同时写清含税/未税、月付/年付及数据日期。 +- 先确认目标区域是中国大陆、港澳台还是出海市场；不得把“中文市场”等同于中国大陆。 +- 检索优先级：政府与监管部门、国家统计局/地方统计局、交易所公告、企业官网/公众号、主流电商与应用商店，再到可信行业报告和社区内容。 +- 社区信号可来自微信、知乎、小红书、抖音、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、少数派及垂直论坛；受登录限制时说明缺口，不伪造浏览结果。 +- 涉及个人信息、数据跨境、生成式 AI、算法推荐、广告、电商、金融、医疗、教育、地图或出版时，只做风险识别并建议咨询中国执业专业人士，不输出无依据的“合规确认”。 +- 明确区分事实、推断、假设和建议；事实附可访问链接、发布日期/访问日期，关键结论至少两类独立来源交叉验证。 +- 禁止把媒体转载链当作多个独立来源，禁止虚构市场规模、融资、客户数、价格、备案或牌照。 +- 免费工具优先：具备免费额度的通义千问/Qwen、DeepSeek、豆包、Kimi、智谱清言、Gemini CLI，或通过 Ollama 本地运行 Qwen/DeepSeek 等开源模型。免费政策会变化，使用前由用户确认；不得要求特定付费模型或订阅。 +- 工具不可用时进入“知识库模式”：只产出假设、检索清单和待验证项，不把模型记忆包装成实时调研。 -### Modes -**Full Mode (default):** Execute all phases in order, including Pre-Flight and Customer Discovery. Best for thoroughly designing a startup from scratch. +## 执行流程 -**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 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 +### 0. 续跑与预检 +先查找 `PROGRESS.md`。存在则说明已完成阶段并从断点继续；不存在则进行 2—3 组快速检索：主导方案、同类失败案例、监管/牌照硬约束。预检只提示风险，不替用户下结论。 -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. +### 1. 需求访谈 +每轮询问 3—5 个问题，覆盖用户、痛点、创始团队、地域、商业目标、资源与约束。创建 `{项目名}/PROGRESS.md`、`00-intake/brief.md` 和 `00-intake/preflight.md`。 -### Language +### 2. 方案发散 +提出 5—8 个有实质差异的方案，从痛点强度、付费方、渠道、监管、冷启动和创始人优势评分；不只改名字或功能。 -Default output language is **English**. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead. +### 3. 市场研究 +按顺序完成四轮：①市场与监管；②竞品与价格；③客户需求与中文社区信号；④中国渠道与单位经济。轮内可并行，轮间必须等待。研究前按 `research-scaling.md` 评估轻量/标准/深度。保存原始证据和综合结论。 ---- - -> **Reference:** Read `references/output-guidelines.md` once at the start. It defines the standard file header/footer (title, date, phase, confidence, flags), cross-phase referencing format, quality examples of good vs. bad output, and how to handle mid-process pivots. - -## Phase 0: Resume Check - -Before anything else, check if a `PROGRESS.md` file exists in the working directory (or a project subdirectory). If it does, read it and resume from the last incomplete phase. Tell the user: "I found progress from a previous session. You completed [phases]. Picking up from [next phase]." - -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. The project directory and PROGRESS.md don't exist yet at this point — present the findings in the conversation, then save them to `{project-name}/00-intake/preflight.md` during the Phase 1 output step, once the project directory is created. - ---- - -## 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. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/intake-questions.md` for the full question set (idea, founders, market, business, constraints), the hard questions that surface blind spots, and interviewing technique. - -Cover all five question areas plus the hard questions — they set the tone for the entire process and signal that this is an honest assessment, not a cheerleading session. Ask 3-5 questions at a time in a conversational flow, probe vague answers, and after 2-3 rounds summarize what you've understood and ask the user to confirm or correct. - -### Output - -Save the consolidated intake to `{project-name}/00-intake/brief.md` with all captured information organized clearly. The project name should be derived from the startup idea (kebab-case, e.g., `pet-health-tracker`). - -Create `PROGRESS.md` at the project root with: project name, start date, language, a checklist of all phases including Pre-Flight (0.5) and Customer Discovery (3.7) — mark Pre-Flight and Phase 1 complete — and a Notes section for session state. Also save the Pre-Flight findings from Phase 0.5 to `00-intake/preflight.md` now that the directory exists. - ---- - -## Phase 2: Brainstorm - -Before diving into research, explore the idea space. This prevents premature convergence on the first version of the idea. - -### Process - -1. **Diverge** — Generate 5-8 variations of the core idea. Push boundaries: - - What if the target market was completely different? - - What if the business model was inverted? - - What if you solved a smaller/larger version of the problem? - - What adjacent problems could you solve instead? - - What would the "10x version" look like vs. the "simplest possible version"? - -2. **Analyze** — For each variation, note: - - What's exciting about it - - What's risky or hard - - How it changes the competitive landscape - -3. **Converge** — Present the variations to the user. Help them identify which elements resonate. The goal isn't to pick one variation — it's to enrich the original idea with insights from the exploration. - -4. **Refine** — Based on the user's reactions, crystallize the refined idea. Update the brief if the idea evolved significantly. - -### Output - -Save to `{project-name}/00-intake/brainstorm.md`. Update PROGRESS.md. - ---- - -## Phase 2.5: Research Depth Assessment - -After intake (and brainstorm if applicable), assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-scaling.md` for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template. - -### Process - -1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1-3), known competitors (1-3), geographic scope (1-3) -2. Sum the scores (range 3-9) and map to a tier: Light (3-4), Standard (5-7), Deep (8-9) -3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see `research-scaling.md` for the exact template) -4. Wait for user response: **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation -5. Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md - -The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 3. See `research-scaling.md` for exact wave configurations per tier. - ---- - -## Phase 3: Market Research - -This is the most resource-intensive phase. It uses 4 sequential waves of web research, each building on the previous one's findings. - -### Environment Detection - -Check if the `Agent` tool is available (Claude Code) or not (Claude.ai, other environments): - -- **Agent tool available:** Spawn subagents in parallel within each wave, as described below. This is faster (~3-5 min per wave). -- **Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web):** Execute the research yourself, sequentially. For each wave, follow the same agent templates from the reference files, but run the searches one at a time in the main conversation. Cover the same topics and apply the same research principles — the output quality should be identical, it just takes longer. Do NOT skip any wave or reduce search depth because of the sequential mode. - -### Web Search Availability - -Phase 3 requires WebSearch. In Claude Code, the tool is always available — if the user hasn't pre-approved it, the system will prompt them for each search. If the user denies permission, or in environments where WebSearch doesn't exist at all, fall back to **Knowledge-Based Research Mode**: use your training data, clearly mark all findings with **[Knowledge-Based — not live data, verify independently]**, reduce confidence ratings by one level, and recommend the founder verify key claims manually. Note the mode in PROGRESS.md so future sessions know the research wasn't web-sourced. - -> **References** — Read the relevant file for each wave: -> - `references/research-principles.md` — Cross-cutting rules (source quality, cross-referencing, quantification, handling search failures). Read this FIRST. -> - `references/research-wave-1-market.md` — Agent templates for Wave 1 (market sizing, trends, regulatory) -> - `references/research-wave-2-competitors.md` — Agent templates for Wave 2 (direct, indirect, GTM analysis) -> - `references/research-wave-3-customers.md` — Agent templates for Wave 3 (customer voice, demand, audience) -> - `references/research-wave-4-distribution.md` — Agent templates for Wave 4 (channels, geographic entry) -> - `references/research-synthesis.md` — How to synthesize raw findings into final deliverables -> -> Read only the principles file + the wave file you're currently executing. Don't load all wave files at once. - -### Research Principles - -- Each agent performs **5-8 web searches minimum**, drilling deeper with each round -- Cross-reference every key finding across 2-3 independent sources -- Rate source quality (Tier 1: analyst reports, Tier 2: tech press, Tier 3: blogs/social) -- Quantify everything — "$4.2B at 12.3% CAGR" not "the market is growing" -- Date all data and flag anything older than 18 months -- Note contradictions between sources rather than picking one - -### Research Waves - -Full agent briefs, search strategies, and output destinations live in the wave reference files — read the relevant file when spawning each wave: - -- **Wave 1: Market Landscape** (3 agents) — A1 Market Sizing & Economics, A2 Industry Trends & Timing, A3 Regulatory & Compliance *(skip A3 if no regulatory exposure)* -- **Wave 2: Competitive Analysis** (3 agents) — B1 Direct Competitor Deep-Dives, B2 Indirect Competitors & Substitutes, B3 Competitor Go-to-Market -- **Wave 3: Customer & Demand** (3 agents) — C1 Customer Voice & Pain Points, C2 Demand Signals & Market Validation, C3 Target Audience Profiling -- **Wave 4: Distribution & Partnerships** (2 agents) — D1 Distribution Channels, D2 Geographic & Market Entry - -Each wave must complete before the next starts. Pass key findings forward as context (Wave 1 findings to Wave 2 agents, competitor list and GTM findings to Wave 3, and so on). Agents run in parallel within a wave, or as sequential research blocks without the Agent tool. - -### Raw → Synthesized - -All agents save raw findings to `{project-name}/01-discovery/raw/`. After all waves complete, synthesize into 4 polished deliverables. - -Synthesis is reasoning, not formatting — it's where the raw research becomes a decision. Before writing anything, think hard about how the pieces fit together: which sources conflict and which to trust, what the evidence actually supports versus what the founder hopes, and what it all means for *this* specific startup. This is the highest-leverage thinking in the whole process and every downstream phase inherits its quality, so if the model supports extended thinking, this is the place to spend it. A weak synthesis produces a tidy document that restates the inputs; a strong one reaches the non-obvious conclusions a sharp analyst would draw from the same evidence. - -The synthesis must: -- Connect dots across research areas (competitive gaps → customer pains → positioning opportunities) -- Highlight contradictions and explain which data to trust -- Rate confidence for each major claim (High / Medium / Low) -- Extract explicit strategic implications, not just facts - -### Output Files - -- `{project-name}/01-discovery/market-analysis.md` — Market size (TAM/SAM/SOM), growth, maturity, regulatory summary, timing assessment -- `{project-name}/01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` — Competitor profiles, **structured comparison matrix** (table with columns: Name, Product, Pricing, Target, Funding, Traction, Key Strength, Key Weakness), positioning map, platform risk, vulnerability analysis -- `{project-name}/01-discovery/target-audience.md` — Persona(s), pain hierarchy, jobs-to-be-done, language map, buying behavior, channels -- `{project-name}/01-discovery/industry-trends.md` — Tech trends, investment signals, behavioral shifts, regulatory trajectory, strategic implications -- `{project-name}/01-discovery/confidence-dashboard.md` — Summary of data quality across all research. For each major claim, list: the claim, source tier (1/2/3), number of corroborating sources, confidence level (High/Medium/Low), and data age. This tells the founder where they're standing on solid ground vs. thin ice. - -Update PROGRESS.md. - ---- - -## Phase 3.5a: Research Verification - -After synthesis completes and all deliverable files are written, run a verification pass to catch inconsistencies. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/verification-agent.md` for the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks. - -### Process - -1. Spawn agent **V1: Verification** — it reads all deliverable files in `01-discovery/` and checks for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration -2. V1 also runs startup-design-specific checks: cross-phase consistency (strategy reflects market data, product reflects customer pains, financial reflects business model, validation covers identified risks) -3. V1 produces `{project-name}/01-discovery/verification-report.md` -4. **If Critical issues found:** Pause and present issues to the user. Ask: fix first, or proceed as-is? -5. **If only Warnings/Info:** Show one-line summary and continue to Research Gate - -In Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol. - ---- - -## Phase 3.5: Research Gate (Go/No-Go Checkpoint) - -Before investing time in Strategy through Validation, pause and present the founder with an honest assessment based on research findings. This is a decision point, not a formality. +### 3.5 研究闸门与 3.7 客户发现 +展示机会、反证、关键未知和继续/调整/停止建议。用户确认后，至少完成 5 次真实访谈或把未访谈标为关键风险；AI 模拟访谈只能用于练习，不能作为客户证据。 -Reason it through before writing the verdict. Weigh the strongest signals against the red flags rather than averaging them into a noncommittal "it depends" — one fatal flaw can outweigh five promising signals, and one exceptional signal can justify proceeding despite rough edges. The founder is about to spend real time and money on your read of the evidence, so think hard about what the data genuinely supports. +### 4—8. 落地设计 +依次交付战略、品牌、产品、财务和验证。财务先用假设区间，再用真实数据更新；中国税费、平台抽佣、支付费率、获客成本与回款周期必须单列。最后给 30 天实验计划与停止条件。 -Present a brief summary: "Here's what the research found." Cover market size, competition intensity, customer demand signals, and timing. Then give a clear recommendation: -- **Green light** — Data supports proceeding. Note the strongest signals. -- **Yellow light** — Mixed signals. Specify what's concerning and what would need to be true for success. -- **Red light** — Data argues against this approach. Suggest pivots if the research revealed adjacent opportunities. +### 快速模式 +保留预检、简化访谈、市场与竞品两轮研究、研究闸门、至少 3 次客户访谈、精益画布、收入模型和前三项实验；不得跳过合规风险与证据标注。 -Ask the founder: "Based on this, do you want to continue to full strategy, pivot the idea, or stop here?" Respect their decision, but make sure it's an informed one. Save the gate assessment in `{project-name}/01-discovery/research-gate.md`. +## 交付目录 ---- - -## 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. This is the single highest-signal validation step in the entire process — and the only one that requires real calendar time (typically 1-2 weeks). - -> **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. - -Because interviews interrupt the session flow, present the founder with an explicit choice: - -- **Run interviews now (recommended)** — pause here, conduct the interviews over the coming days, and resume from this checkpoint (PROGRESS.md preserves the state). -- **Defer and continue** — proceed to Strategy on research data alone. State the consequences plainly: financial projections stay Stage A (assumption-based), the Final Assessment Dashboard will show "Customer Interviews: 0 conducted · deferred", and interviews become the #1 experiment in the Phase 8 validation playbook. A strategy built without customer contact is a hypothesis, not a validated direction — say this honestly, then respect the founder's decision without nagging. - -**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 fresh interviews — minimum 5 in Full Mode, minimum 3 in Fast Track. - -### 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:** -- 3 or fewer of 5 confirm the problem (scale proportionally if more interviews were run) -- 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. - -> **References:** Read `references/frameworks.md` for canonical definitions of Lean Canvas, April Dunford Positioning, Value Proposition Canvas, and RICE/MoSCoW. Read `references/output-specs.md` (Phase 4 section) for the required structure of each file. - -Produce in `02-strategy/`: -- `lean-canvas.md` — complete 9-block Lean Canvas -- `value-proposition.md` — value proposition canvas (jobs, pains, gains), one-sentence value prop, proof points -- `business-model.md` — revenue model, unit economics, scalability, dependencies and partnerships -- `positioning.md` — April Dunford's five components -- `go-to-market.md` — launch strategy, first 100 customers plan, ranked growth channels, milestones - -Update PROGRESS.md. - ---- - -## Phase 5: Brand - -> **Checkpoint:** Before starting, briefly present the strategy summary to the founder: positioning, target market, business model. Ask: "Does this reflect your vision? Anything to adjust before we build the brand on top of it?" - -Translate strategy into brand identity. The brand should feel like a natural extension of the positioning — not an afterthought. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/output-specs.md` (Phase 5 section) for the required structure of each file. - -Produce in `03-brand/`: -- `mission-vision-values.md` — mission, vision, 3-5 working values; generate 2-3 options for the user to choose from or remix -- `tone-of-voice.md` — personality traits, voice principles with "we are / we are not" examples, writing samples, vocabulary guide -- `brand-personality.md` — brand archetype, emotional attributes, visual direction, how the brand should feel vs. competitors - -Update PROGRESS.md. - ---- - -## Phase 6: Product - -Define the product enough to start building or to brief a development team. Use the competitor feature analysis from `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` and customer pain hierarchy from `01-discovery/target-audience.md` to inform feature decisions — don't design in a vacuum. - -> **References:** Use RICE or MoSCoW from `references/frameworks.md` for prioritization. Read `references/output-specs.md` (Phase 6 section) for the required structure of each file. - -Produce in `04-product/`: -- `mvp-definition.md` — core hypothesis, must-have features, nice-to-haves, explicit out-of-scope, success criteria -- `feature-prioritization.md` — RICE/MoSCoW list, dependencies, T-shirt effort estimates, build order -- `user-journey.md` — end-to-end journey map, touchpoints and emotions, drop-off risks, the "aha moment" - -Update PROGRESS.md. - ---- +- `00-intake/`：需求简报、预检、访谈 +- `01-discovery/`：市场、竞品、客户、渠道及原始证据 +- `02-strategy/`：精益画布、定位、商业模式、进入市场策略 +- `03-brand/`：使命、愿景、中文语气与禁用表达 +- `04-product/`：MVP、功能优先级、用户旅程 +- `05-financial/`：收入、成本、现金流与情景预测 +- `06-validation/`：实验、风险、评分表和 30 天计划 -## Phase 7: Financial - -> **Checkpoint:** Before projections, confirm key assumptions with the founder: pricing, target customer volume, team size, timeline. These directly drive the numbers — getting them wrong here means the projections are fiction. - -Ground the strategy in numbers. Be honest about assumptions — label everything as estimated and explain the reasoning. Pull unit economics benchmarks (CAC, LTV, churn, ACV) from `01-discovery/market-analysis.md` and competitor pricing from `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` to anchor projections in real data. - -> **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 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 - -In `05-financial/cost-structure.md`: -- Fixed costs (infrastructure, tools, salaries) -- Variable costs (per-user, per-transaction) -- One-time costs (development, legal, launch) -- Break-even analysis - -### Projections - -In `05-financial/projections.md`: -- 3 scenarios: conservative, base, optimistic -- 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. - ---- - -## Phase 8: Validation - -This is the most actionable phase — it tells the founder exactly what to do next to test whether the idea works. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/output-specs.md` (Phase 8 section) for the required structure of each file. - -Produce in `06-validation/`: -- `validation-playbook.md` — experiments ordered cheapest-first, each with assumption tested, method, metrics, and pass/fail criteria; if interviews were deferred in Phase 3.7, they are experiment #1 -- `risk-analysis.md` — likelihood × impact matrix across market, product, business, team, and financial risks, with mitigations and early warning signals -- `assumptions-tracker.md` — every critical assumption with confidence, test method, and status, as a table -- `experiment-design.md` — detailed design plus ready-to-use templates for the top 3 experiments -- `kill-criteria.md` — 5-7 specific, measurable stop/pivot conditions tied to experiments -- `scorecard.md` — 1-10 scores across 7 dimensions plus an unambiguous **Verdict** paragraph - -Be honest. If the idea has weaknesses, say so clearly. The goal is to help the founder make a good decision, not to validate their ego. - -Update PROGRESS.md — mark all phases complete. - ---- - -## Final Deliverable - -After all phases are complete, first print the **Final Assessment Dashboard** in the conversation (see `references/output-guidelines.md`, "Final Assessment Dashboard" section). This gives the founder an instant visual summary of all key findings before they dive into the files. - -Then produce two final files: - -**`README.md`** at the project root — executive summary: -- One-paragraph overview of the startup -- Key findings from research -- Strategic positioning summary -- Top 3 risks and how to mitigate them -- Confidence dashboard summary (what we know vs. what we're guessing) -- Links to all generated documents - -**`action-plan-30-days.md`** — concrete weekly plan for the first month: -- **Week 1:** Customer discovery (who to contact, what to ask, how many conversations) -- **Week 2:** Validation experiments (which ones to run first, with specific steps) -- **Week 3:** MVP scoping (based on validation results, what to build/fake/skip) -- **Week 4:** Go/no-go decision and next phase planning -- Each week should have 3-5 specific, actionable tasks — not "do customer research" but "send 20 cold LinkedIn messages to [persona] using this template" - -> **Anti-pattern check:** Before finalizing, scan the entire output for common founder anti-patterns and flag any you detect: "solution looking for a problem," "boiling the ocean" (too many features/markets at once), "premature scaling," "vanity metrics," "building in stealth too long," "ignoring unit economics." Include a brief **Anti-Patterns Detected** section in the README if any are present. - ---- - -## Radical Honesty Protocol - -> **Reference:** Read `references/honesty-protocol.md` at the start of every session for the full protocol. The key rules are summarized here. - -This skill helps founders make good decisions, not feel good. Honesty is non-negotiable: - -1. **Tell the truth.** If the market is too small or the idea has a fatal flaw, say so directly. Flag when founder assumptions contradict research data. -2. **Label claims.** Use **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, **[Opinion]** tags. Never present estimates as facts. -3. **Surface flags in every phase.** Include a **Red Flags** / **Yellow Flags** section at the end of every phase output. -4. **Clear verdict.** Scorecard must recommend: 8-10 proceed, 6-7 conditional, 4-5 concerns, 1-3 stop/pivot. -5. **Ground in evidence.** No data? Say so. Don't fabricate. -6. **Make it actionable.** Every document tells the founder what to do next. -7. **Track everything.** Update PROGRESS.md after each phase. - ---- +## 质量闸门 -## Reference Files +- 每个关键数字都有来源、口径、日期和置信度；找不到就写“待验证”。 +- 将结果分为“已验证事实 / 有依据推断 / 创始人假设 / 建议动作”。 +- 发现关键矛盾、监管硬风险或证据不足时暂停，向用户展示问题与可选路径。 +- 每阶段完成后更新 `PROGRESS.md`，记录研究模式、深度、已完成文件和下一步。 +- 只读取当前阶段需要的参考资料，控制上下文和免费模型用量。 -The `references/` directory contains supporting documentation. Read only what you need for the current phase. +## 参考资料 -| File | When to Read | ~Lines | Purpose | -|------|-------------|--------|---------| -| `output-guidelines.md` | At the start of every session (once) | ~126 | File headers/footers, cross-references, quality examples, pivot handling | -| `honesty-protocol.md` | At the start of every session (once) | ~69 | Honesty rules, data labels, anti-patterns | -| `research-principles.md` | Before starting Phase 3 (once) | ~54 | Source quality, cross-referencing, data gaps | -| `research-wave-1-market.md` | When spawning Wave 1 agents | ~206 | Agent templates for market sizing, trends, regulatory | -| `research-wave-2-competitors.md` | When spawning Wave 2 agents | ~220 | Agent templates for direct, indirect, GTM analysis | -| `research-wave-3-customers.md` | When spawning Wave 3 agents | ~233 | Agent templates for customer voice, demand, audience | -| `research-wave-4-distribution.md` | When spawning Wave 4 agents | ~132 | Agent templates for channels, geographic entry | -| `research-synthesis.md` | After all waves complete, before writing final files | ~110 | How to synthesize raw findings into deliverables | -| `research-scaling.md` | After intake, before Phase 3 | ~122 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations | -| `verification-agent.md` | After synthesis, before Phase 3.5 | ~117 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks | -| `intake-questions.md` | During Phase 1 (Intake) | ~60 | Full question set, hard questions, interviewing technique | -| `output-specs.md` | During Phases 4, 5, 6, and 8 | ~180 | File-by-file specs for Strategy, Brand, Product, Validation | -| `customer-interview.md` | Before Phase 3.7 (Customer Discovery) | ~189 | Interview protocol, question structure, synthesis guide | -| `frameworks.md` | During Phase 4 (Strategy), Phase 6 (Product), and Phase 8 (Validation) | ~107 | Lean Canvas, Dunford, VPC, RICE/MoSCoW definitions | -| `industry-benchmarks.md` | During Phase 7 (Financial) | ~66 | Standard metrics by business model type | +- `startup-design/references/customer-interview.md` +- `startup-design/references/frameworks.md` +- `startup-design/references/honesty-protocol.md` +- `startup-design/references/industry-benchmarks.md` +- `startup-design/references/intake-questions.md` +- `startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md` +- `startup-design/references/output-specs.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-principles.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-scaling.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-synthesis.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-wave-1-market.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-wave-2-competitors.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-wave-3-customers.md` +- `startup-design/references/research-wave-4-distribution.md` +- `startup-design/references/verification-agent.md` diff --git a/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md b/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md index a3b356d..939ca79 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md +++ b/startup-design/references/customer-interview.md @@ -1,189 +1,5 @@ -# Customer Interview Protocol +# 中国客户访谈 -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. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -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 4 of 5 interviewees describe the same core problem unprompted? (the Interview Gate threshold) -- 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:** -- 3 or fewer of 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:** -- 3 or fewer of 5 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, recommend running fresh interviews — minimum 5 in Full Mode, minimum 3 in Fast Track. Document any prior conversations as `[Founder-reported]` context anyway. +招募真实目标用户，建议至少 5 人并覆盖购买者、使用者和否决者。询问最近一次具体行为：“上次遇到问题是什么时候、怎么处理、花了多少钱/时间、谁批准？”避免询问“你会不会买”。经同意后记录，去标识化保存。AI 角色扮演只用于训练提问，不得作为需求证据。输出访谈纪要、行为证据、共同模式、反例和待验证问题。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/frameworks.md b/startup-design/references/frameworks.md index 5704da1..3ed158b 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/frameworks.md +++ b/startup-design/references/frameworks.md @@ -1,107 +1,5 @@ -# Strategic Frameworks Reference +# 适用于中国市场的框架 -Use this document when applying frameworks during Phase 4 (Strategy) and Phase 8 (Validation). These are the canonical definitions — follow them to ensure consistency. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Lean Canvas (Ash Maurya) - -A 1-page business model adapted from the Business Model Canvas for startups. Fill in this order for best results: - -1. **Problem** — Top 3 problems your customers have. List existing alternatives for each. -2. **Customer Segments** — Target customers. Identify early adopters separately. -3. **Unique Value Proposition** — Single, clear, compelling message that turns an unaware visitor into an interested prospect. Follow the formula: "We help [customer] [solve problem] by [mechanism]." -4. **Solution** — Top 3 features that address the top 3 problems. Keep it minimal. -5. **Channels** — Path to customers. Distinguish between inbound (SEO, content, referrals) and outbound (ads, sales, partnerships). -6. **Revenue Streams** — Revenue model, pricing, lifetime value, gross margin. -7. **Cost Structure** — Customer acquisition costs, distribution costs, hosting, people, etc. -8. **Key Metrics** — The 3-5 numbers that tell you how the business is doing. Use the pirate metrics framework (AARRR): Acquisition, Activation, Retention, Revenue, Referral. -9. **Unfair Advantage** — Something that cannot be easily copied or bought. Examples: insider knowledge, personal authority, community, network effects, proprietary data, existing platform. - ---- - -## April Dunford's Positioning Framework - -From "Obviously Awesome." Positioning defines how your product is the best in the world at providing something that a well-defined set of customers cares a lot about. - -**The 5 components (work through in this order):** - -1. **Competitive Alternatives** — What would customers do if your solution didn't exist? Not just direct competitors — include manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing. This grounds the positioning in reality. - -2. **Unique Attributes** — What do you have that the alternatives don't? Be specific and factual. Not "better UX" but "drag-and-drop workflow builder that requires zero code." Capabilities, features, expertise, integrations, data, speed, etc. - -3. **Value** — What do those attributes enable for the customer? Map each attribute to a customer benefit. Attributes are features; value is the outcome. "Drag-and-drop builder" → "Non-technical teams can build workflows without waiting for engineering." - -4. **Target Customer** — Who cares the most about this value? The best customers are those for whom your unique value is critical, not just nice-to-have. Define by characteristics that make them care more than others. - -5. **Market Category** — The context you position your product in so the value is obvious. Three options: - - **Existing category**: You're a better version of something people already buy (e.g., "CRM for real estate agents") - - **New sub-category**: You take an existing category and add a qualifier (e.g., "AI-powered recruiting platform") - - **New category**: Rare and expensive to do. Only if nothing else frames your value well. - ---- - -## Value Proposition Canvas (Strategyzer) - -Two sides that must fit together: - -### Customer Profile (right side) -- **Jobs-to-be-done** — What the customer is trying to accomplish. Include functional jobs (tasks), social jobs (how they want to be perceived), and emotional jobs (how they want to feel). -- **Pains** — What annoys, frustrates, or blocks them before, during, or after getting a job done. Include risks, undesired outcomes, and obstacles. -- **Gains** — What outcomes and benefits customers want. Include required gains (must-haves), expected gains (standard), desired gains (nice-to-have), and unexpected gains (delighters). - -### Value Map (left side) -- **Products & Services** — What you offer (features, services, support). -- **Pain Relievers** — How your offering alleviates specific customer pains. Map each to a specific pain. -- **Gain Creators** — How your offering creates specific customer gains. Map each to a specific gain. - -**Fit** exists when your pain relievers and gain creators match the most important pains and gains. - ---- - -## RICE Prioritization (Intercom) - -Score features to decide build order. Each feature gets four scores: - -- **Reach** — How many customers will this affect per quarter? Use a concrete number (e.g., 500 users/quarter). -- **Impact** — How much will this move the needle for each person reached? Score: 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal. -- **Confidence** — How sure are you about reach and impact estimates? Score: 100% = high confidence (data-backed), 80% = medium, 50% = low (gut feel). -- **Effort** — How many person-months will this take? Higher effort = lower priority. - -**Formula:** `RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort` - -Sort features by RICE score descending. The highest scores should be built first. - ---- - -## MoSCoW Prioritization - -Simpler alternative to RICE. Categorize every feature into one bucket: - -- **Must have** — Without these, the product doesn't solve the core problem. Non-negotiable for MVP. -- **Should have** — Important but not critical. The product works without them, but it's notably weaker. -- **Could have** — Nice to have. Include if time/budget allows, but cut first when scope is tight. -- **Won't have (this time)** — Explicitly out of scope. Important to name these to prevent scope creep. - ---- - -## Risk Matrix - -Used in Phase 8 (Validation) for risk analysis. Plot each risk on two axes: - -**Likelihood:** How probable is this risk? -- High (>60% chance) -- Medium (20-60%) -- Low (<20%) - -**Impact:** If it happens, how bad is it? -- Critical — Business fails or pivots required -- Major — Significant delay or revenue loss -- Moderate — Manageable but painful -- Minor — Inconvenience, easily absorbed - -**Priority quadrants:** -1. High likelihood + Critical/Major impact → Address immediately, design mitigation -2. Low likelihood + Critical impact → Monitor, have contingency plan -3. High likelihood + Minor impact → Accept and manage -4. Low likelihood + Minor impact → Acknowledge and move on +可使用精益画布、待办任务（JTBD）、波特五力、SWOT、价值主张画布和定位五组件，但框架只是提问工具。每一格都要回到证据。中国市场额外检查：决策链与回款、城市/区域差异、平台依赖、私域与渠道层级、发票税务、备案许可、数据驻留和价格敏感度。海外基准只能作为假设，不能直接套用。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/honesty-protocol.md b/startup-design/references/honesty-protocol.md index 9556cc7..91cb9d8 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/honesty-protocol.md +++ b/startup-design/references/honesty-protocol.md @@ -1,69 +1,16 @@ -# Radical Honesty Protocol +# 诚实与证据协议 -This skill exists to help founders make good decisions — not to feel good. An AI that cheerleads every idea is actively harmful: it wastes the founder's time, money, and emotional energy. These principles are non-negotiable and apply to every phase. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Tell the truth, even when it's uncomfortable +## 四类陈述 -- If the market is too small, say so directly. Don't soften "$12M and shrinking" into "room for a focused player." -- If the idea has a fatal flaw, name it up front. Don't bury it in a list of minor risks. -- If the founder's assumptions contradict research, flag it explicitly: "You assumed X, but the data shows Y." -- Challenge "everyone needs this" (who specifically?), "there's no competition" (there's always competition, even if it's doing nothing), and unsupported market claims. -- Never use vague positive language to avoid delivering bad news. Replace "interesting opportunity" with the specific finding. +1. **事实**：有可访问来源、日期和明确口径。 +2. **推断**：由事实推导，写出推理链和置信度。 +3. **假设**：尚无证据，必须进入验证清单。 +4. **建议**：说明依据、成本、风险和停止条件。 -## Separate facts from opinions +不得编造链接、引用、用户原话、价格、融资、牌照、备案、客户或市场规模。搜索不到不等于不存在。来源受登录、反爬或付费墙限制时直接说明。关键数据优先两类独立来源；转载不得算独立佐证。发现证据冲突时并列展示，不擅自取对自己有利的一项。 -- Label every major claim with its basis: - - **[Data]** — sourced finding with citation - - **[Estimate]** — calculated projection with stated assumptions - - **[Assumption]** — unverified belief that needs testing - - **[Opinion]** — your analytical judgment -- When data is missing or weak, say so: "I couldn't find reliable market size data for this niche. The $X figure comes from a single blog post and should be treated with low confidence." -- Never present estimates as facts. "Revenue could reach $500K in Year 1 **assuming** 2% conversion and $50 ARPU" — not "Revenue will reach $500K." -- A confident-sounding fabrication is worse than an honest "I don't know." +## 中国市场敏感边界 -## Surface flags proactively - -In every phase output (not just validation), include a **Flags** section at the end: - -- **Red Flags** — Issues that could kill the business. Examples: market too small to sustain a venture-scale company, dominant incumbent with network effects, regulatory ban likely, unit economics that don't work even optimistically. -- **Yellow Flags** — Concerns that need investigation or mitigation. Examples: high CAC in a low-LTV market, founder has no domain expertise, solution requires behavior change, crowded market with low differentiation. - -If there are no flags for a phase, write "No flags identified" — don't skip the section, because its absence might look like an oversight. - -## Challenge the founder's assumptions - -Don't just accept what the user says at face value. Throughout the process: -- Ask "What evidence do you have for that?" when the founder makes market claims -- Push back on "everyone needs this" — who specifically, and how do you know? -- Question "there's no competition" — there's always competition, even if it's doing nothing -- When the founder is emotionally attached to a feature or positioning, note it and test it against data - -## Provide a clear verdict - -The scorecard in Phase 8 must include an unambiguous recommendation: -- **Score 8-10:** Strong signal to proceed. Explain what makes this compelling. -- **Score 6-7:** Conditional proceed. List the specific conditions that must be validated before investing serious resources. -- **Score 4-5:** Significant concerns. The founder should run validation experiments before committing. Be specific about what would need to change. -- **Score 1-3:** Recommend against proceeding in current form. Explain why honestly and suggest pivot directions if any show promise. - -Never leave the founder wondering "so... should I do this or not?" - -## Anti-patterns to watch for - -Flag these common founder mistakes whenever you detect them: - -| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say | -|-------------|-------------------|-------------| -| Solution looking for a problem | Founder leads with technology, not customer pain | "You've described the solution in detail but the problem is vague. Who has this pain today?" | -| Boiling the ocean | Too many features, markets, or customer segments at once | "You're trying to serve everyone. Pick one beachhead segment." | -| Premature scaling | Thinking about scale before product-market fit | "Let's validate demand before planning the infrastructure." | -| Vanity metrics | Focusing on downloads, pageviews, signups without activation | "These metrics don't show whether people find value. What would?" | -| Building in stealth too long | Months of development without customer contact | "Talk to customers before building more." | -| Ignoring unit economics | "We'll figure out monetization later" | "If you can't explain how you make money, the business model has a hole." | - -## Ground rules - -- **Ground in evidence.** Every strategy/brand/product claim should trace to research findings. No data? Say so explicitly. -- **Make it actionable.** Every document should tell the founder what to do next. Avoid abstract frameworks disconnected from concrete actions. -- **Respect the founder's time.** Don't generate filler. Skip irrelevant sections and note why in PROGRESS.md. -- **Track everything.** Update PROGRESS.md after each phase — it's the session lifeline. +不提供法律、税务、证券或医疗结论；只识别风险并建议咨询持证专业人士。处理社区内容时去标识化，不收集无关个人信息。不得建议刷量、虚假评价、诱导分享、绕过平台规则或监管。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/industry-benchmarks.md b/startup-design/references/industry-benchmarks.md index 24a36de..6e2c53c 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/industry-benchmarks.md +++ b/startup-design/references/industry-benchmarks.md @@ -1,66 +1,5 @@ -# Industry Benchmarks by Business Model +# 行业基准使用规范 -Use these as reference points when evaluating a founder's financial projections. Flag projections that fall significantly outside these ranges — both overly optimistic and unnecessarily pessimistic. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## SaaS (B2B) - -| Metric | Healthy Range | Red Flag | -|--------|--------------|----------| -| Monthly churn | 2-5% (SMB), <1% (Enterprise) | >7% monthly | -| LTV/CAC ratio | 3:1 or higher | <1.5:1 | -| CAC payback | 12-18 months | >24 months | -| Gross margin | 70-85% | <60% | -| Net revenue retention | 100-130% | <90% | -| ACV (SMB) | $1K-$25K/year | <$500/year without massive volume | -| ACV (Enterprise) | $25K-$250K+/year | — | -| Time to first revenue | 3-9 months | >18 months pre-revenue | -| Rule of 40 | Growth% + Margin% > 40 | <20 at scale | - -## SaaS (B2C / Prosumer) - -| Metric | Healthy Range | Red Flag | -|--------|--------------|----------| -| Monthly churn | 3-7% | >10% | -| ARPU | $10-$50/month | <$5 without viral growth | -| Conversion (free→paid) | 2-5% | <1% | -| Payback period | 3-6 months | >12 months | - -## Marketplace / Platform - -| Metric | Healthy Range | Red Flag | -|--------|--------------|----------| -| Take rate | 10-25% | <5% (hard to sustain), >30% (supply will leave) | -| Supply-side churn | <5% monthly | >10% | -| Liquidity (match rate) | >30% | <10% | -| GMV growth (early) | 15-25% MoM | <5% MoM after launch | -| Time to liquidity | 2-6 months in first market | >12 months | - -## E-Commerce / DTC - -| Metric | Healthy Range | Red Flag | -|--------|--------------|----------| -| Gross margin | 50-70% | <40% | -| CAC (paid) | $20-$80 | >$150 for <$50 AOV | -| Repeat purchase rate | 25-40% within 90 days | <15% | -| AOV | Varies, but LTV should be 3x+ CAC | — | -| Return rate | 5-15% | >25% | - -## Consumer App (Ad-Supported) - -| Metric | Healthy Range | Red Flag | -|--------|--------------|----------| -| DAU/MAU ratio | 20-50% | <10% | -| D1 retention | 25-40% | <15% | -| D30 retention | 8-15% | <5% | -| ARPDAU (ads) | $0.01-$0.10 | <$0.005 | -| Viral coefficient | 0.3-0.7 | Relying on k>1 for growth | - -## How to Use These Benchmarks - -1. **Identify the business model type** from the founder's description -2. **Compare their projections** against the relevant benchmarks -3. **Flag deviations** in the financial documents: - - If projections assume 1% monthly churn for an SMB SaaS → flag as optimistic, explain that 3-5% is typical - - If projections assume 50% gross margin for a pure software product → flag as pessimistic, ask what's driving costs -4. **Cite the benchmark** when flagging: "Industry benchmark for B2B SaaS monthly churn is 2-5%; your model assumes 0.5% which would place you in the top 1% of all SaaS companies" -5. **Note that early-stage startups often perform worse** than benchmarks — these represent what good companies achieve at scale, not what a pre-revenue startup should expect on day one +基准按行业、阶段、商业模式、地域和年份分组。优先中国同类企业公开数据；没有时可以引用海外基准，但必须说明不可比因素。CAC、LTV、毛利、留存、回本期、客单价均写计算式和数据期。任何“行业平均”都要有来源；没有可靠来源就提供测量方法而非虚构区间。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/intake-questions.md b/startup-design/references/intake-questions.md index 13af07f..e2d809a 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/intake-questions.md +++ b/startup-design/references/intake-questions.md @@ -1,56 +1,5 @@ -# Intake Interview Questions +# 创业需求访谈问题 -Read during **Phase 1: Intake Interview**. Full question set, hard questions, and interviewing technique. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Core Questions - -Ask these in a conversational flow, not as a rigid checklist. Group related questions naturally and adapt based on answers. Not every question applies to every startup — skip what's irrelevant. - -**The Idea** -- What problem are you solving? Who has this problem? -- What's your proposed solution? How does it work? -- What triggered this idea? (personal pain, market observation, technical insight) -- Do you have any existing work? (prototypes, research, landing pages, waitlists) - -**The Founder(s)** -- What's your background? Relevant domain expertise? -- Are you solo or do you have co-founders? What are their strengths? -- How much time can you dedicate? Full-time or side project? -- What's your budget/runway situation? - -**The Market** -- Who is your ideal customer? Be as specific as possible. -- How do they currently solve this problem? (existing alternatives, workarounds) -- Do you know of direct competitors? Who are they? -- What geography/market are you targeting first? - -**The Business** -- How do you plan to make money? (subscription, one-time, marketplace, freemium) -- Any idea of pricing? -- What does success look like in 6 months? 12 months? 3 years? -- What are your biggest unknowns or worries? - -**Constraints & Preferences** -- 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 - -After the core questions, ask these deliberately uncomfortable questions. They surface blind spots early: - -- "Why are you the right person to build this? What unfair advantage do you have?" -- "If Google/a well-funded competitor launched this tomorrow, what would you do?" -- "What's the strongest argument against this idea?" -- "Have you talked to potential customers? What did they actually say (not what you hoped they'd say)?" -- "What would make you walk away from this idea?" - -Don't skip these — they set the tone for the entire process and signal that this is an honest assessment, not a cheerleading session. - -## How to Interview - -- Ask 3-5 questions at a time, not all at once -- Acknowledge and build on answers — show you're listening -- Probe vague answers: "You said 'small businesses' — can you narrow that down? Like, freelancers? 10-person agencies? Local retail?" -- After 2-3 rounds, summarize what you've understood and ask the user to confirm or correct +分 3—5 题一轮，覆盖：谁在什么场景有何痛点；当前如何解决；购买者/使用者/决策者；目标地域与城市层级；创始人为何适合；现有用户、收入与访谈；预算、时间、渠道和技术约束；涉及的数据、内容、行业许可；希望本次做出的决策。追问最近一次真实行为和数字口径，不接受“所有人都是用户”。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md b/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md index 69b0cc8..36e6eef 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md +++ b/startup-design/references/output-guidelines.md @@ -1,128 +1,5 @@ -# Output Guidelines +# 中文交付规范 -## Standard File Header +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -Every output file should start with a consistent header: - -```markdown -# [Document Title] - -**Phase:** [Phase number and name] -**Project:** [project-name] -**Date:** [generation date] -**Confidence:** [Overall confidence: High / Medium / Low] - ---- -``` - -This makes it easy for the founder to navigate the deliverables and immediately understand the reliability of each document. - -## Standard File Footer - -Every output file should end with: - -```markdown ---- - -## Flags - -**Red Flags:** -- [List any red flags, or "None identified"] - -**Yellow Flags:** -- [List any yellow flags, or "None identified"] - -## Sources -- [Key sources referenced in this document with tier ratings] -``` - -## Cross-Phase Referencing - -When a document references findings from another phase, use explicit callouts: - -**Good:** -> "The target persona (see `01-discovery/target-audience.md`, Persona 1: Mid-market CFO) has an average tool budget of $2,000/month [Data, Gartner 2025]." - -**Bad:** -> "As mentioned earlier, the target customer has budget for this." - -Always include: -- The file path being referenced -- The specific finding (not a vague reference) -- The data label ([Data], [Estimate], etc.) - -## Quality Examples - -### Good vs. Bad Output - -**Market Analysis — Bad:** -> "The market presents interesting opportunities for growth. There are several competitors but the space is not overcrowded. Timing seems favorable." - -**Market Analysis — Good:** -> "The global invoice automation market is $4.2B [Data, MarketsAndMarkets 2025] growing at 12.3% CAGR [Data, Grand View Research 2025]. However, the SMB segment — our target — represents only $340M [Estimate, derived from 8.1% SMB share reported by Ardent Partners]. Three well-funded competitors (Tipalti $270M raised, Stampli $68M, Vic.ai $52M) already serve this segment [Data, Crunchbase]. **[Yellow Flag]** The market may be too small for a new entrant competing head-on; a niche positioning is needed." - -**Scorecard — Bad:** -> | Market size | 7 | Good market size | - -**Scorecard — Good:** -> | Market size | 5 | TAM is $4.2B but our serviceable segment (SMB invoice automation) is ~$340M [Estimate]. At 5% penetration that's $17M ARR — viable for a bootstrapped business but below typical VC thresholds. [Yellow Flag] | - -## Final Assessment Dashboard - -After all 8 phases are complete and before writing the README.md, print a summary dashboard directly in the conversation (not in a file). This gives the founder an instant visual payoff of the entire process. - -Pull each value from the actual phase outputs. Do not invent or approximate. If a value was not determined, write "Not assessed". - -``` -═══════════════════════════════════════════════ - STARTUP DESIGN — FINAL ASSESSMENT -═══════════════════════════════════════════════ - - Idea: [selected variation from Phase 2 brainstorm] - Founder Fit: [Strong / Moderate / Weak] - Market: [$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] - - SCORE: [X / 10] - VERDICT: [GO / CONDITIONAL / NO-GO] - - Files generated: [N] - Directory: [path] -═══════════════════════════════════════════════ -``` - -**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]". If the founder deferred interviews, write "0 conducted · deferred". -- **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). -- **Competitors**: Count of direct competitors found in Phase 3, plus a one-phrase summary of the funding landscape (e.g., "3 funded, 2 bootstrapped" or "dominated by 1 incumbent"). -- **Positioning**: From Phase 4 strategy. Clear = obvious differentiation angle. Emerging = differentiation possible but unproven. Unclear = no obvious angle found. -- **Business Model**: The model selected in Phase 4 strategy. -- **MVP Scope**: Number of core features from Phase 6 product definition, plus rough build estimate. -- **Model Viability**: A synthesis judgment from Phase 7 financials. Viable = unit economics work with reasonable assumptions. Risky = unit economics depend on optimistic assumptions. Broken = unit economics don't work under any reasonable scenario. -- **Top Risk**: The single highest-impact risk from Phase 8 risk matrix. -- **Score / Verdict**: From Phase 8 validation scorecard. GO (8-10), CONDITIONAL (6-7), NO-GO (1-5). - -Print this dashboard in the conversation after all files are written. Then proceed to write the README.md and action-plan-30-days.md as specified in the main skill file. - ---- - -## Handling Pivots - -If the founder wants to change direction after seeing research or strategy outputs (different target market, different business model, different positioning): - -1. **Don't restart from scratch.** Much of the research and analysis may still apply. -2. **Update the brief** (`00-intake/brief.md`) with a "Pivot Notes" section documenting what changed and why. -3. **Re-run only the affected phases.** If the pivot is about target market, re-run Phase 3 (customer research waves) and Phase 4 (strategy). If it's about business model, re-run Phase 4 and Phase 7. -4. **Mark re-run phases** in PROGRESS.md: `- [x] Phase 4: Strategy — re-run after pivot {date}` -5. **Keep old versions.** Rename the previous output to `{filename}.pre-pivot.md` before generating the new version. This preserves the decision trail. +每份文件顶部写标题、更新日期、阶段、研究模式和置信度；正文优先短段落、表格和结论先行。每项关键结论附链接与访问日期。跨文件引用使用相对路径。中文表达自然、具体、避免英文腔；专业缩写首次出现给中文解释。文件末尾固定列出“已验证事实、假设与缺口、下一步、来源”。项目转向时保留旧结论并标记失效原因，不静默覆盖。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/output-specs.md b/startup-design/references/output-specs.md index ecc51f9..b95b9b0 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/output-specs.md +++ b/startup-design/references/output-specs.md @@ -1,169 +1,5 @@ -# Phase Output Specifications +# 创业设计交付规格 -File-by-file requirements for the Strategy, Brand, Product, and Validation phases. Read the section for the phase you're executing — these specs define what each deliverable must contain. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -**Contents:** Phase 4 — Strategy · Phase 5 — Brand · Phase 6 — Product · Phase 8 — Validation - ---- - -## Phase 4 — Strategy (`02-strategy/`) - -### lean-canvas.md - -Build a complete Lean Canvas (1-page business model): -- Problem (top 3) -- Customer Segments -- Unique Value Proposition -- Solution -- Channels -- Revenue Streams -- Cost Structure -- Key Metrics -- Unfair Advantage - -### value-proposition.md - -- The value proposition canvas (jobs-to-be-done, pains, gains) -- How the product addresses each pain and creates each gain -- The one-sentence value prop -- Proof points and credibility signals - -### business-model.md - -- Revenue model (how money comes in, pricing tiers) -- Unit economics (CAC, LTV, margins — even rough estimates) -- Scalability considerations -- Dependencies and key partnerships - -### positioning.md - -Using April Dunford's positioning framework: -- Competitive alternatives (what happens if you don't exist) -- Unique attributes (what you have that alternatives don't) -- Value (what those attributes enable for customers) -- Target market (who cares the most) -- Market category (the context that makes the value obvious) - -### go-to-market.md - -- Launch strategy (where, how, to whom first) -- First 100 customers plan -- Growth channels ranked by expected impact and cost -- Partnerships and ecosystem plays -- Timeline with milestones - ---- - -## Phase 5 — Brand (`03-brand/`) - -### mission-vision-values.md - -- **Mission** — Why the company exists (present-tense, action-oriented) -- **Vision** — The world you're building toward (aspirational but credible) -- **Values** — 3-5 core values with brief explanations of what they mean in practice (not generic platitudes — values should help make decisions) - -Generate 2-3 options for mission and vision for the user to choose from or remix. - -### tone-of-voice.md - -- Brand personality traits (3-4 adjectives with definitions) -- Voice principles with "we are / we are not" examples -- Writing samples: how the brand sounds in different contexts (homepage headline, error message, social media post, customer email) -- Vocabulary guide: preferred terms vs. avoided terms - -### brand-personality.md - -- Brand archetype analysis (which archetype fits and why) -- Emotional attributes -- Visual direction suggestions (not full design, but adjectives and references) -- How the brand should feel compared to competitors - ---- - -## Phase 6 — Product (`04-product/`) - -### mvp-definition.md - -- Core hypothesis the MVP tests -- Must-have features (the minimum set to test the hypothesis) -- Nice-to-have features (for v1.1, not v1.0) -- Explicitly out of scope (prevent scope creep) -- Success criteria: what results would validate the MVP - -### feature-prioritization.md - -- Feature list with RICE or MoSCoW prioritization -- Dependencies between features -- Effort estimates (T-shirt sizing: S/M/L/XL) -- Recommended build order - -### user-journey.md - -- End-to-end user journey map (from discovery to regular usage) -- Key touchpoints and emotions at each stage -- Drop-off risks and mitigation ideas -- The "aha moment" — when does the user first experience value? - ---- - -## Phase 8 — Validation (`06-validation/`) - -### validation-playbook.md - -- Ordered list of experiments to run, from cheapest/fastest to most expensive -- For each experiment: - - What assumption it tests - - How to run it (step-by-step) - - What to measure - - What result would validate vs. invalidate the assumption - - Estimated time and cost -- Examples: landing page test, fake door test, concierge MVP, customer interviews, ad campaign test, wizard of oz, pre-sales -- If customer interviews were deferred in Phase 3.7, they are experiment #1 — no exceptions - -Tailor experiments to the specific idea — a B2B SaaS needs different validation than a consumer marketplace. - -### risk-analysis.md - -- Risk matrix (likelihood × impact) for: - - Market risks (no demand, timing, regulatory) - - Product risks (can't build it, won't work) - - Business risks (can't monetize, can't scale) - - Team risks (missing skills, founder conflicts) - - Financial risks (runway, CAC too high) -- For each high-priority risk: mitigation strategy and early warning signals - -### assumptions-tracker.md - -- Every critical assumption the business plan rests on -- Current confidence level (high/medium/low) -- How to test each assumption -- Status: untested / testing / validated / invalidated - -Format as a table for easy scanning and updating. - -### experiment-design.md - -- Detailed design for the top 3 recommended experiments -- Hypothesis, method, metrics, success criteria, timeline -- Templates the founder can use immediately (interview scripts, survey questions, landing page copy outline) - -### kill-criteria.md - -Define 5-7 specific, measurable conditions under which the founder should stop or pivot. Tie each to a validation experiment. Be specific: "If fewer than 3/10 interview subjects say they'd pay $X" not "if there's no demand." This protects the founder from sunk-cost thinking. - -### scorecard.md - -Produce a summary scorecard: - -| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Rationale | -|-----------|-------------|-----------| -| Problem severity | | | -| Market size | | | -| Competitive advantage | | | -| Feasibility | | | -| Business model clarity | | | -| Founder-market fit | | | -| Timing | | | -| **Overall** | | | - -Be honest. If the idea has weaknesses, say so clearly. The goal is to help the founder make a good decision, not to validate their ego. Include a clear **Verdict** paragraph after the table with an unambiguous recommendation (see the scoring guide in the Radical Honesty Protocol). +需求目录为 `00-intake` 至 `06-validation`。每个阶段至少包含：结论摘要、证据、反证、决策、下一步。市场分析写 TAM/SAM/SOM 双口径；竞品写直接/间接/替代；战略写客户、价值、渠道、收入与成本；财务写基准/乐观/保守情景；验证写优先级、指标、预算和停止条件。不得为了凑齐文件重复同一段内容。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-principles.md b/startup-design/references/research-principles.md index f76ab2d..e29798e 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-principles.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-principles.md @@ -1,54 +1,17 @@ -# Research Principles +# 中国市场研究原则 -These principles apply to ALL research agents across all waves. Every agent must follow them. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Iterative Deep Research +## 来源优先级 -Each agent performs **5-8 web searches minimum**, organized in sequential rounds that drill deeper: -- Round 1: Broad overview queries -- Round 2: Drill-down into specific findings from Round 1 -- Round 3: Cross-reference and validate -- Round 4: Reality check and edge cases +1. 国务院及部委、地方政府、国家/地方统计局、法院与交易所等一手公开材料； +2. 企业官网、公告、帮助中心、定价页、应用商店页面与官方账号； +3. 行业协会、学术机构、可信研究机构； +4. 主流媒体； +5. 知乎、小红书、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、电商评论和垂直论坛等用户信号。 -Do NOT stop after a single query. The first search gives you the surface — the follow-ups give you the insight. +社区内容适合发现语言、场景和抱怨，不适合直接推算全国市场。记录检索词、访问日期、样本量、平台偏差和缺失。中文与英文关键词并用，加入城市层级、行业俗称、政策用语和竞品品牌词。 -## Source Quality Tiers +## 数据口径 -Rank every finding by source reliability: - -| Tier | Source Type | Use For | -|------|-----------|---------| -| **Tier 1** | Industry reports (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, IBISWorld), SEC filings, government data, academic papers | Hard numbers, market size, growth rates | -| **Tier 2** | Reputable tech press (TechCrunch, Bloomberg, WSJ), company press releases, investor presentations | Funding data, company news, expert opinions | -| **Tier 3** | Blog posts, opinion pieces, social media | Sentiment, customer voice, anecdotal evidence | - -A Tier 3 source saying "the market is $5B" is not reliable. A Tier 1 report saying the same thing is. - -## Cross-Referencing - -Never trust a single source for important claims. For every key finding: -- Look for 2-3 independent sources -- If sources agree: note convergence and cite all -- If sources disagree: note both figures, explain the discrepancy, and state which you trust more and why - -## Quantification - -Vague claims are worthless. Always push for numbers: -- Bad: "The market is growing fast" -- Good: "$4.2B market growing at 12.3% CAGR (Grand View Research, 2025)" -- Bad: "Many companies use this" -- Good: "67% of mid-size companies report using at least one AP automation tool (Ardent Partners, 2025)" - -## Dating - -Always note when data was published. Flag anything older than 18 months as potentially outdated. Markets can shift significantly in that time, especially in tech. - -## Handling Research Failures - -Sometimes WebSearch won't find what you need. When this happens: - -1. **Try alternative queries.** Rephrase, use synonyms, try different angles. At least 3 variations before declaring a gap. -2. **Use proxy data.** If you can't find market size for your exact segment, find the broader market and estimate the segment share. Show your math. -3. **Declare the gap explicitly.** Write: "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]. Closest proxy: [Y]. Confidence: Low." -4. **Never fabricate.** If you don't have data, say so. An honest "unknown" is infinitely more valuable than a made-up number. -5. **Suggest how to fill the gap.** Point to specific reports that might have the data (even if paywalled), or recommend primary research the founder could do. +市场规模注明年份、地域、含税口径和汇率；企业信息区分工商登记、官方披露和第三方推算；收入区分 GMV、合同额、回款和确认收入；用户量区分注册、月活、付费与企业客户。所有实时信息在交付前复核。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-scaling.md b/startup-design/references/research-scaling.md index 0a495ad..1d7f128 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-scaling.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-scaling.md @@ -1,122 +1,13 @@ -# Research Scaling Protocol +# 动态研究深度 -Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Complexity Score +## 评分 -Assess three factors from the intake data: +市场宽度、已知竞品、地域跨度各 1—3 分，总分 3—9： -| Factor | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | -|--------|---------|------------|----------| -| **Market breadth** | Ultra-niche, few players, well-defined segment | Defined market, moderate competition | Broad market, many segments, diverse players | -| **Known competitors** | 0-2 identified | 3-5 identified | 6+ identified | -| **Geographic scope** | Single country | Regional (e.g., Europe, North America) | Global or multi-region | +- **轻量（3—4）**：每轮合并任务，2—3 组检索，适合单一城市或窄品类。 +- **标准（5—7）**：按技能默认轮次，3—4 组检索，覆盖主要渠道。 +- **深度（8—9）**：拆分更多研究任务，5—6 组检索，覆盖区域/细分差异与反证。 -**Complexity score** = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9) - -## Research Depth Tiers - -| Tier | Score Range | Manual Trigger | Description | -|------|-----------|----------------|-------------| -| **Light** | 3-4 | User says "light", "quick", or "fast research" | Quick scan, fewer agents, 2-3 search rounds | -| **Standard** | 5-7 | Default (no override needed) | Current behavior, balanced depth | -| **Deep** | 8-9 | User says "deep", "thorough", or "deep research" | More agents, 5-6 search rounds, extra coverage | - -**Manual override always wins.** If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep. - -## User Communication - -After calculating the score, show this to the user: - -``` -## Research Depth - -Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity: - -| Factor | Assessment | Score | -|------------------|---------------------|-------| -| Market breadth | {description} | {1-3} | -| Known competitors| {N} identified | {1-3} | -| Geographic scope | {description} | {1-3} | - -**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}** - -You can override this. Here's what each depth means: - -| Depth | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for | -|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------| -| **Light** | {N} | 2-3 rounds | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions | -| **Standard** | {N} | 3-4 rounds | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed | -| **Deep** | {N} | 5-6 rounds | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence | - -→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation. -``` - -The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below). - -## Wave Configuration: startup-design - -### Light (3-4 score or user override) - -**Wave 1: Market Landscape** (2 agents) -- A1: Market Sizing & Economics (unchanged) -- A2: Industry Trends, Timing & Regulatory (merge A2+A3 into one agent) - -**Wave 2: Competitive Analysis** (2 agents) -- B1: Direct Competitor Deep-Dives (unchanged) -- B2: Indirect Competitors & GTM (merge B2+B3 into one agent) - -**Wave 3: Customer & Demand** (2 agents) -- C1: Customer Voice & Pain Points (unchanged) -- C2: Demand Signals & Audience Profiling (merge C2+C3 into one agent) - -**Wave 4: Distribution** (1 agent) -- D1: Distribution & Geographic Entry (merge D1+D2 into one agent) -- Skip Wave 4 entirely if market is local/single-country - -**Total: 6-7 agents** (vs. 11 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent - -### Standard (5-7 score, default) - -No changes to current wave structure: -- Wave 1: 3 agents (A1, A2, A3) -- Wave 2: 3 agents (B1, B2, B3) -- Wave 3: 3 agents (C1, C2, C3) -- Wave 4: 2 agents (D1, D2) - -**Total: 11 agents**, 3-4 search rounds per agent - -### Deep (8-9 score or user override) - -**Wave 1: Market Landscape** (4 agents) -- A1: Market Sizing & Economics (unchanged) -- A2: Industry Trends & Timing (unchanged) -- A3: Regulatory & Compliance (unchanged) -- A4: Adjacent Markets & Expansion (NEW: research adjacent verticals, whitespace, expansion paths) - -**Wave 2: Competitive Analysis** (4 agents) -- B1: Direct Competitor Deep-Dives (unchanged) -- B2: Indirect Competitors & Substitutes (unchanged) -- B3: Competitor Go-to-Market (unchanged) -- B4: Emerging & Stealth Competitors (NEW: search for stealth startups, recent launches, pre-launch products in the space) - -**Wave 3: Customer & Demand** (4 agents) -- C1: Customer Voice & Pain Points (unchanged) -- C2: Demand Signals & Market Validation (unchanged) -- C3: Target Audience Profiling (unchanged) -- C4: Pricing Deep-Dive (NEW: detailed pricing intelligence, WTP analysis, price sensitivity research) - -**Wave 4: Distribution & Partnerships** (3 agents) -- D1: Distribution Channel Deep-Dive (unchanged) -- D2: Geographic & Market Entry (unchanged) -- D3: Strategic Partnership Mapping (NEW: potential partners, integration opportunities, channel partnerships) - -**Total: 15 agents**, 5-6 search rounds per agent - -## PROGRESS.md - -Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md: - -```markdown -- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto}) -``` +向用户展示推荐档位、预计研究轮次、主要来源和局限，让用户回复“轻量 / 深度 / 按推荐”。免费模型上下文不足时分阶段落盘，不能通过删掉来源和反证来省 token。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-synthesis.md b/startup-design/references/research-synthesis.md index 3cefc06..d3f25db 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-synthesis.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-synthesis.md @@ -1,110 +1,13 @@ -# Research Synthesis Protocol +# 研究综合方法 -After ALL waves complete (10-11 agents, depending on whether A3/Regulatory was skipped), synthesize the raw findings into polished deliverables. This step creates the real analytical value — it's not copying, it's connecting. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## How to Synthesize +## 综合顺序 -This is reasoning work, not transcription. Read everything first, then think hard about what it all means before writing a single deliverable — the connections you draw here are the analytical value the founder is paying for. Move through these steps deliberately rather than rushing to fill the templates: +1. 按研究问题整理证据，不按来源堆砌摘要。 +2. 合并重复转载，标记时间、地域和口径冲突。 +3. 提取共识、反证、异常值和重要空白。 +4. 用“事实—含义—行动”形成结论，并给高/中/低置信度。 +5. 生成未来 30 天可执行验证：负责人、成本、成功指标和停止条件。 -1. **Read all raw files** in `01-discovery/raw/` before writing anything. -2. **Look for patterns** across sources: what themes repeat? What surprised you? -3. **Identify contradictions** between sources and explain which you trust more and why. -4. **Connect the dots** between research areas: how do competitive gaps connect to customer pains? How do market trends affect the go-to-market? -5. **Highlight strategic implications** — don't just report facts; say what they mean for this startup. -6. **Rate your confidence** for each major finding: High (multiple Tier 1 sources agree), Medium (some evidence but gaps), Low (limited data, mostly inferred). -7. **Aggregate data gaps** from all raw files and present them clearly — these become inputs for Phase 8 (Validation). - -## Output Files - -### `01-discovery/market-analysis.md` -Synthesize from: `raw/market-size.md`, `raw/trends.md`, `raw/regulatory.md`, `raw/geographic.md` - -Structure: -- **Executive summary** (5-sentence overview of the market opportunity) -- **Market size** with TAM/SAM/SOM breakdown and confidence ratings -- **Growth trajectory** with key drivers and headwinds -- **Market maturity assessment** (emerging / growing / mature / declining) -- **Unit economics benchmarks** (carried from market sizing, used by Phase 7) -- **Regulatory summary** (key requirements, compliance costs, timeline) -- **Geographic analysis** (beachhead market, expansion path) -- **Timing assessment:** why now? What tailwinds and headwinds exist? -- **Data gaps** aggregated from all market-related research - -### `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` -Synthesize from: `raw/direct-competitors.md`, `raw/indirect-competitors.md`, `raw/competitor-gtm.md` - -Structure: -- **Competitive overview** (how crowded, market concentration, overall threat level) -- **Competitor comparison matrix** (features × competitors table) -- **Positioning map** (describe how competitors position themselves, where the whitespace is) -- **Competitor GTM summary** (what acquisition channels work, what's saturated) -- **Platform risk assessment** (which platforms could absorb our functionality) -- **Switching cost analysis** (what keeps people on current solutions) -- **Strategic recommendations:** where to compete, where to avoid, how to differentiate -- **Vulnerability analysis:** which competitors are weakest and why — where can we win? -- **Data gaps** - -### `01-discovery/target-audience.md` -Synthesize from: `raw/customer-voice.md`, `raw/target-audience.md`, `raw/demand-signals.md` - -Structure: -- **Primary persona** (vivid, data-backed, with representative quote) -- **Secondary persona** (if applicable) -- **Anti-persona** (who NOT to target) -- **Customer pain hierarchy** (ranked by frequency × intensity, from customer voice) -- **Jobs-to-be-done framework** (functional, social, emotional) -- **Language map** (exact words customers use — feed directly into copywriting) -- **Buying behavior** (decision process, criteria, cycle length, objections) -- **Where to reach them** (ranked channels with density and cost) -- **Demand validation** (search trends, WTP evidence, market validation score) -- **Data gaps** - -### `01-discovery/industry-trends.md` -Synthesize from: `raw/trends.md`, `raw/regulatory.md`, `raw/demand-signals.md` - -Structure: -- **Macro trends** affecting the industry (with timeline and impact assessment) -- **Technology shifts** and their adoption curve -- **Investment and M&A signals** (what smart money is doing) -- **Behavioral shifts** in target customers -- **Regulatory trajectory** (direction of travel, not just current state) -- **What this means for our startup** — explicit strategic implications -- **Timing scorecard:** is now the right time? Rate: tailwinds vs. headwinds -- **Data gaps** - -### `01-discovery/confidence-dashboard.md` -Synthesize from: ALL raw files across all waves. - -Structure: -- **Overview** — How much of the analysis rests on solid ground vs. thin ice -- **Claim-level confidence** table: - -| Claim | Source Tier | # Corroborating Sources | Confidence | Data Age | -|-------|-----------|------------------------|------------|----------| -| {major claim from research} | 1/2/3 | {count} | High/Medium/Low | {date or range} | - -- **Highest confidence findings** — Claims backed by multiple Tier 1 sources -- **Lowest confidence findings** — Claims based on single sources, inferred data, or old information -- **Critical unknowns** — Things we don't know that could change the strategy -- **Recommendations** — What the founder should verify first, and how - -This file helps the founder understand where they're standing on solid ground vs. making decisions based on weak data. It's the meta-layer above the other 4 deliverables. - ---- - -## Cross-Document Connections - -After writing all 4 files, add a "Strategic Connections" section at the end of each that links to insights from the other documents. For example: - -- In market-analysis.md: "The growth in [trend X] (see industry-trends.md) creates an opening in [segment Y] that [competitor Z] (see competitor-landscape.md) hasn't addressed." -- In target-audience.md: "The pricing sensitivity found here aligns with the $X-Y range from competitor pricing analysis (see competitor-landscape.md)." - -These connections help Phase 4 (Strategy) build on concrete research rather than abstract claims. - -## Post-Synthesis Verification - -After writing all deliverables, run the Verification Agent protocol. See `references/verification-agent.md` for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-design-specific cross-phase coherence (strategy reflects market data, product reflects customer pains, financial reflects business model, validation covers identified risks). - -## Cleanup - -Keep the `raw/` directory for reference. Note in PROGRESS.md that raw research files are available at `01-discovery/raw/`. +综合报告必须包含执行摘要、关键证据表、风险与反方观点、数据缺口和来源清单。不得用漂亮框架掩盖证据不足。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-wave-1-market.md b/startup-design/references/research-wave-1-market.md index ff473be..c3f2b1f 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-wave-1-market.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-wave-1-market.md @@ -1,206 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 1: Market Landscape (3 agents) +# 第一轮：市场与监管 -Read `research-principles.md` first for cross-cutting rules on source quality, cross-referencing, and quantification. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent A1: Market Sizing & Economics - -``` -Research task: Deep market sizing for {industry/product category} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Target market: {geography}, {customer segment} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL — perform these searches in sequence, each building on the last: - -ROUND 1 — Broad market overview (2-3 searches): -- "{broad category} market size {current year}" -- "{broad category} market report {current year}" -- "{industry} industry overview statistics" -Capture: TAM figures, growth rates, key players. Note which reports are cited most. - -ROUND 2 — Segment drill-down (2-3 searches): -- "{specific segment} market size {geography}" -- "{specific segment} spending trends" -- "{customer type} budget for {product category}" -Capture: SAM figures, segment-specific growth, spending patterns per customer. - -ROUND 3 — Unit economics research (2-3 searches): -- "{product category} average contract value" -- "{product category} customer acquisition cost benchmarks" -- "{product category} churn rate benchmarks" -- "{product category} pricing survey" -Capture: Industry benchmarks for ACV, CAC, LTV, churn. These ground the financial model later. - -ROUND 4 — Reality check (1-2 searches): -- "{product category} market challenges {current year}" -- "why {product category} startups fail" -Capture: Headwinds, saturation signals, common failure modes. - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Market Sizing: {industry} - -## TAM (Total Addressable Market) -- Figure: $X (Source, Date) -- Figure: $Y (Source, Date) — [note if different and why] -- Growth rate: X% CAGR (Source) - -## SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market) -- Segment: {specific segment} -- Figure: $X (Source, Date) -- Reasoning: [how SAM was derived from TAM] - -## SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market) -- Realistic Year 1 capture: $X -- Reasoning: [based on comparable company trajectories] - -## Unit Economics Benchmarks -- Average contract value: $X/mo or $X/yr -- Customer acquisition cost: $X -- Lifetime value: $X -- Churn rate: X%/mo or X%/yr -- [Note if benchmarks are for this specific segment or broader industry] - -## Market Headwinds & Risks -- [List specific challenges with sources] - -## Source Quality Assessment -- [Rate each major source as Tier 1/2/3 and note any data gaps] - -## Data Gaps -- [List anything you couldn't find with suggested ways to fill the gap] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/market-size.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent A2: Industry Trends & Timing - -``` -Research task: Industry trends, timing signals, and future trajectory for {industry} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL — perform these searches in sequence: - -ROUND 1 — Technology trends (2-3 searches): -- "{industry} technology trends {current year}" -- "AI impact on {industry}" -- "{industry} innovation report {current year}" -Capture: Which technologies are reshaping the space. Adoption curves. Maturity levels. - -ROUND 2 — Investment & M&A activity (2-3 searches): -- "{industry} startup funding {current year}" -- "{industry} acquisitions {current year}" -- "{product category} venture capital deals" -Search Crunchbase, PitchBook summaries, TechCrunch funding roundups. -Capture: Deal sizes, acquiring companies (signals of where big players see value), accelerating or decelerating investment. - -ROUND 3 — Behavioral shifts (2 searches): -- "{customer type} changing expectations {industry}" -- "remote work impact on {industry}" OR "{customer type} digital adoption" -Capture: How customer behavior is evolving. New expectations. Generational shifts. - -ROUND 4 — Expert predictions (1-2 searches): -- "{industry} predictions {current year + 1}" -- "{industry} future outlook analyst" -Capture: Where credible analysts think this is heading. Consensus vs. contrarian views. - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Industry Trends: {industry} - -## Technology Trends -For each trend: -- Trend name and description -- Current adoption stage (early/growing/mature/declining) -- Impact on our startup (opportunity/threat/neutral) -- Timeline: when does this become mainstream? -- Source and date - -## Investment Activity -- Total funding in space (last 12 months): $X across N deals -- Notable rounds: [company, amount, stage, date] -- Notable acquisitions: [acquirer → target, amount, date, strategic rationale] -- Investment trend: accelerating / stable / decelerating -- What this signals for our startup - -## Behavioral Shifts -- [Specific shift with data] -- [How this affects demand for our product] - -## Expert Predictions -- [Prediction, source, credibility assessment] - -## Timing Assessment -- Is now a good time to enter this market? Why or why not? -- What would make the timing better or worse? - -## Data Gaps -- [List anything you couldn't find] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/trends.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent A3: Regulatory & Compliance Landscape - -Skip this agent if the startup has no obvious regulatory exposure. When in doubt, run it — better to discover regulatory requirements early than late. - -``` -Research task: Regulatory landscape for {industry} in {geography} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Current regulations (2-3 searches): -- "{industry} regulations {geography} {current year}" -- "{product type} compliance requirements" -- "{industry} licensing requirements {geography}" - -ROUND 2 — Data & privacy (2 searches): -- "{industry} data privacy requirements" -- "GDPR CCPA impact on {industry}" OR "{industry} data handling regulations" - -ROUND 3 — Upcoming changes (1-2 searches): -- "{industry} new regulations {current year}" -- "{industry} regulatory changes pending legislation" - -ROUND 4 — Enforcement & precedent (1 search): -- "{industry} regulatory enforcement actions" OR "{industry} compliance fines" - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Regulatory Landscape: {industry} in {geography} - -## Current Regulations -For each regulation: -- Name and jurisdiction -- What it requires -- Who it applies to (does it apply to us at launch? At scale?) -- Compliance cost estimate -- Timeline to compliance - -## Data & Privacy -- Applicable frameworks (GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, etc.) -- Data handling requirements specific to this industry -- Impact on product architecture - -## Upcoming Changes -- Pending legislation or proposed rules -- Expected timeline -- Potential impact - -## Compliance Cost Estimate -- Minimum viable compliance: $X (what you need at launch) -- Full compliance: $X (what you need at scale) -- Certifications needed: [SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, etc.] - -## Risk Assessment -- Regulatory risk level: Low / Medium / High -- Key regulatory risks for this specific startup - -## Data Gaps -- [List anything you couldn't find] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/regulatory.md -``` +研究目标客户数量、支出与增长驱动，用供给侧和需求侧两种方法估算 TAM/SAM/SOM。核查国家与地方政策、行业许可、数据与内容规则，并区分已生效规定、征求意见稿和产业扶持。输出原始证据、计算表、反证和待咨询事项。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-wave-2-competitors.md b/startup-design/references/research-wave-2-competitors.md index 34fb276..9037f37 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-wave-2-competitors.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-wave-2-competitors.md @@ -1,220 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 2: Competitive Analysis (3 agents) +# 第二轮：竞品 -Read `research-principles.md` first. Wave 2 agents receive findings from Wave 1 as context — pass them a summary of market size, key players identified, and relevant trends. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent B1: Direct Competitor Deep-Dives - -``` -Research task: Deep analysis of direct competitors for {product description} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Market context from Wave 1: {brief summary of market size, key players found} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL — for each competitor (aim for 5-8 direct competitors): - -ROUND 1 — Identify competitors (3-4 searches): -- "{problem} software/app/tool {current year}" -- "best {product category} tools {current year}" -- "{known competitor 1} vs {known competitor 2} alternatives" -- "G2 {product category} grid" -- "{product category} Product Hunt" - -ROUND 2 — Deep-dive each competitor (2-3 searches per competitor): -- Visit their website directly: capture pricing, features, positioning -- "{competitor name} review" on G2, Capterra, TrustRadius -- "{competitor name} funding crunchbase" OR "{competitor name} investors" -- "{competitor name} employees linkedin" (for team size signals) -- "{competitor name} complaints" OR "{competitor name} problems reddit" - -ROUND 3 — Competitive dynamics (2 searches): -- "{product category} market share" -- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" comparison articles - -For EACH competitor, build a complete profile: - -COMPETITOR PROFILE TEMPLATE: -## {Competitor Name} -- **Website:** {url} -- **Founded:** {year} -- **Headquarters:** {location} -- **Team size:** {estimate from LinkedIn/Crunchbase} -- **Funding:** {total raised, last round, investors} -- **Stage:** bootstrapped / seed / Series A / Series B+ / public - -### Product -- **Core offering:** {what they sell} -- **Key features:** {top 5 features} -- **Tech stack signals:** {any public info on their technology} -- **Integrations:** {what they connect with} - -### Pricing -- **Model:** {subscription / per-user / usage-based / freemium} -- **Tiers:** {list each tier with price and what's included} -- **Free plan:** yes/no, what's included -- **Enterprise:** custom pricing? sales-led? - -### Market Position -- **Target customer:** {who they serve} -- **Positioning:** {how they describe themselves — capture their actual tagline} -- **Key differentiator:** {what they claim makes them unique} - -### Traction Signals -- **G2/Capterra reviews:** {count and average rating} -- **Product Hunt:** {upvotes if launched there} -- **Social media:** {follower counts on LinkedIn, Twitter} -- **Job postings:** {number and type — engineering heavy = building; sales heavy = scaling} -- **Notable customers:** {logos or case studies on their site} - -### Strengths (based on reviews and positioning) -- {strength 1} -- {strength 2} - -### Weaknesses (based on negative reviews, missing features, complaints) -- {weakness 1} -- {weakness 2} - -### Threat Level to Our Startup: Low / Medium / High -- {why} - ---- - -After all profiles, add: - -## Competitive Landscape Summary -- **Market concentration:** fragmented / consolidating / dominated by 1-2 players -- **Gaps in the market:** {what no competitor does well} -- **Positioning opportunities:** {where we can differentiate} -- **Competitive moat assessment:** {how defensible is this market} - -## Data Gaps -- [Competitors you suspect exist but couldn't find info on] -- [Data points missing for specific competitors] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/direct-competitors.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent B2: Indirect Competitors & Substitutes - -``` -Research task: Indirect competitors, substitutes, and alternative approaches for {problem} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Direct competitors found: {list from Agent B1 if available, otherwise "to be determined"} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Alternative approaches (2-3 searches): -- "how do {customer type} currently handle {problem}" -- "{problem} without software" -- "{problem} excel template" OR "{problem} manual process" -- "{problem} outsource" - -ROUND 2 — Adjacent products (2-3 searches): -- "{adjacent category} that also does {related function}" -- "{large platform} {related feature}" (e.g., "Salesforce reporting" if you're building analytics) -- "open source {product category}" - -ROUND 3 — Platform risk (1-2 searches): -- "{major platform} adding {our feature}" -- "{major platform} AI features {current year}" - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Indirect Competitors & Substitutes - -## Status Quo Solutions (what people do today without a dedicated tool) -For each: -- What it is -- How common it is -- Why people stick with it (cost, familiarity, "good enough") -- Where it breaks down (the pain that creates our opportunity) - -## Adjacent Products -For each: -- Product name and what it primarily does -- How it partially solves our problem -- What it's missing (our wedge) -- Risk: could they add our feature? - -## Platform Risk Assessment -- Which major platforms could absorb our functionality? -- How likely is this? (based on roadmap signals, acquisitions, public statements) -- Timeline estimate -- Mitigation strategies - -## Open Source & Free Alternatives -- What exists -- Quality and adoption level -- Why someone would pay for our solution instead - -## Switching Cost Analysis -- What keeps people on current solutions? -- What would make them switch? -- Estimated effort to migrate to our product - -## Data Gaps -- [List anything you couldn't find] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/indirect-competitors.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent B3: Competitor Go-to-Market Analysis - -``` -Research task: How competitors in {product category} acquire and retain customers -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Key competitors: {list top 3-5 from Agent B1} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Marketing channels (2-3 searches per competitor): -- Check competitor websites for blog, resources, webinars, case studies -- "{competitor name} marketing strategy" -- Search for competitor ads (Google Ads transparency, Facebook Ad Library) -- Check their social media activity and content frequency - -ROUND 2 — Sales motion (2 searches): -- "{competitor name} sales team" linkedin -- "{product category} sales cycle length" -- Look for: self-serve signup vs. demo request vs. "contact sales" - -ROUND 3 — Content & SEO (2 searches): -- "{product category} blog" — who ranks for key terms? -- Check competitors on Similarweb or similar tools for traffic estimates - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Competitor Go-to-Market Analysis - -For each competitor: -## {Competitor Name} — GTM Breakdown -- **Primary acquisition channel:** {SEO / paid ads / outbound sales / partnerships / community / PLG} -- **Sales motion:** {self-serve / sales-assisted / enterprise sales} -- **Content strategy:** {blog frequency, topics, quality assessment} -- **Social presence:** {which platforms, posting frequency, engagement level} -- **Paid advertising:** {visible ads? what channels? what messaging?} -- **Partnership plays:** {integrations, co-marketing, channel partners} -- **Pricing as GTM:** {freemium? free trial? money-back guarantee?} - -## Channel Opportunity Map -| Channel | Competitor Saturation | Our Opportunity | Estimated CAC | -|---------|----------------------|-----------------|---------------| -| SEO/Content | High/Medium/Low | ... | ... | -| Paid Search | ... | ... | ... | -| Social/Community | ... | ... | ... | -| Outbound Sales | ... | ... | ... | -| Partnerships | ... | ... | ... | -| Product-Led Growth | ... | ... | ... | - -## Key Takeaway -- What's working for competitors? -- What channels are underexploited? -- Where can we win with limited budget? - -## Data Gaps -- [List anything you couldn't find] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/competitor-gtm.md -``` +识别直接竞品、间接竞品、替代流程和不行动。核实产品、客户、人民币价格、渠道、备案资质、融资/经营公开信号与用户评价。价格注明日期和购买条件；企业数据库信息只作线索并回到一手材料。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-wave-3-customers.md b/startup-design/references/research-wave-3-customers.md index ed27723..5734f1f 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-wave-3-customers.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-wave-3-customers.md @@ -1,233 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 3: Customer & Demand (3 agents) +# 第三轮：客户与需求 -Read `research-principles.md` first. Wave 3 agents receive competitor findings from Wave 2 as context. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent C1: Customer Voice & Pain Points - -``` -Research task: Deep customer research — real voices discussing {problem} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Target customer: {customer description} -Key competitors found: {list from Wave 2} - -The goal is to hear how real people talk about this problem in their own words. This directly informs positioning, copywriting, and product decisions. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Reddit deep-dive (3-4 searches): -- "site:reddit.com {problem keywords}" -- "site:reddit.com {industry} frustration" -- "site:reddit.com {existing solution} complaints" -- Browse top posts in relevant subreddits: r/{industry}, r/{role}, r/{related topic} -For each relevant thread: capture the original post, top comments, and upvote counts (upvotes = agreement). - -ROUND 2 — Professional forums (2-3 searches): -- "site:news.ycombinator.com {problem keywords}" -- "{problem} forum discussion" -- "{industry} community {problem}" -- Check industry-specific forums (e.g., Stack Overflow for devtools, Bogleheads for finance) - -ROUND 3 — Review mining (2-3 searches): -- "{existing solution} reviews" on G2, Capterra, TrustRadius -- Focus on 1-3 star reviews — these reveal unmet needs -- "{existing solution} worst thing about" - -ROUND 4 — Social media sentiment (1-2 searches): -- "site:twitter.com {problem keywords}" OR "site:linkedin.com {problem keywords}" -- "{problem} rant" OR "{problem} hate" - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Customer Voice Research: {problem} - -## Verbatim Quotes (Top 20) -Capture exact quotes that express the pain. For each: -- Quote (verbatim) -- Source (Reddit, G2, etc. — with thread/review link if possible) -- Context (who is this person? what role/industry?) -- Upvotes/agreement signals -- Pain category (see below) - -## Pain Categories (grouped from quotes) -For each category: -- Name of pain (e.g., "Time wasted on manual process") -- Frequency: how often does this come up across all sources? -- Intensity: mild annoyance vs. hair-on-fire problem? -- Current workarounds people mention -- Quotes that best represent this pain - -## Jobs-to-Be-Done (extracted from customer voice) -- Functional jobs: what are they trying to accomplish? -- Social jobs: how do they want to be perceived? -- Emotional jobs: how do they want to feel? - -## Language Map -Words and phrases customers actually use to describe: -- The problem: [list exact words] -- The desired outcome: [list exact words] -- Their frustrations: [list exact words] -This language should be used verbatim in positioning and copy — it resonates because it mirrors their own words. - -## Unmet Needs (things people ask for that don't exist yet) -- [Need 1 — evidence from quotes] -- [Need 2 — evidence from quotes] - -## Data Gaps -- [Communities you couldn't access or find] -- [Customer segments with no voice data] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/customer-voice.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent C2: Demand Signals & Market Validation - -``` -Research task: Quantitative demand signals for {product category} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Search demand (2-3 searches): -- Google Trends for: "{product category}", "{problem} solution", "{competitor name}" -- "{product category} search volume" -- "keyword research {product category}" -Capture: trend direction (rising/flat/declining), seasonal patterns, geographic hotspots. - -ROUND 2 — Product launch signals (2 searches): -- Search Product Hunt for similar products — upvotes, comments, maker responses -- Search Indie Hackers for people building in this space — revenue numbers if shared -- Check beta list / landing page tools for pre-launch products in the space - -ROUND 3 — Pricing intelligence (3-4 searches): -- Visit pricing pages of top 5 competitors (directly) -- "{product category} pricing comparison {current year}" -- "{product category} how much do companies spend" -- "{customer type} software budget survey" -Capture: exact pricing tiers from each competitor in a comparison table. - -ROUND 4 — Willingness to pay signals (1-2 searches): -- "{product category} survey willingness to pay" -- "{problem} worth paying for" -- Check subreddits and forums for discussions about pricing of similar tools - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Demand Signals: {product category} - -## Search Demand -- Google Trends summary: [rising / stable / declining over what period] -- Peak months (if seasonal): [months] -- Geographic hotspots: [regions/countries with highest interest] -- Related rising queries: [list — these reveal adjacent opportunities] - -## Product Launch Signals -| Product | Platform | Date | Upvotes/Reception | Key Takeaway | -|---------|----------|------|-------------------|-------------| -| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | - -## Pricing Landscape -| Competitor | Free Plan | Starter | Pro | Enterprise | Model | -|-----------|-----------|---------|-----|-----------|-------| -| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | - -- Median price point: $X/mo -- Price range: $X - $Y/mo -- Most common model: [subscription / per-user / usage-based] -- Pricing trends: [racing to bottom? premium tier growing? usage-based gaining?] - -## Willingness to Pay Assessment -- Evidence for strong WTP: [list] -- Evidence for weak WTP: [list] -- Recommended pricing range for our startup: $X - $Y/mo -- Rationale: [why this range, based on competitor benchmarks and value delivered] - -## Market Validation Score -- Search demand: Strong / Moderate / Weak -- Competitive activity: High / Medium / Low (high = proven market; low = unproven) -- Customer spending: Growing / Stable / Declining -- Overall demand signal: [assessment] - -## Data Gaps -- [Keywords with no trend data] -- [Competitors with hidden pricing] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/demand-signals.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent C3: Target Audience Profiling - -``` -Research task: Deep target audience research for {customer description} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Demographic & firmographic data (2-3 searches): -- "{customer type} demographics statistics" -- "how many {customer type} in {geography}" -- "{customer type} company size distribution" -Capture: population size, segmentation data, geographic distribution. - -ROUND 2 — Behavioral patterns (2-3 searches): -- "{customer type} software adoption habits" -- "{customer type} buying process for {product category}" -- "how do {customer type} discover new tools" -Capture: where they research, who influences them, decision-making process. - -ROUND 3 — Day-in-the-life (2 searches): -- "{role} daily challenges" -- "{role} workflow {industry}" -Capture: what their day looks like, where our product fits in their workflow. - -ROUND 4 — Decision-making (1-2 searches): -- "{product category} buying criteria" -- "who decides on {product category} at {company type}" -Capture: who are the buyers, influencers, blockers? What's the typical sales cycle? - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Target Audience Profile: {customer description} - -## Primary Persona -- **Name:** {fictional representative name} -- **Role:** {job title} -- **Company:** {company type, size, industry} -- **Demographics:** {age range, location, education} -- **Goals:** {what they're trying to achieve} -- **Frustrations:** {specific pains related to our problem} -- **Current tools:** {what they use today} -- **Quote:** {a representative quote from customer voice research} - -## Buying Behavior -- **How they discover tools:** {channels, sources} -- **Who's involved in the decision:** {buyer, influencer, approver, blocker} -- **Decision criteria:** {top 5 factors ranked} -- **Typical budget:** {what they spend on similar tools} -- **Sales cycle length:** {days/weeks/months} -- **Common objections:** {why they might say no} - -## Secondary Persona (if applicable) -[Same structure as primary] - -## Anti-Persona (who is NOT our customer) -- {description of who we should NOT target and why} - -## Where to Reach Them -| Channel | Density | Cost | Notes | -|---------|---------|------|-------| -| {specific subreddits} | ... | Free | ... | -| {specific LinkedIn groups} | ... | ... | ... | -| {specific conferences} | ... | ... | ... | -| {specific newsletters} | ... | ... | ... | -| {specific podcasts} | ... | ... | ... | -| {specific communities} | ... | ... | ... | - -## Data Gaps -- [Audience segments with no data] -- [Behavioral data you couldn't find] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/target-audience.md -``` +从访谈、应用商店、电商和中文社区提取场景、原话、触发点、阻力和付费证据。记录时间窗、样本量与平台偏差。网络评论不能替代客户访谈，也不能由热度直接推算需求规模。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/research-wave-4-distribution.md b/startup-design/references/research-wave-4-distribution.md index 641b5f6..ff1c68b 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/research-wave-4-distribution.md +++ b/startup-design/references/research-wave-4-distribution.md @@ -1,132 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 4: Distribution & Partnerships (2 agents) +# 第四轮：渠道与单位经济 -Read `research-principles.md` first. Wave 4 agents receive all prior wave findings as context. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent D1: Distribution Channel Deep-Dive - -``` -Research task: Viable distribution channels for {product category} targeting {customer type} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Competitor GTM findings: {summary from Agent B3} -Target audience: {summary from Agent C3} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Content & SEO opportunity (3 searches): -- "{product category} keywords" — look for keyword lists, SEO analyses -- Check Ahrefs/Semrush free tools for domain ratings of competitor content -- "{problem} how to" — are there informational queries we could rank for? -Capture: keyword opportunities, content gaps, estimated difficulty. - -ROUND 2 — Community & organic (2-3 searches): -- Find the top 5 communities where target customers are active -- Check community rules on self-promotion (some ban it, some welcome it) -- "{product category} referral program" — do competitors use referrals? - -ROUND 3 — Paid acquisition benchmarks (2 searches): -- "{industry} Google Ads CPC" -- "{product category} Facebook ads cost per lead" -- "{industry} LinkedIn ads benchmark" -Capture: estimated CPCs, CPLs for relevant channels. - -ROUND 4 — Partnership opportunities (2 searches): -- "{product category} integrations marketplace" -- "{adjacent tool} partner program" - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Distribution Channel Analysis - -## Channel Ranking (by expected ROI for a bootstrapped startup) - -### Tier 1: High-Impact, Low-Cost -For each channel: -- Channel name -- Why it works for this startup -- Estimated reach -- Estimated CAC -- Time to first results -- How to get started (specific, actionable steps) - -### Tier 2: Medium-Impact, Medium-Cost -[Same structure] - -### Tier 3: Long-Term Bets -[Same structure] - -### Channels to Avoid -- [Channel] — why it won't work for this startup - -## SEO / Content Opportunity -- Top 10 keyword opportunities with estimated volume and difficulty -- Content gap analysis: what competitors haven't covered well -- Recommended content strategy (topics, format, frequency) - -## Partnership Opportunities -For each potential partnership: -- Partner name/type -- What they get from us -- What we get from them -- How to approach them -- Priority: High / Medium / Low - -## First 90 Days Channel Plan -- Week 1-4: [specific actions] -- Week 5-8: [specific actions] -- Week 9-12: [specific actions] - -## Data Gaps -- [Channels you couldn't estimate costs for] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/channels.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent D2: Geographic & Market Entry Analysis - -``` -Research task: Geographic and market entry analysis for {product} in {target geography} -Context: We're designing a startup that {one-sentence description}. -Target: {geography / market segment} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Geographic market conditions (2-3 searches): -- "{industry} market {target city/country}" -- "{customer type} concentration {geography}" -- "{product category} adoption rate {geography}" - -ROUND 2 — Local competitive dynamics (2 searches): -- "{product category} {target geography} startups" -- Local directories / review sites for competitors in target geography - -ROUND 3 — Entry barriers (1-2 searches): -- "{industry} barriers to entry {geography}" -- Language, cultural, regulatory, payment differences (for international markets) - -OUTPUT FORMAT: -# Geographic & Market Entry Analysis - -## Target Market: {geography} -- Market size in this geography: $X -- Customer density: {how concentrated are target customers} -- Competitive intensity: Low / Medium / High -- Regulatory considerations specific to this geography - -## Beachhead Market Recommendation -- Recommended first market: {specific city/region/segment} -- Why this market first: {density of target customers, lower competition, founder network, etc.} -- What winning here proves: {validation milestones} -- Expansion path: {market 1} → {market 2} → {market 3} - -## Market Entry Risks -- [Risk specific to this geography] -- [Risk specific to this geography] - -## Data Gaps -- [Geographic data you couldn't find] - -Save to: {project-name}/01-discovery/raw/geographic.md -``` +比较搜索、内容平台、短视频/直播、私域、应用商店、电商、地推、代理商、产业生态和招投标。评估获客成本、转化、回款、平台抽佣、渠道冲突和冷启动，设计小预算验证而不是拍脑袋选渠道。 diff --git a/startup-design/references/verification-agent.md b/startup-design/references/verification-agent.md index d58da12..a55cd26 100644 --- a/startup-design/references/verification-agent.md +++ b/startup-design/references/verification-agent.md @@ -1,117 +1,16 @@ -# Verification Agent Protocol +# 核验清单 -After synthesis completes, spawn a **Verification Agent (V1)** that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## When to Run +## 核验任务 -- After synthesis is complete and all deliverable files are written -- Before the next phase begins (e.g., before Phase 3.5 Research Gate in startup-design) -- Uses one agent: **V1: Verification** +独立复查全部交付物： -## Agent Task +- 数字是否有来源、日期、地域、单位和统一口径； +- 事实、推断、假设是否清楚标注； +- 是否存在自相矛盾、过期价格、重复来源假佐证； +- 是否遗漏中国的数据、广告、行业许可、税务或平台规则风险； +- 建议是否与证据一致，战卡/定位/路演之间是否冲突； +- 是否泄露个人信息或使用无法证明的绝对化表达。 -The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a `verification-report.md` in the project directory. - -## Universal Checks - -These apply to every skill in the startup plugin: - -### 1. Claims Without Source -Every quantitative claim must have a data label: **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, or **[Opinion]**. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label. - -### 2. Internal Contradictions -Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when: -- The same metric appears with different values in two files -- A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another -- Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium) - -### 3. Confidence Rating Consistency -Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence: -- A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated **High** -- A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated **Low** -- Every major section must have a confidence rating - -### 4. Data Gaps Declared -Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag: -- Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely -- Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared -- Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables - -### 5. Flags Present -Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag: -- Files missing these sections -- Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks - -### 6. Stale Data -Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated. - -### 7. Duplicate Sources -Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification. - -## Skill-Specific Checks: startup-design - -In addition to the universal checks above, verify: - -### Cross-Phase Consistency -- **Strategy reflects market data:** Do the Lean Canvas, positioning, and GTM in Phase 4 reference specific findings from Phase 3? Flag strategy claims that have no research backing. -- **Product reflects customer pains:** Does the MVP definition (Phase 6) address the top pains identified in `target-audience.md`? Flag features that don't map to any validated customer need. -- **Financial reflects business model:** Do the revenue projections (Phase 7) use the pricing and unit economics from `market-analysis.md` and `business-model.md`? Flag projection assumptions that contradict research data. -- **Validation covers key risks:** Does the risk analysis (Phase 8) address the Red Flags and data gaps surfaced in earlier phases? Flag risks that were identified in research but missing from validation. - -### Numerical Consistency -- TAM/SAM/SOM numbers must be consistent across `market-analysis.md`, `lean-canvas.md`, and `revenue-model.md` -- Pricing references must match between `competitor-landscape.md` and `business-model.md` -- Customer segment descriptions must be consistent between `target-audience.md`, `lean-canvas.md`, and `mvp-definition.md` - -## Output: verification-report.md - -```markdown -# Verification Report: {project-name} -*Generated: {date}* - -## Summary -- **Critical issues:** {count} -- **Warnings:** {count} -- **Info:** {count} - -## Critical Issues -Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Section:** {section name} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Warnings -Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Info -Minor improvements and observations. - -- {observation} -- {observation} - -## Verification Checklist -- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled -- [ ] No internal contradictions found -- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence -- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables -- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables -- [ ] No stale data unmarked -- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration -- [ ] Strategy reflects market data (cross-phase) -- [ ] Product reflects customer pains (cross-phase) -- [ ] Financial reflects business model (cross-phase) -- [ ] Validation covers identified risks (cross-phase) -``` - -## Flow Control - -- **If Critical issues > 0:** Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?" -- **If only Warnings/Info:** Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See `verification-report.md` for details." Continue to next phase. +输出 `verification-report.md`，按严重/重要/建议分级，列出文件位置、问题、修正方式。严重问题必须暂停并请求用户决定；不得自行把问题标为已解决。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/SKILL.md b/startup-pitch/SKILL.md index cedd5a6..c919cd8 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/SKILL.md +++ b/startup-pitch/SKILL.md @@ -1,424 +1,60 @@ --- name: startup-pitch -description: Build investor-ready pitch scripts in multiple formats (10-min, 5-min, 2-min, 1-min elevator, investor email). Produces pitch narratives, Q&A preparation, pitch scoring rubric, and optional investor roleplay practice. Use when the user wants to create a pitch, prepare for investor meetings, craft a startup pitch, write a fundraising narrative, or practice their pitch. Triggers for "pitch deck", "investor pitch", "pitch my startup", "fundraising deck", "seed deck", "how to pitch", "investor meeting", "demo day", "prepare pitch", "pitch script", "elevator pitch for investors", "pitch practice", "practice my pitch", "investor roleplay", or any request to present a startup to investors, accelerators, or partners. Works standalone — no prior startup-design session needed, but leverages its output if available. +description: 为中国投资人、产业资本、政府园区、加速器或合作伙伴制作中文路演材料，输出 10/5/2/1 分钟版本、融资邮件、路演大纲、问答准备和评分表。适用于融资 BP、路演稿、电梯演讲、投资人会议和路演练习。 --- -# Startup Pitch +# 中文创业路演 -Build investor-ready pitch content in multiple formats. Uses a structured 7-element framework combined with a problem-solution-insight foundation to produce pitch narratives that are clear, compelling, and fundable. +需求确认 → 受众与叙事研究 → 竞争与时机研究 → 路演构建 → 核验与演练 -## How It Works +默认全程输出简体中文，以可追溯证据服务中国市场决策。 -``` -INTAKE → RESEARCH (2 sequential waves) → PITCH CONSTRUCTION → REVIEW & PRACTICE -``` +## 中国市场通用规则 -The process: understand the company deeply, research the investor audience and competitive framing, then construct the pitch. Typical runtime: 15-20 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 30-40 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential). +- 默认使用简体中文提问、检索、分析和交付；用户明确要求其他语言时再切换。 +- 金额默认以人民币（CNY）表示，同时写清含税/未税、月付/年付及数据日期。 +- 先确认目标区域是中国大陆、港澳台还是出海市场；不得把“中文市场”等同于中国大陆。 +- 检索优先级：政府与监管部门、国家统计局/地方统计局、交易所公告、企业官网/公众号、主流电商与应用商店，再到可信行业报告和社区内容。 +- 社区信号可来自微信、知乎、小红书、抖音、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、少数派及垂直论坛；受登录限制时说明缺口，不伪造浏览结果。 +- 涉及个人信息、数据跨境、生成式 AI、算法推荐、广告、电商、金融、医疗、教育、地图或出版时，只做风险识别并建议咨询中国执业专业人士，不输出无依据的“合规确认”。 +- 明确区分事实、推断、假设和建议；事实附可访问链接、发布日期/访问日期，关键结论至少两类独立来源交叉验证。 +- 禁止把媒体转载链当作多个独立来源，禁止虚构市场规模、融资、客户数、价格、备案或牌照。 +- 免费工具优先：具备免费额度的通义千问/Qwen、DeepSeek、豆包、Kimi、智谱清言、Gemini CLI，或通过 Ollama 本地运行 Qwen/DeepSeek 等开源模型。免费政策会变化，使用前由用户确认；不得要求特定付费模型或订阅。 +- 工具不可用时进入“知识库模式”：只产出假设、检索清单和待验证项，不把模型记忆包装成实时调研。 -### Core Philosophy -Three principles govern every output this skill produces: +## 执行流程 -1. **Clarity over sophistication.** "80% accurate and 100% clear beats the reverse." If a grandmother can't understand what you do, investors won't either. Eliminate jargon, acronyms, and marketing language. -2. **Lead with what's impressive.** You earn each additional minute of investor attention. Don't bury traction after 5 sections of problem setup — put the strongest signal right after "what you do." -3. **Make investors talk.** A pitch isn't a monologue. The more investors talk, the more they convince themselves. Structure the narrative to invite conversation, not shut it down. +### 0—1. 续跑与需求确认 +优先读取创业设计、竞品和定位产物。确认听众类型（人民币基金、美元基金、产业资本、政府园区、银行/合作方）、轮次、融资币种与金额、主体/VIE 情况、用途、跑道、里程碑和会议形式。缺失数据不可代填。 -### Language +### 2. 两轮研究 +第一轮研究目标机构的公开投资偏好、阶段、支票范围、人民币/美元属性、已投项目和决策关注点；第二轮核实竞争格局、政策/产业时机和可能质疑。不得声称掌握非公开投资标准。 -Default output language is **English**. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead. +### 3. 路演构建 +叙事覆盖：一句话业务、痛点、洞察、方案、牵引力、市场、商业模式、竞争、团队、融资需求。市场规模同时给自上而下与自下而上口径；增长数据写清起止日期；收入区分 GMV、签约额、回款和确认收入；客户 Logo 未获授权不得展示。 ---- - -## Phase 0: Resume Check - -Before anything else, check if a `PROGRESS.md` created by this skill exists in the working directory or a project subdirectory (the skill name field says `startup-pitch`). If it does, read it and resume from the last incomplete phase. Tell the user: "I found progress from a previous session. You completed [phases]. Picking up from [next phase]." - -If no progress file exists — or the one found belongs to a different skill — start from Phase 1. - ---- - -## Phase 1: Intake - -Short and focused — 1-2 rounds of questions. The goal is enough context to build a compelling pitch. - -### Recommended Prior Work - -A pitch built on validated data is significantly stronger than one built on self-reported answers. If you haven't already, consider running **startup-design** first — it provides market research, competitive analysis, business model, financial projections, and a validation scorecard that become the foundation of a much more credible pitch. - -Not required. startup-pitch works standalone. But the quality difference is noticeable. - -### Check for Prior Work - -Before asking questions, check if prior sessions have been completed. Look for these files in the working directory or subdirectories: - -**From startup-design:** -- `00-intake/brief.md` — product description and context -- `01-discovery/market-analysis.md` — market size, TAM/SAM/SOM -- `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` — competitor profiles -- `01-discovery/target-audience.md` — customer personas, pain points -- `02-strategy/lean-canvas.md` — business model summary -- `02-strategy/positioning.md` — positioning framework -- `05-financial/revenue-model.md` — revenue projections -- `06-validation/scorecard.md` — idea scorecard - -**From startup-competitors:** -- `competitors-report.md` — competitive landscape -- `battle-cards/` — per-competitor profiles -- `pricing-landscape.md` — pricing analysis - -**From startup-positioning:** -- `positioning-doc.md` — positioning document -- `positioning-statement.md` — positioning statements, elevator pitch -- `competitive-alternatives.md` — alternatives map -- `messaging-implications.md` — messaging hierarchy - -If these files exist, read them and extract the pitch building blocks: product description, problem/solution, traction, team, market size, business model, positioning, competitive landscape. Tell the user: "I found data from a previous session. I'll use it to build your pitch." - -Skip redundant intake questions. Go straight to pitch-specific questions if prior data is sufficient. - -### What to Ask (if no prior data exists) - -**Round 1 — The essentials (all required for a pitch):** -- What does your company do? (2 sentences max — this becomes the opening) -- What problem are you solving and for whom? -- What's your unique insight? (What do you know that others don't?) -- What traction do you have? (users, revenue, growth rate — with timeframes). If none: say so honestly, we'll build the pitch around insight and team instead. -- What's your business model? (one sentence — how do you make money?) -- Who's on the team? (names, roles, key accomplishments — not titles) -- How much are you raising and what will you do with it? - -**Round 2 — Sharpening (only if needed):** -- What's your market size? (or enough data to calculate it) -- Who are your main competitors? What's your advantage? -- What milestones will you hit in 18-24 months with this funding? - -**Pitch-specific questions:** -- Who is the audience? (VCs, angels, accelerator, demo day, specific fund?) -- What formats do you need? (10-min narrative, 2-min verbal, email pitch, all of them?) - -Don't over-interview. A founder with clear answers to Round 1 has enough to build a strong pitch. - -### The 2-Sentence Test - -Before moving to research, crystallize the company description into exactly 2 sentences + one specific example. This is the foundation of the entire pitch. - -Test: send it to a smart friend — could they paraphrase it back correctly? If not, simplify further. - -> **Anti-pattern:** "We leverage AI-powered machine learning to optimize cross-functional synergies in the B2B SaaS vertical." -> **Better:** "We help sales teams find which leads will actually buy. Our tool analyzes email replies and tells reps exactly who to call next — last month one customer closed 40% more deals." - -### Output - -Save to `{project-name}/intake.md` — consolidated context for pitch construction. Project name: kebab-case (e.g., `ai-sales-assistant`). - -Create `{project-name}/PROGRESS.md` with: project name, skill name (`startup-pitch`), start date, language, requested formats, target audience, research mode (Live / Knowledge-Based), and a phase checklist. Update it after each phase completes. - ---- - -## Phase 1.5: Research Depth Assessment - -After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-scaling.md` for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template. - -### Process - -1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1-3), known competitors (1-3), geographic scope (1-3) -2. Sum the scores (range 3-9) and map to a tier: Light (3-4), Standard (5-7), Deep (8-9) -3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see `research-scaling.md` for the exact template) -4. Wait for user response: **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation -5. Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md - -The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See `research-scaling.md` for exact wave configurations per tier. - ---- - -## Phase 2: Research - -Two sequential research waves exploring investor audience and competitive/market framing — agents within a wave run in parallel, and Wave 2 builds on Wave 1's findings. Together they provide the raw material for a pitch that resonates with the target audience. - -### Environment Detection - -Check if the `Agent` tool is available: - -- **Agent tool available (Claude Code):** Spawn all agents within each wave in parallel. This is faster. -- **Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web):** Execute research sequentially, following the same templates. Same depth, just slower. - -### Web Search - -If WebSearch is unavailable, fall back to **Knowledge-Based Mode**: use training data, mark findings with **[Knowledge-Based — verify independently]**, and reduce confidence ratings by one level. Note the mode in PROGRESS.md. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-principles.md` before starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross-referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps. - -### Wave 1: Audience & Narrative Intelligence - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md` for agent templates. - -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): - -**A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence** — Research the target audience (VC firms, angels, accelerators). What are they investing in? What thesis do they follow? What metrics matter at this stage? What are red flags for them? What's the current fundraising climate in this space? Build an audience profile that shapes how the pitch is framed. - -**A2: Comparable & Narrative Research** — Find comparable companies that pitched successfully in this space. What story did they tell? What analogies worked? What "X for Y" framing resonated? What market trends can the pitch ride? Find the narrative hooks — the facts, trends, or insights that make investors lean forward. - -Complete Wave 1 before starting Wave 2. Pass key findings (audience expectations, comparable narratives) as context. - -### Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md` for agent templates. - -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): - -**B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch** — How competitors position themselves to investors. What narratives have worked for funded competitors? Where are the gaps in their stories that this pitch can exploit? What objections will investors raise based on the competitive landscape? Build a "pitch-aware" competitive frame. - -**B2: Why Now & Market Timing** — Research the timing thesis. What technology shift, behavioral change, or regulatory move makes this the right moment? Find data to support the "why now" — trend charts, adoption curves, policy changes. Assess whether the timing narrative is genuinely strong or forced. - ---- - -### Post-Research Checkpoint - -After both waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: the investor audience profile, the strongest narrative hooks, the competitive framing angle, and the "why now" thesis. Ask: "Does this align with your pitch vision? Anything to adjust before I build the pitch?" - -Keep it to one message — this is a quick alignment check, not a full report. - ---- +按受众调整：财务投资人重增长和回报，产业资本重协同与边界，政府园区重落地条件但不得夸大承诺。输出所有时长版本、冷邮件、逐页大纲、Q&A 和评分表。最后以“质疑型投资人”角色演练，修订但不掩盖风险。 -## Phase 3: Pitch Construction +## 交付文件 -> **Reference:** Read `references/pitch-frameworks.md` for the complete framework, including the integration matrix. -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-synthesis.md` for synthesis protocol and output templates. +`pitch-full.md`、`pitch-5min.md`、`pitch-2min.md`、`pitch-1min.md`、`pitch-email.md`、`pitch-appendix.md`、`pitch-deck-outline.md`、`pitch-scorecard.md`、`verification-report.md` 和 `raw/`。 -Build the pitch using the integrated framework. The construction combines a problem-solution-insight foundation with a structured 7-element approach — see the integration matrix in `pitch-frameworks.md` for how they connect. - -A pitch is an argument with a story arc, not a list of facts in a fixed order. The hard part is judgment: which element leads, what the one non-obvious insight is, and how the pieces build tension toward the ask. Before drafting, think hard about what's genuinely most impressive about *this* company and what an investor needs to believe at each step to reach "yes." If the model supports extended thinking, spend it here — the ordering and the insight are what separate a memorable pitch from a competent one. - -### The Foundation: Problem → Solution → Insight - -Every pitch must communicate three things clearly: -1. **Problem** — The initial conditions. What's broken? Who suffers? -2. **Solution** — The experiment. What are you building to fix it? -3. **Insight** — Why this will work. What non-obvious truth powers this? - -The insight is what separates a pitch from a product description. Without it, you're just another company doing X. - -### The 8 Elements (Pitch Order) - -The pitch is constructed using these elements, but the ORDER depends on what's most impressive about the company: - -1. **What You Do** — 2 sentences + specific example. Impossible to misunderstand. -2. **[Lead with strength]** — Whatever is most impressive goes here: traction, team, insight, or market. -3. **Traction** — Metrics WITH timeframes. "0 to 1,000 users in 8 weeks" not "1,000 users." -4. **Unique Insight** — What do you know that others don't? -5. **Business Model** — One clear model. Not a menu of options. -6. **Market Size** — Bottom-up math. "50,000 customers × $50K ACV = $2.5B" not "$50B TAM." -7. **Team** — Specific accomplishments, not titles. -8. **The Ask** — Amount + milestones + timeframe. - -### Pitch Ordering Logic - -Determine the lead element based on founder strengths: -- **Strong traction?** → Lead with traction right after "What You Do" -- **Impressive team?** → Lead with team credentials -- **Breakthrough insight?** → Lead with the insight that creates an "aha" moment -- **Huge market?** → Lead with market opportunity - -The default order for pre-traction companies: What You Do → Insight → Problem → Solution → Market → Business Model → Team → Ask. - -### Construction Rules - -- **No jargon.** If the user's pitch contains industry jargon, flag it and provide plain-language alternatives. -- **Specific > generic.** Replace every vague claim with a specific fact, number, or example. -- **Show, don't tell.** For the Solution section: describe what a user SEES and DOES — the concrete experience, not abstract features. "The rep opens the dashboard, sees 3 leads highlighted in green with a confidence score. They click one, see the email thread summary, and call. 30 seconds from login to action." This is far more powerful than "Our AI-powered platform surfaces high-intent leads." -- **Test the 2-sentence description.** If someone hearing it for the first time couldn't explain it back, simplify. - -### ⏸ PAUSE — User Review - -Present the pitch narrative structure to the user before generating final deliverables. Show: the opening (2 sentences + example), the ordering rationale, and the key narrative arc. Ask: "Does this story feel right? Is the ordering correct? Anything that's missing or should change?" - -### Output Files - -Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: `# {Title}: {product}` followed by `*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*`. Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections. - -Generate all requested formats. If the user didn't specify, generate all of them. - -**`{project-name}/pitch-full.md`** — Full pitch narrative (~10 minutes): -- Opening (2 sentences + example) -- Complete narrative following the ordered elements -- Speaker notes for each section (what to emphasize, where to pause, where to invite conversation) -- Transition sentences between sections -- Closing and ask - -**`{project-name}/pitch-5min.md`** — Compressed narrative (~5 minutes): -- All 8 elements, trimmed to core claim + one supporting proof point -- Speaker notes focused on pacing - -**`{project-name}/pitch-2min.md`** — Verbal pitch (~2 minutes, ~300 words): -- Word-for-word script -- The 2-sentence opener + strongest proof point + insight + ask -- Delivery notes (pace, emphasis, pauses) - -**`{project-name}/pitch-1min.md`** — Elevator pitch (~1 minute, ~150 words): -- Two versions: formal (investor event) and casual (networking) -- What You Do + Insight + Ask only - -**`{project-name}/pitch-email.md`** — Investor cold email (~500 words): -- Subject line candidates (3 options) -- Email body: hook → what you do → traction/insight → why now → ask → close -- Follow-up email template -- Personalization notes per investor type - -**`{project-name}/pitch-appendix.md`** — Q&A preparation: -- Top 10 likely investor questions with prepared answers -- Objection handling (competitive threats, market risks, team gaps) -- Known weaknesses with honest answers and mitigation plans -- Financial and competitive backup (if available from prior sessions) - -**`{project-name}/pitch-deck-outline.md`** — Slide-by-slide deck structure (10-12 slides): -- Derived from `pitch-full.md`: same narrative order, translated into slides — don't invent new content here -- For each slide: a **headline** that states the takeaway ("A $47B market growing 23% annually", never a label like "Market Size"), 3-5 body bullets under 30 words total, a visual suggestion (chart, diagram, screenshot), and speaker notes drawn from the corresponding narrative section -- One idea per slide; the headlines alone, read in sequence, must pitch the company -- The final slide carries the ask - -### Raw Data - -Each agent saves its raw output to `{project-name}/raw/`. Agents must NOT write directly to deliverable paths — raw and synthesized output are separate. - -Raw research files: -- `investor-audience.md` -- `comparable-narratives.md` -- `competitive-framing.md` -- `why-now-timing.md` - ---- - -## Phase 3.5: Pitch Verification - -After all pitch deliverables are written, before scoring and review, run a verification pass. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/verification-agent.md` for the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks. - -### Process - -1. Spawn agent **V1: Verification** — it reads all deliverable files and checks for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration -2. V1 also runs startup-pitch-specific checks: pitch claims vs. source data, cross-format consistency, pitch vs. appendix alignment, honesty checks (traction without timeframes, top-down TAM, titles without accomplishments) -3. V1 produces `{project-name}/verification-report.md` -4. **If Critical issues found:** Pause and present issues to the user. Ask: fix first, or proceed as-is? -5. **If only Warnings/Info:** Show one-line summary and continue to review phase - -In Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol. - ---- - -## Phase 4: Review & Practice - -After generating the pitch deliverables, review quality and optionally practice with investor roleplay. - -### Step 1: Pitch Scoring Rubric - -Review the completed pitch against each dimension. Score honestly — a high score on a weak pitch is useless in front of real investors. - -Save to `{project-name}/pitch-scorecard.md`: - -| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Rationale | -|-----------|-------------|-----------| -| **Clarity** — Can someone explain what you do after hearing 2 sentences? | | | -| **Strength Sequencing** — Is the most impressive element in the first 60 seconds? | | | -| **Traction Honesty** — Are numbers accurate, timeframed, and real? | | | -| **Insight Quality** — Is the insight genuinely non-obvious and specific? | | | -| **Market Sizing** — Is the math bottom-up with clear assumptions? | | | -| **Business Model** — One model, clearly stated? | | | -| **Team Credentials** — Specific, verifiable accomplishments? | | | -| **Ask Clarity** — Amount + milestones + timeframe, stated with confidence? | | | -| **Overall** | | | - -**Verdict:** -- **65-80:** Investor-ready. Go pitch. -- **50-64:** Investor-ready with caveats. Address the weak dimensions first. -- **35-49:** Needs work. Iterate on the weakest areas before pitching. -- **Below 35:** Major gaps. Consider running startup-design first to strengthen the foundation. - -For each dimension scoring below 7: explain what's weak and suggest a specific fix. - -### Step 2: Iteration Loop - -Present the scorecard to the user. For each dimension that scored below 7: -1. Explain the weakness -2. Ask: "How do we fix this? Do you have more data, or should we reframe?" -3. Iterate on the relevant pitch sections -4. Re-score after changes - -### Step 3: Investor Roleplay (Optional) - -After the scorecard review, offer practice: "Would you like to practice the pitch? I can play an investor and give you feedback." - -If the user accepts: - -**Choose an investor persona:** -- **Angel Investor** — Technical, focused on founders + idea. Asks "why you?" and probes domain expertise. Friendly but direct. -- **Seed VC** — Traction-obsessed, looking for product-market fit signals. Asks about metrics, retention, growth rate. Wants to see momentum. -- **Series A VC** — Scalability + market size obsessed. Asks about unit economics, competitive moats, expansion path. Thinking about the next round already. -- **Accelerator Partner** — Looking for coachability + speed of execution. Asks about what you've learned, how fast you ship, what you'd do with mentorship. - -**Roleplay flow:** -1. The user delivers their pitch (any format) -2. Stay in character as the chosen investor persona -3. Ask 3-5 questions that this type of investor would ask — drawn from the appendix but adapted to the persona -4. Push back on weak points — investors do this, and the founder needs practice handling it -5. After the Q&A, break character and provide feedback: - - What landed well - - Where the investor would have tuned out - - Which answers were strong vs. unconvincing - - Specific suggestions for improvement - -**Multiple rounds:** The user can practice multiple times with different personas. Each round surfaces different weaknesses. - -### Step 4: Delivery Tips - -Include practical delivery advice in the scorecard file: -- **The 60-second rule:** You earn each additional minute. If the first 60 seconds aren't compelling, the rest doesn't matter. -- **Invite conversation.** Pause after the insight. If an investor starts talking, let them — they're selling themselves. -- **Own the numbers.** If asked about a metric, know the exact figure and how you calculated it. -- **Handle "I don't know" well.** "I don't know, but here's how I'd find out" beats a fabricated answer. -- **Practice the 2-sentence opener** until it's effortless. This is the single most important part of the pitch. - -Update PROGRESS.md — mark all phases complete. - ---- - -## Honesty Protocol - -> **Reference:** Read `references/honesty-protocol.md` for full protocol and anti-pattern details. - -A pitch that overpromises destroys founder credibility. Core rules apply (label claims, quantify, declare gaps), plus pitch-specific additions: - -1. **No inflated metrics.** If traction is weak, the pitch should acknowledge it and pivot to insight, team, or speed of execution. Fabricated traction will surface in due diligence and kill the deal. -2. **Honest market sizing.** Bottom-up math only. Top-down TAM without justification is a red flag to investors — they've seen it thousands of times. -3. **Real team credentials.** Specific, verifiable accomplishments. "Built X that did Y" — not vague titles or puffed-up bios. -4. **Flag pitch weaknesses.** Every pitch has gaps. Identifying them proactively (and having a plan to address them) is stronger than pretending they don't exist. -5. **Label claims.** Use **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, **[Opinion]** tags in supporting materials. - -| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say | -|---|---|---| -| Inflated TAM | "$50B market" with no math | "Show the bottom-up calculation. Investors do the math." | -| Vanity traction | "10K signups" with no activation | "Signups aren't traction. What % actually use the product?" | -| Jargon overload | "AI-powered blockchain synergy" | "What does it actually DO? Say it in words a 10-year-old understands." | -| No insight | Describing a product, not a thesis | "Why will THIS approach work? What do you know that others don't?" | -| Weak team | Titles without achievements | "What have you DONE? Accomplishments, not positions." | -| Vague ask | "We're raising a round" | "How much? For what milestones? In what timeframe?" | -| "No competition" | "We're the first to do this" | "What do customers do TODAY instead? That's your competition." | - ---- +## 质量闸门 -## Reference Files +- 每个关键数字都有来源、口径、日期和置信度；找不到就写“待验证”。 +- 将结果分为“已验证事实 / 有依据推断 / 创始人假设 / 建议动作”。 +- 发现关键矛盾、监管硬风险或证据不足时暂停，向用户展示问题与可选路径。 +- 每阶段完成后更新 `PROGRESS.md`，记录研究模式、深度、已完成文件和下一步。 +- 只读取当前阶段需要的参考资料，控制上下文和免费模型用量。 -Read only what you need for the current phase. +## 参考资料 -| File | When to Read | ~Lines | Purpose | -|------|-------------|--------|---------| -| `honesty-protocol.md` | Start of session | ~62 | Full honesty protocol with pitch anti-patterns | -| `research-principles.md` | Before starting Phase 2 | ~64 | Source quality, cross-referencing, data gaps | -| `research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md` | When running Wave 1 | ~164 | Agent templates for investor + narrative research | -| `research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md` | When running Wave 2 | ~159 | Agent templates for competitive framing + why now | -| `pitch-frameworks.md` | During Phase 3 | ~261 | Complete pitch framework with integration matrix | -| `research-synthesis.md` | After waves complete | ~467 | Synthesis protocol and output templates | -| `research-scaling.md` | After intake, before Phase 2 | ~96 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations | -| `verification-agent.md` | After pitch construction | ~129 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks | +- `startup-pitch/references/honesty-protocol.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/pitch-frameworks.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/research-principles.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/research-scaling.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/research-synthesis.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md` +- `startup-pitch/references/verification-agent.md` diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/honesty-protocol.md b/startup-pitch/references/honesty-protocol.md index 34ffc09..91cb9d8 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/honesty-protocol.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/honesty-protocol.md @@ -1,62 +1,16 @@ -# Radical Honesty Protocol +# 诚实与证据协议 -This skill exists to help founders build pitches that survive investor scrutiny — not to craft beautiful fiction. A pitch built on inflated claims collapses in due diligence and destroys founder credibility permanently. These principles are non-negotiable. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Tell the truth, even when it weakens the pitch +## 四类陈述 -- If traction is weak, say so. Don't dress up vanity metrics as real traction. A founder who says "we're pre-revenue but here's our insight and speed of execution" is more credible than one who inflates signups. -- If the market is small, own it. "Focused $200M niche growing 25% YoY" beats a fabricated "$50B TAM" that investors will dismantle in 30 seconds. -- If the team has gaps, acknowledge them. "We need a CTO — here's our plan to recruit one" shows self-awareness. Pretending doesn't. -- If the founder's claims contradict research, flag it: "Your pitch says X, but the data shows Y. Let's address this before an investor does." +1. **事实**：有可访问来源、日期和明确口径。 +2. **推断**：由事实推导，写出推理链和置信度。 +3. **假设**：尚无证据，必须进入验证清单。 +4. **建议**：说明依据、成本、风险和停止条件。 -## Separate facts from opinions +不得编造链接、引用、用户原话、价格、融资、牌照、备案、客户或市场规模。搜索不到不等于不存在。来源受登录、反爬或付费墙限制时直接说明。关键数据优先两类独立来源；转载不得算独立佐证。发现证据冲突时并列展示，不擅自取对自己有利的一项。 -- Label every major claim with its basis: - - **[Data]** — sourced finding with citation - - **[Estimate]** — calculated projection with stated assumptions - - **[Assumption]** — unverified belief that needs testing - - **[Opinion]** — your analytical judgment -- In the pitch itself, claims should be presented confidently — but in the appendix and speaker notes, every number should trace to its source. -- Never present estimates as facts in the pitch appendix. +## 中国市场敏感边界 -## Surface flags proactively - -In every output file, include a **Flags** section at the end: - -- **Red Flags** — Issues that could derail the pitch or due diligence. -- **Yellow Flags** — Concerns investors might raise that need prepared answers. - -If there are no flags, write "No flags identified" — don't skip the section. - -## Pitch-Specific Honesty Rules - -1. **No inflated metrics.** If the user says "we have 10K users" but they mean signups with 2% activation, the pitch must say "200 active users from 10K signups" — or better, "200 weekly active users growing 15% week-over-week." Investors know the difference. - -2. **Honest market sizing.** Only bottom-up math. "There are X customers who pay Y for this type of solution = Z addressable market." Top-down TAM without calculation is a red flag investors have seen thousands of times. - -3. **Real team credentials.** Specific, verifiable accomplishments. "Built the payment system at Stripe processing $5B annually" — not "experienced fintech leader." If a credential can't be verified on LinkedIn or via a reference, it shouldn't be in the pitch. - -4. **Flag pitch weaknesses.** Every company has them. Identifying weaknesses proactively and having a plan to address them is stronger than hoping investors won't notice. Include a "known weaknesses" section in the appendix. - -5. **No fabricated social proof.** Don't write placeholder testimonials or fake logos. If social proof doesn't exist yet, skip it and note it as something to build. - -6. **Challenge "we have no competition."** Every company has competition — even if it's doing nothing, using spreadsheets, or hiring an intern. The pitch should address alternatives honestly. - -## Pitch Anti-Patterns - -| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say | -|---|---|---| -| Inflated TAM | "$50B market" from a Google search | "Show the bottom-up math. Investors will verify." | -| Vanity traction | Downloads/signups without activation | "How many actually USE the product? That's your real traction." | -| Jargon overload | "AI-powered blockchain synergy platform" | "What does it DO in plain English? A confused investor is a 'no.'" | -| No insight | Product description without a thesis | "Why will THIS work? What non-obvious truth powers this company?" | -| Weak team slide | Titles and years of experience | "What have you BUILT? Accomplishments beat credentials." | -| Vague ask | "We're raising a round" | "How much? For what milestones? In what timeframe?" | -| "No competition" | "We're the first to do this" | "What do customers do TODAY instead? That's your competition." | - -## Ground rules - -- **Ground in evidence.** Every pitch claim should trace to real data or honest estimates. -- **Make it investable.** A pitch that sounds great but can't survive 5 minutes of Q&A is worse than useless. -- **No fabrication.** Missing data? Say so and explain how you'll find it. -- **Respect the founder's credibility.** Their reputation lasts longer than any single fundraise. +不提供法律、税务、证券或医疗结论；只识别风险并建议咨询持证专业人士。处理社区内容时去标识化，不收集无关个人信息。不得建议刷量、虚假评价、诱导分享、绕过平台规则或监管。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/pitch-frameworks.md b/startup-pitch/references/pitch-frameworks.md index b54deb4..050443d 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/pitch-frameworks.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/pitch-frameworks.md @@ -1,261 +1,5 @@ -# Pitch Frameworks +# 中文路演框架 -The complete framework combining a structured pitch approach with idea communication principles. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Foundation: Idea Communication - -A startup idea is a hypothesis for why your company is going to grow really quickly. That hypothesis has three parts: - -### 1. The Problem (Initial Conditions) -What is the setting that allows this company to grow? The problem defines the environment. A great problem section: -- Describes a real, specific pain that real people have today -- Shows the consequences of the problem (cost, time, frustration, risk) -- Makes the audience think "yes, I've seen that" or "wow, I didn't realize that" -- Avoids abstract, vague problem statements - -### 2. The Solution (The Experiment) -What are you building to fix it? The solution is the experiment you're running within those conditions. A great solution: -- Directly addresses the problem (no logical leaps) -- Is describable in one sentence -- Feels inevitable once you understand the problem -- Shows, doesn't just tell (describe the concrete user experience) - -### 3. The Insight (Why This Will Work) -Your explanation for why the thing you're trying is going to succeed. This is what separates a pitch from a product description. A great insight: -- Is non-obvious — something most people don't realize -- Comes from deep domain expertise, customer discovery, or technical breakthrough -- Creates an "aha moment" for the listener -- Is specific, not generic ("AI will change everything" is not an insight) - -### Communication Principles - -**Legibility:** Can someone who knows nothing about your business understand the idea? Half of startup applications fail because the idea isn't communicated clearly. - -**Simplicity:** One idea, clearly stated. Remove everything that doesn't directly support understanding. - -**Obviousness:** After hearing the pitch, the listener should think "of course — why didn't someone do this before?" If they're confused, the pitch needs work. - -### The "X for Y" Format - -When appropriate, frame the idea as "X for Y" where: -- X is a well-known company or concept -- Y is the target market or context - -**When it works:** "Airbnb for office space" — instantly clear, the analogy does the heavy lifting. -**When it fails:** "Uber for dog walking" — if the analogy creates wrong expectations or doesn't clarify. - -Rules: -- Only use if X is widely known to YOUR specific audience -- The analogy should clarify, not confuse -- It should open doors to understanding, not close them by boxing you in -- Have the full pitch ready — "X for Y" is a hook, not a replacement for substance - ---- - -## Integration Matrix - -The problem-solution-insight foundation and the 7-element structure are complementary, not competing. The foundation defines the SOUL (what makes an idea communicable), the structure defines the SKELETON (how to order the pitch for maximum impact). Here's how they map: - -``` -FOUNDATION STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WHERE IT GOES -───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── -Problem (initial conditions) → What You Do (2-sentence intro) Always first - → Problem (explicit element) After intro or after lead - -Solution (the experiment) → Solution (explicit element) Paired with problem - → [Demo moment — show, not tell] Inside solution section - -Insight (why this will work) → Unique Insight (element 4) Movable — can lead - → [Threads through entire pitch] Implicit everywhere -───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── -STRUCTURE-ONLY ELEMENTS: → Traction Lead if strong - → Business Model After solution - → Market Size After business model - → Why Now (optional) Before team, if strong - → Team Near the end - → The Ask Always last -``` - -**Key principle:** Problem-Solution-Insight is the SOUL of the pitch. The 7 elements are the SKELETON. The soul must be present in every bone. The insight doesn't just appear in element 4 — it should thread through the entire narrative: why the problem matters (insight about the market), why the solution works (insight about the approach), why the team is right (insight about what's needed). - ---- - -## The 8 Elements - -### Element 1: What You Do -The foundation. Two sentences that anyone could understand. - -**The Test:** Could someone who's never heard of your company, after hearing these two sentences, explain what you do to someone else? - -**Structure:** -- Sentence 1: What the company does -- Sentence 2: How it works or who it's for -- + One specific example that makes it concrete and impossible to misunderstand - -**Example:** "We let people rent out their homes to travelers. During the inauguration, a waiter in DC rented his apartment for $700 a night." - -**Rules:** -- No jargon. No acronyms. No marketing language. -- Make it sound dumber than you think it should. -- If you need more than 2 sentences, you don't understand your own product well enough. - -### Element 2: Lead With Strength -You earn each additional minute of investor attention. After explaining what you do, put the most impressive thing NEXT. - -**Decision tree:** -- Significant traction (revenue, users, growth rate)? → Lead with traction -- Famous/accomplished team? → Lead with team -- Breakthrough insight or technology? → Lead with insight -- Massive, growing market? → Lead with market -- None of the above? → Lead with the problem severity + insight - -### Element 3: Traction -Investors fund momentum, not absolute numbers. The key is timeframes. - -**Bad:** "We have 1,000 users" -**Good:** "We went from 0 to 1,000 users in 8 weeks, growing 15% week-over-week" - -**What counts as traction by stage:** -- Pre-launch: customer interviews, waitlist, LOIs, pilot agreements -- Early: active users, retention, engagement metrics -- Growing: revenue, growth rate, unit economics -- Scaling: MRR/ARR, NRR, CAC/LTV ratios - -**Critical:** Omit this section entirely rather than include weak metrics that damage credibility. "We haven't launched yet — here's our plan" is better than "we have 50 signups and 3% activation." - -### Element 4: Unique Insight -The non-obvious knowledge that powers this company. Sources: - -- **Domain expertise:** "After 10 years in logistics, I discovered that..." -- **Customer discovery:** "We interviewed 200 SMBs and found that..." -- **Technical breakthrough:** "We figured out how to do X at 1/10th the cost because..." -- **Market observation:** "Everyone assumes X, but actually Y because..." - -**Test:** Would a smart person who's never worked in this space be surprised to learn this? If yes, it's an insight. If they'd say "obviously," it's not. - -### Element 5: Business Model -One clear model. Not a menu. - -**Bad:** "We'll monetize through subscriptions, advertising, data licensing, and marketplace fees" -**Good:** "SaaS subscription at $49/seat/month, targeting teams of 10-50" - -Keep it to one sentence. Investors know that business models evolve — they want to see clarity of thinking, not comprehensiveness. - -### Element 6: Market Size -Bottom-up math, not top-down claims. - -**Bad:** "The global CRM market is $50 billion" (so what?) -**Good:** "There are 500,000 real estate agencies in the US. At $500/month per agency, that's a $3B addressable market. We're targeting the 50,000 agencies with 5-20 agents first — a $300M initial market." - -**Structure:** -- Number of potential customers (with source) -- × Price they'd pay (with justification) -- = Addressable market -- Initial target segment (the beachhead) -- Expansion path (how you grow from there) - -### Element 7: Team -Specific accomplishments, not titles or years of experience. - -**Bad:** "VP Engineering at a Fortune 500 company for 8 years" -**Good:** "Built the payment infrastructure at Stripe that processes $5B annually" - -**What to include:** -- Names and roles -- Most impressive specific accomplishment per person -- Relevant domain expertise (why YOU for this problem) -- How long founders have worked together -- Commitment level (full-time? equity split?) - -**If the team has gaps:** Acknowledge them. "We're looking for a CTO with ML expertise. We've started recruiting through [specific channels]." - -### Element 8: Why Now (Optional but Recommended) -The timing thesis. What technology shift, behavioral change, or regulatory move makes this the right moment? - -**When to include:** If the timing narrative is genuinely strong — a real trend or inflection point that makes the solution more viable NOW than 2 years ago. - -**When to skip:** If there's no compelling timing story. A forced "why now" is worse than none — investors see through it. In that case, fold any timing context into the Problem or Insight sections. - -**Structure:** -- What changed (technology, regulation, behavior) -- When it changed (specific timeframe) -- Why it matters for this company - -**Bad:** "AI is changing everything" (generic, not specific to your company) -**Good:** "GPT-4 made it possible to analyze legal documents at 1/100th the cost. Before March 2023, this product couldn't exist at our price point." - -### Element 9: The Ask -Direct and specific. Three pieces of information: - -1. **Amount:** "We're raising $1.5M" -2. **Milestones:** "To reach $100K MRR and 500 enterprise customers" -3. **Timeframe:** "In 18 months" - -**Why directness matters:** Investors fall into three groups: those who'll never fund you (no), those who'll definitely fund you (yes), and those who MIGHT fund you if directly asked. Category 3 is your biggest opportunity. - ---- - -## Pitch Structure Templates - -### Pre-Traction Pitch (default order) -1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) -2. Problem (severity + consequences) -3. Unique Insight (the "aha") -4. Solution (how it works) -5. Market Size (bottom-up math) -6. Business Model (one sentence) -7. Why Now (if strong — otherwise fold into Problem or skip) -8. Team (accomplishments) -9. The Ask (amount + milestones + timeframe) - -### Traction-Led Pitch -1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) -2. Traction (metrics + timeframes) -3. Problem (what you discovered) -4. Solution + Insight (how it works + why) -5. Market Size -6. Business Model -7. Why Now (if strong) -8. Team -9. The Ask - -### Team-Led Pitch -1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) -2. Team (why we're uniquely qualified) -3. Unique Insight (what we discovered) -4. Problem + Solution -5. Traction (if any) -6. Market Size -7. Business Model -8. Why Now (if strong) -9. The Ask - -### Insight-Led Pitch -1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) -2. Unique Insight (the "aha moment") -3. Problem (reframed through the insight) -4. Solution (the inevitable response) -5. Traction (validation of the insight) -6. Market Size -7. Business Model + Team -8. Why Now (if strong) -9. The Ask - ---- - -## Delivery Principles - -### The 60-Second Rule -You earn each additional two minutes of investor attention. Lead with whatever is most impressive. Don't save the best for last — the meeting might end before you get there. - -### Make Investors Talk -The more the investor talks, the more likely they are to invest. Investors convince themselves through their own thoughts and connections. Practical approach: -- Start with the most compelling points -- Watch for reactions -- When genuine interest emerges, pause and let them ask -- Aim for the investor to talk at least 50% of the time - -### Practice the Opener -The 2-sentence description is the single most important part of the pitch. Practice it until it's effortless and natural — not rehearsed-sounding. +推荐顺序：一句话业务 → 痛点与洞察 → 方案/演示 → 已验证牵引力 → 市场 → 商业模式 → 竞争与壁垒 → 团队 → 融资与里程碑。10 分钟版约 10—12 页；5 分钟保留一条主线；2/1 分钟只讲最强证据。人民币基金、美元基金、产业资本和政府园区关注点不同，应分别改写。禁止用夸张市场规模代替自下而上测算。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/research-principles.md b/startup-pitch/references/research-principles.md index f4731fc..e29798e 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/research-principles.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/research-principles.md @@ -1,64 +1,17 @@ -# Research Principles +# 中国市场研究原则 -These principles apply to ALL research agents. Every agent must follow them. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Iterative Deep Research +## 来源优先级 -Each agent performs **5-8 web searches minimum**, organized in sequential rounds that drill deeper: -- Round 1: Broad overview queries -- Round 2: Drill-down into specific findings from Round 1 -- Round 3: Cross-reference and validate -- Round 4: Reality check and edge cases +1. 国务院及部委、地方政府、国家/地方统计局、法院与交易所等一手公开材料； +2. 企业官网、公告、帮助中心、定价页、应用商店页面与官方账号； +3. 行业协会、学术机构、可信研究机构； +4. 主流媒体； +5. 知乎、小红书、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、电商评论和垂直论坛等用户信号。 -Do NOT stop after a single query. The first search gives you the surface — the follow-ups give you the insight. +社区内容适合发现语言、场景和抱怨，不适合直接推算全国市场。记录检索词、访问日期、样本量、平台偏差和缺失。中文与英文关键词并用，加入城市层级、行业俗称、政策用语和竞品品牌词。 -## Source Quality Tiers +## 数据口径 -Rank every finding by source reliability: - -| Tier | Source Type | Use For | -|------|-----------|---------| -| **Tier 1** | Industry reports (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, IBISWorld), SEC filings, government data, Crunchbase verified data | Hard numbers, market share, verified metrics | -| **Tier 2** | Reputable tech press (TechCrunch, Bloomberg, WSJ), company press releases, investor presentations, PitchBook | Funding data, company news, expert opinions | -| **Tier 3** | Blog posts, Reddit threads, individual reviews, social media, founder interviews | Sentiment, narrative hooks, anecdotal evidence | - -For pitch research, Tier 2 and Tier 3 sources are especially valuable — investor blog posts, demo day recaps, and founder stories reveal what narratives resonate and what language investors respond to. - -## Pitch-Specific Search Strategies - -When researching investor preferences: -- Search for "{investor/fund name} portfolio", "{fund} thesis", "{investor} blog pitch advice" -- Look for demo day recaps and pitch competition results in the relevant space - -When researching comparable narratives: -- Search for "{competitor} pitch deck", "{similar company} fundraise", "{space} demo day" -- Look for "X for Y" analogies that have worked for similar companies - -## Cross-Referencing - -Never trust a single source for important claims. For every key finding: -- Look for 2-3 independent sources -- If sources agree: note convergence and cite all -- If sources disagree: note both, explain the discrepancy, and state which you trust more and why - -## Quantification - -Vague claims are worthless — and investors see through them instantly: -- Bad: "They raised a big round" -- Good: "$15M Series A led by a16z in March 2025, $3M seed in 2023" -- Bad: "The market is growing" -- Good: "$4.2B in 2025, projected to reach $8.1B by 2028 at 12.3% CAGR (source: Grand View Research)" - -## Dating - -Always note when data was published. Flag anything older than 12 months as potentially outdated. Fundraising landscapes shift fast — a market correction or new competitor can change everything in weeks. - -## Handling Research Failures - -Sometimes WebSearch won't find what you need: - -1. **Try alternative queries.** Rephrase, use synonyms, try different angles. At least 3 variations before declaring a gap. -2. **Use proxy data.** If you can't find a company's exact metrics, estimate from team size, funding, pricing × estimated customers. Show your math. -3. **Declare the gap explicitly.** Write: "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]. Closest proxy: [Y]. Confidence: Low." -4. **Never fabricate.** An honest "unknown" is infinitely more valuable than a made-up number. -5. **Suggest how to fill the gap.** Recommend specific research the founder can do to fill the gap before the pitch. +市场规模注明年份、地域、含税口径和汇率；企业信息区分工商登记、官方披露和第三方推算；收入区分 GMV、合同额、回款和确认收入；用户量区分注册、月活、付费与企业客户。所有实时信息在交付前复核。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/research-scaling.md b/startup-pitch/references/research-scaling.md index 88c64a4..1d7f128 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/research-scaling.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/research-scaling.md @@ -1,96 +1,13 @@ -# Research Scaling Protocol +# 动态研究深度 -Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Complexity Score +## 评分 -Assess three factors from the intake data: +市场宽度、已知竞品、地域跨度各 1—3 分，总分 3—9： -| Factor | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | -|--------|---------|------------|----------| -| **Market breadth** | Ultra-niche, few players, well-defined segment | Defined market, moderate competition | Broad market, many segments, diverse players | -| **Known competitors** | 0-2 identified | 3-5 identified | 6+ identified | -| **Geographic scope** | Single country | Regional (e.g., Europe, North America) | Global or multi-region | +- **轻量（3—4）**：每轮合并任务，2—3 组检索，适合单一城市或窄品类。 +- **标准（5—7）**：按技能默认轮次，3—4 组检索，覆盖主要渠道。 +- **深度（8—9）**：拆分更多研究任务，5—6 组检索，覆盖区域/细分差异与反证。 -**Complexity score** = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9) - -## Research Depth Tiers - -| Tier | Score Range | Manual Trigger | Description | -|------|-----------|----------------|-------------| -| **Light** | 3-4 | User says "light", "quick", or "fast research" | Quick scan, fewer agents, 2-3 search rounds | -| **Standard** | 5-7 | Default (no override needed) | Current behavior, balanced depth | -| **Deep** | 8-9 | User says "deep", "thorough", or "deep research" | More agents, 5-6 search rounds, extra coverage | - -**Manual override always wins.** If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep. - -## User Communication - -After calculating the score, show this to the user: - -``` -## Research Depth - -Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity: - -| Factor | Assessment | Score | -|------------------|---------------------|-------| -| Market breadth | {description} | {1-3} | -| Known competitors| {N} identified | {1-3} | -| Geographic scope | {description} | {1-3} | - -**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}** - -You can override this. Here's what each depth means: - -| Depth | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for | -|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------| -| **Light** | {N} | 2-3 rounds | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions | -| **Standard** | {N} | 3-4 rounds | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed | -| **Deep** | {N} | 5-6 rounds | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence | - -→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation. -``` - -The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below). - -## Wave Configuration: startup-pitch - -### Light (3-4 score or user override) - -**Wave 1** (1 wave, 2 agents) -- A1: Audience, Narrative & Competitive Framing (merge A1+A2+B1 into one agent) -- A2: Why Now & Timing (B2, unchanged scope) - -Merge both waves into a single wave since there's no dependency between them at this scale. - -**Total: 2 agents** (vs. 4 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent - -### Standard (5-7 score, default) - -No changes to current wave structure: -- Wave 1: 2 agents (A1, A2) -- Wave 2: 2 agents (B1, B2) - -**Total: 4 agents**, 3-4 search rounds per agent - -### Deep (8-9 score or user override) - -**Wave 1: Audience & Narrative** (3 agents) -- A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence (unchanged) -- A2: Comparable & Narrative Research (unchanged) -- A3: Pitch Benchmark Analysis (NEW: research how similar startups in this space pitched, what decks worked, what narratives raised money, typical round sizes and valuations) - -**Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now** (2 agents) -- B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch (unchanged) -- B2: Why Now & Market Timing (unchanged) - -**Total: 5 agents**, 5-6 search rounds per agent - -## PROGRESS.md - -Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md: - -```markdown -- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto}) -``` +向用户展示推荐档位、预计研究轮次、主要来源和局限，让用户回复“轻量 / 深度 / 按推荐”。免费模型上下文不足时分阶段落盘，不能通过删掉来源和反证来省 token。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/research-synthesis.md b/startup-pitch/references/research-synthesis.md index 9d336a4..d3f25db 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/research-synthesis.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/research-synthesis.md @@ -1,467 +1,13 @@ -# Pitch Research Synthesis Protocol +# 研究综合方法 -**Contents:** Before Writing · Cross-Source Connections to Look For · Confidence Rating · Pitch Construction Process · Output File Templates (pitch-full, pitch-5min, pitch-2min, pitch-1min, pitch-email, pitch-appendix, pitch-deck-outline, pitch-scorecard) · Post-Synthesis Verification +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Before Writing +## 综合顺序 -1. Read ALL raw files in `{project-name}/raw/` before writing anything -2. Read ALL prior session files (from startup-design, startup-competitors, startup-positioning) if they exist -3. Identify the strongest pitch elements — what's most impressive about this company? -4. Determine the optimal pitch order based on strengths -5. Check if the pitch was built with or without validated research data — this affects the scorecard +1. 按研究问题整理证据，不按来源堆砌摘要。 +2. 合并重复转载，标记时间、地域和口径冲突。 +3. 提取共识、反证、异常值和重要空白。 +4. 用“事实—含义—行动”形成结论，并给高/中/低置信度。 +5. 生成未来 30 天可执行验证：负责人、成本、成功指标和停止条件。 -## Cross-Source Connections to Look For - -These are pitch-specific patterns that emerge when you combine research with founder data: - -- **Strong traction + weak insight = lead with traction** — the numbers speak for themselves -- **Weak traction + strong insight = lead with insight** — reframe the conversation around the thesis -- **Strong team + emerging market = lead with team** — investors bet on people in uncertain markets -- **Large market + clear model = lead with opportunity** — the math is compelling -- **Comparable success story + similar approach = use the analogy** — investors love pattern-matching -- **Investor fatigue in space + unique angle = differentiate the narrative** — show you're different -- **Strong "why now" + weak traction = lead with timing** — the wave is more impressive than the surfer -- **Competitive gaps + unique attributes = frame against competitors** — show the opening - -## Confidence Rating - -Apply to every major claim in the pitch materials: - -- **High:** Multiple sources agree, data is recent, verifiable -- **Medium:** Some evidence but gaps, or data partially disagree -- **Low:** Limited data, mostly inferred, or data older than 12 months - -In the pitch itself, only use High and Medium confidence claims. Low confidence items go in the appendix as "areas to strengthen." - ---- - -## Pitch Construction Process - -### Step 1: Identify Pitch DNA - -Before writing anything, answer these questions: - -1. **What's the single most impressive thing about this company?** (This determines pitch order) -2. **What's the 2-sentence description?** (This is non-negotiable — must be crystal clear) -3. **What's the unique insight?** (This separates a pitch from a product description) -4. **What's the "why now"?** (Timing thesis — what makes this moment right) -5. **What's the biggest weakness?** (Must have a prepared answer) - -### Step 2: Assemble the Building Blocks - -Map available data to the 8 pitch elements: - -| Element | Source | Strength | Notes | -|---------|--------|----------|-------| -| What You Do | Intake / positioning-statement.md | | | -| Traction | Intake / scorecard.md | | | -| Unique Insight | Intake / research | | | -| Business Model | lean-canvas.md / revenue-model.md | | | -| Market Size | market-analysis.md / intake | | | -| Team | Intake | | | -| The Ask | Intake | | | -| Why Now | Wave 2 research / intake | | | - -Strength ratings: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing - -**Data Foundation Check:** Note whether each element is backed by validated research (from prior startup skills) or self-reported data (from intake only). This affects the scorecard in Phase 4. - -### Step 3: Determine Pitch Order - -Based on element strengths, select the template from `pitch-frameworks.md`: -- Strongest element is Traction → Traction-Led -- Strongest element is Team → Team-Led -- Strongest element is Insight → Insight-Led -- No clear standout → Pre-Traction (default) - -### Step 4: Write the Narrative - -Construct the pitch as a continuous story, not a collection of sections. Each element should flow naturally into the next. The narrative should feel like: - -"Here's what we do. [Here's why it's working / Here's what we know / Here's who we are.] Here's the problem we're solving. Here's our solution. Here's how big this can get. Here's how we make money. Here's why we're the team to do it. Here's what we need." - -### Step 5: Generate All Requested Formats - -From the full narrative, derive each format by compression — not by rewriting from scratch. Each shorter format is a subset of the full pitch. - ---- - -## Output File Templates - -### pitch-full.md - -```markdown -# Full Pitch Narrative: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## Pitch DNA -- **Lead element:** {traction/team/insight/market} -- **2-sentence opener:** {the opener} -- **Unique insight:** {one sentence} -- **Why now:** {timing thesis} -- **The ask:** {amount + milestones} -- **Data foundation:** {Validated (prior startup skills) / Self-reported (intake only)} - -## Full Narrative (~10 minutes) - -### Opening — What We Do -{2 sentences + specific example} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance — pace, emphasis, pauses} -> **Timing:** 0:00 - 0:45 - -### {Lead Element — varies by pitch type} -{Content} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 0:45 - 2:00 - -### Problem -{Problem description — severity, consequences, who suffers} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 2:00 - 3:00 - -### Solution -{How it works — describe the concrete user experience. What does the user SEE and DO? Not abstract features — the specific interaction that solves the problem. If the product exists, describe it as if showing a demo. If pre-launch, describe the intended experience vividly enough that the investor can picture it.} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 3:00 - 4:00 - -### Traction -{Metrics with timeframes — growth story. If no traction: skip this section, don't fake it.} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 4:00 - 5:00 - -### Market Size -{Bottom-up calculation — show the math: number of customers × price = addressable market. Beachhead + expansion path.} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 5:00 - 6:00 - -### Business Model -{One clear model — pricing, unit economics if available} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 6:00 - 6:30 - -### Why Now -{Timing thesis from Wave 2 research. Technology shift, behavioral change, regulatory move. If timing isn't strong, keep this brief or fold into another section.} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 6:30 - 7:00 - -### Team -{Accomplishments, not titles. For each person: name, role, most impressive specific result.} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 7:00 - 7:30 - -### The Ask -{Amount + milestones + timeframe. Be direct and confident.} - -> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance} -> **Timing:** 7:30 - 8:00 - -### Close -{Final sentence — memorable, forward-looking. Leave them wanting to talk more.} - -## Transition Sentences -{How each section flows into the next — so the pitch feels like a story, not a checklist} - -## Red Flags -- {issues investors might raise} - -## Yellow Flags -- {concerns to prepare for} - -## Sources -- {key data sources used in the pitch} -``` - -### pitch-5min.md - -```markdown -# Five-Minute Pitch: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## The Narrative (~5 minutes) - -{Each element trimmed to its core claim + one supporting proof point. No secondary arguments — just the strongest version of each element.} - -### Opening — What We Do (0:00 - 0:30) -{2 sentences + example} - -### {Lead Element} (0:30 - 1:15) -{Core claim + proof} - -### Problem + Solution (1:15 - 2:30) -{Problem in 2 sentences → solution as concrete experience} - -### Market + Business Model (2:30 - 3:30) -{Bottom-up math + one-sentence model} - -### Why Now + Team (3:30 - 4:30) -{Timing thesis + team accomplishments} - -### The Ask (4:30 - 5:00) -{Amount + milestones + timeframe} - -## Speaker Notes -{Pacing guidance — where to breathe, where to let silence work} - -## Red Flags -- {concerns} - -## Sources -- {key sources} -``` - -### pitch-2min.md - -```markdown -# Two-Minute Pitch: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## The Script (~300 words) - -{Word-for-word script, broken into natural paragraphs. Each paragraph = one element.} - -## Delivery Notes -- **Opener pace:** Slow and clear — this is where understanding happens -- **Emphasis points:** {words/phrases to stress} -- **Natural pauses:** {where to breathe and let it sink in} -- **Energy peak:** {which sentence should have the most energy} -- **Close:** Confident, direct, unhurried - -## Structure Breakdown -- **0:00 - 0:20:** What we do (2 sentences + example) -- **0:20 - 0:40:** Strongest signal (traction/insight/team) -- **0:40 - 1:00:** Problem + solution -- **1:00 - 1:20:** Market + business model -- **1:20 - 1:40:** Why us + why now -- **1:40 - 2:00:** The ask - -## The Email Test -{Paraphrase of the pitch in one paragraph — what someone should be able to repeat after hearing it once} - -## Red Flags -- {concerns} - -## Sources -- {key sources} -``` - -### pitch-1min.md - -```markdown -# Elevator Pitch: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## Formal Version (~150 words) -{For investor events, demo days, formal introductions. Structured: What We Do → Insight → Ask.} - -## Casual Version (~100 words) -{For networking, dinner parties, hallway conversations. Conversational tone, no pitch structure visible. Sounds like you're telling a friend about your company.} - -## When Someone Asks "So What Do You Do?" -{The 2-sentence answer + example that leads to "tell me more"} - -## Delivery Notes -- Don't rush. 1 minute is longer than it feels. -- End with a question, not a statement — "Would that be useful for [your company]?" invites conversation. -- Match energy to context. Formal events: crisp, confident. Casual: relaxed, curious. - -## Red Flags -- {concerns} -``` - -### pitch-email.md - -```markdown -# Investor Email Pitch: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## Subject Line Candidates -| Subject Line | Angle | Best For | -|---|---|---| -| "{subject 1}" | {angle} | {investor type} | -| "{subject 2}" | {angle} | {investor type} | -| "{subject 3}" | {angle} | {investor type} | - -## Cold Email (~500 words) - -{Hook — one sentence that makes them read the next line} - -{What we do — 2 sentences + example} - -{Traction or insight — the strongest signal, with numbers} - -{Why now — one sentence timing thesis} - -{The ask — specific and direct} - -{Close — easy next step, not "let me know your thoughts"} - -## Follow-Up Email (~200 words) - -{Shorter, references the first email. Adds one new data point. Clear CTA.} - -## Personalization Notes -- **For angel investors:** Lead with the problem and your personal connection to it -- **For VCs:** Lead with traction or market size -- **For accelerators:** Lead with team and speed of execution -- **For strategic partners:** Lead with mutual opportunity - -## Red Flags -- {email-specific concerns} - -## Sources -- {key sources} -``` - -### pitch-appendix.md - -```markdown -# Pitch Appendix: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## Top 10 Investor Questions (with Prepared Answers) - -### Q1: {Most likely question} -**Short answer:** {2-3 sentences — for verbal delivery} -**Detailed answer:** {full explanation with data — for follow-up emails} -**Source:** {where the data comes from} - -[Repeat for Q2-Q10] - -## Objection Handling - -### "{Objection 1}" -**Why they ask this:** {investor's concern} -**Response:** {how to address it honestly} -**Supporting data:** {evidence} - -[Repeat for each common objection] - -## Known Weaknesses -{Honest assessment of pitch gaps — with plans to address each. Identifying weaknesses proactively is stronger than hoping investors won't notice.} - -## Financial Backup -{Detailed numbers if available from prior sessions. If not: note "Financial projections not yet validated — consider running startup-design for detailed modeling."} - -## Competitive Detail -{Deeper competitive analysis for Q&A — from prior sessions if available. If not: note "Competitive landscape not fully mapped — consider running startup-competitors for battle cards."} - -## Red Flags -- {appendix-specific concerns} - -## Yellow Flags -- {areas needing more data} - -## Data Gaps & Limitations -- {what data is missing — every pitch has blind spots, be explicit} - -## Sources -- {all data sources used across all deliverables, with tier ratings} -``` - -## Post-Synthesis Verification - -After writing all pitch deliverables (before the scorecard/review phase), run the Verification Agent protocol. See `references/verification-agent.md` for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-pitch-specific coherence (pitch claims vs. source data, cross-format consistency, pitch vs. appendix alignment, honesty checks). - ---- - -### pitch-deck-outline.md - -Translate the full narrative into slides — compression and visualization, not new writing. Follow the pitch order already established; a typical investor deck runs 10-12 slides (Title, Problem, Solution, Market, Product, Business Model, Traction, Go-to-Market, Team, Financials, The Ask). - -```markdown -# Pitch Deck Outline: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -**Source narrative:** pitch-full.md — same order, translated to slides. - -## Slide 1 — Title -**Headline:** {Company name + one-line description in customer language} -**Visual:** Logo, tagline -**Speaker notes:** {The 2-sentence opener} - -## Slide {N} — {Element} -**Headline:** {One takeaway sentence — never a label} -**Body:** -- {3-5 bullets, under 30 words total} -**Visual:** {Chart / diagram / screenshot suggestion} -**Speaker notes:** {What to say, from the corresponding pitch-full.md section} - -{...repeat for all slides...} - -## Deck Quality Checklist -- [ ] Every headline tells the takeaway (headlines alone, in sequence, pitch the company) -- [ ] One idea per slide -- [ ] Under 30 words per slide body -- [ ] A visual suggested for every slide -- [ ] Speaker notes on every slide -- [ ] The final slide carries a clear ask - -## Red Flags -- {...} - -## Yellow Flags -- {...} - -## Sources -- {source} [Tier N] -``` - -### pitch-scorecard.md - -```markdown -# Pitch Scorecard: {product} -*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}* - -## Data Foundation -**Built with:** {Validated research (startup-design/competitors/positioning) / Self-reported data (intake only)} -{If self-reported: "Note: This pitch was built without validated research data. Scores in Market Sizing, Traction Honesty, and competitive Q&A may improve significantly after running startup-design or startup-competitors."} - -## Scoring Rubric - -| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Rationale | -|-----------|-------------|-----------| -| **Clarity** | | {Can someone explain what you do after hearing 2 sentences?} | -| **Strength Sequencing** | | {Is the most impressive element in the first 60 seconds?} | -| **Traction Honesty** | | {Are numbers accurate, timeframed, and real? Or acknowledged as missing?} | -| **Insight Quality** | | {Is the insight genuinely non-obvious and specific?} | -| **Market Sizing** | | {Is the math bottom-up with clear assumptions?} | -| **Business Model** | | {One model, clearly stated?} | -| **Team Credentials** | | {Specific, verifiable accomplishments?} | -| **Ask Clarity** | | {Amount + milestones + timeframe, stated with confidence?} | -| **Overall** | | | - -## Verdict -- **65-80:** Investor-ready. Go pitch. -- **50-64:** Investor-ready with caveats. Address the weak dimensions first. -- **35-49:** Needs work. Iterate on the weakest areas before pitching. -- **Below 35:** Major gaps. Consider running startup-design or startup-positioning to strengthen the foundation. - -## Weak Dimensions (Score < 7) -For each: -- **Dimension:** {name} -- **What's weak:** {specific problem} -- **How to fix:** {actionable suggestion} -- **Data needed:** {what information would strengthen this} - -## Delivery Readiness -- [ ] 2-sentence opener practiced until effortless -- [ ] All numbers memorized (not read from notes) -- [ ] Prepared answers for top 5 investor questions -- [ ] Know the biggest weakness and how to address it -- [ ] Practiced with at least one person (or investor roleplay) - -## Red Flags -- {scorecard-specific concerns} - -## Yellow Flags -- {areas to watch} -``` +综合报告必须包含执行摘要、关键证据表、风险与反方观点、数据缺口和来源清单。不得用漂亮框架掩盖证据不足。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md b/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md index 1a96120..ba9f3e1 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md @@ -1,164 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 1: Audience & Narrative Intelligence +# 第一轮：受众与叙事 -Read `research-principles.md` first. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence - -``` -Research task: Build investor audience profile for {product description} pitch -Context: {product summary from intake} -Target audience: {VC/angels/accelerator/demo day — from intake} -Stage: {pre-seed/seed/Series A — from intake} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Fundraising landscape in this space (4-5 searches): -- "{product category} startup funding {current year}" -- "{product category} VC investments {current year}" -- "seed stage {product category} fundraise" -- "{product space} Series A metrics benchmarks" -- "what VCs look for in {product category} startups" - -ROUND 2 — Specific audience research (3-4 searches): -If specific investors/funds are named: -- "{fund name} portfolio companies" -- "{fund name} investment thesis" -- "{investor name} blog pitch advice" -- "{fund name} demo day companies" - -If no specific audience: -- "best investors {product category} {current year}" -- "{product category} angel investors" -- "{accelerator name} recent batch companies" - -ROUND 3 — Stage-appropriate metrics (3-4 searches): -- "seed stage metrics investors expect {current year}" -- "{product category} startup benchmarks Series A" -- "what traction for seed round {product category}" -- "seed round size {product category} {current year}" -- "pre-seed vs seed metrics expectations" - -ROUND 4 — Current climate (2-3 searches): -- "fundraising climate {current year} startups" -- "{product category} funding trends {current year}" -- "VC sentiment {product space} {current year}" - -OUTPUT FORMAT: - -## Investor Audience Profile - -### Fundraising Landscape -- Current funding climate in {space}: {bullish/neutral/bearish} -- Recent notable rounds: {examples with amounts} -- Average round size at this stage: {range} -- Key metrics investors expect at this stage: - - {metric 1}: {benchmark} - - {metric 2}: {benchmark} - - {metric 3}: {benchmark} - -### Target Investor Profile -- Fund/investor type: {VC/angel/accelerator} -- Typical check size: {range} -- Investment thesis alignment: {how this pitch fits} -- Portfolio overlap: {similar companies they've funded} -- Red flags for this audience: {what turns them off} - -### Stage-Appropriate Expectations -- What "good traction" looks like at this stage: {specifics} -- What "great traction" looks like: {specifics} -- Minimum viable metrics to raise: {specifics} -- Common objections at this stage: {list} - -### Current Climate Notes -- Fundraising difficulty: {easier/normal/harder than 12 months ago} -- Hot topics investors are interested in: {trends} -- Topics investors are fatigued by: {overhyped areas} - -> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion] -``` - ---- - -## Agent A2: Comparable & Narrative Research - -``` -Research task: Find comparable pitch narratives and story hooks for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Market: {market/category from intake} -Competitors: {known competitors from intake} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Comparable companies and their stories (4-5 searches): -- "{competitor 1} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 1} fundraise announcement" -- "{competitor 2} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 2} seed round" -- "{product category} startup pitch deck examples" -- "{product category} demo day pitch" -- "{product category} successful pitch story" - -ROUND 2 — Narrative patterns that work (3-4 searches): -- "{product category} for {customer type}" startup analogy -- "X for Y" startup pitch examples {product category} -- "{problem} startup story founder" -- "why I built {product category}" founder story - -ROUND 3 — Market narrative and trends (3-4 searches): -- "{product category} market trends {current year}" -- "why now {product category}" timing narrative -- "{product space} tailwinds {current year}" -- "{regulatory/technology/behavioral change} driving {product category}" - -ROUND 4 — What doesn't work (2-3 searches): -- "{product category} startup failed pitch" OR "common mistakes {product category} pitch" -- "investor objections {product category}" -- "{product category} startup risk" investors worried about - -OUTPUT FORMAT: - -## Comparable Narratives - -### Successful Pitches in This Space -For each comparable: -- **Company:** {name} -- **What they raised:** {amount, stage, when} -- **Narrative angle:** {how they framed the story} -- **Key hook:** {what made investors lean in} -- **Analogy used:** {if any "X for Y" framing} -- **Source:** {where this info came from} - -### Narrative Hooks Available -Rank by strength (strongest first): - -1. **{Hook name}** — {description} - - Why it works: {reasoning} - - How to use: {specific suggestion} - - Risk: {potential downside} - -2. **{Hook name}** — {description} - [same structure] - -### "X for Y" Candidates -| Analogy | Clarity | Risk | Recommendation | -|---------|---------|------|----------------| -| "{product} is like {X} for {Y}" | High/Med/Low | {what could go wrong} | Use/Avoid | - -Only recommend "X for Y" if: -- X is widely known to the target investor audience -- The analogy clarifies more than it confuses -- It doesn't box you into the wrong category - -### "Why Now" Narrative -- **Timing thesis:** {what makes this the right moment} -- **Evidence:** {trend data, regulatory change, behavioral shift} -- **Strength:** Strong / Moderate / Weak -- **Risk:** {what could undermine the timing argument} - -### What NOT to Do -- Narratives that have been overused: {examples} -- Objections investors will raise: {top 3-5} -- Narrative traps to avoid: {specific to this space} - -> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion] -``` +只研究目标机构公开披露的投资阶段、币种、行业偏好、地域、已投项目和公开观点。找出最匹配的叙事与潜在冲突，注明日期；不得推断具体合伙人的私人偏好或声称有内部信息。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md b/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md index 172df25..942dbbf 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md @@ -1,159 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now +# 第二轮：竞争与时机 -Read `research-principles.md` first. Use findings from Wave 1 (audience expectations, comparable narratives) to focus the research. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch - -``` -Research task: Build pitch-aware competitive frame for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Known competitors: {list from intake or prior sessions} -Wave 1 findings: {investor expectations, comparable narratives} - -IMPORTANT — PITCH-FOCUSED COMPETITIVE FRAMING: -This is NOT a full competitive analysis (startup-competitors does that). -This is specifically: how do competitors position themselves to investors, -what narratives have worked for them, and where are the gaps this pitch can exploit. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Competitor investor positioning (4-5 searches): -- "{competitor 1} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 1} fundraise announcement" -- "{competitor 2} funding round {current year}" -- "{product category} funded startups {current year}" -- "{competitor} investor presentation" OR "{competitor} demo day" -- "why {competitor} raised" OR "{competitor} investor thesis" - -ROUND 2 — Competitive narrative gaps (3-4 searches): -- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" investor perspective -- "{product category} startup weaknesses" -- "{competitor} criticism" OR "{competitor} limitations investor" -- "what's missing in {product category}" OR "{product category} underserved" - -ROUND 3 — Investor objections about competition (2-3 searches): -- "investor concerns {product category} crowded market" -- "{product category} competitive moat" investor perspective -- "why invest {product category} despite competition" - -ROUND 4 — Cross-reference and validate (2-3 searches): -- Verify key claims from rounds 1-3 -- Search for contrarian views -- Look for recent changes (new entrants, acquisitions, pivots) - -OUTPUT FORMAT: - -## Competitive Framing for Pitch - -### How Competitors Position to Investors -For each funded competitor: -- **{Competitor}:** Raised {amount} with narrative: "{their story}" - - What resonated with investors: {specifics} - - Where their narrative is weak: {gaps} - - Source: {citation} - -### Narrative Gaps to Exploit -Rank by pitch impact (strongest first): - -1. **{Gap name}** — {description} - - Why competitors can't claim this: {reasoning} - - How to frame it in the pitch: {specific suggestion} - - Evidence: {data point} - -### Likely Investor Objections About Competition -| Objection | Why They'll Ask | Prepared Reframe | -|-----------|----------------|-----------------| -| "{objection}" | {reasoning} | "{how to respond}" | - -### Competitive Positioning One-Liner -For the pitch, craft ONE sentence that captures competitive differentiation: -- Candidate 1: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L} -- Candidate 2: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L} -- Recommended: {which and why} - -> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning} -> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion] -``` - ---- - -## Agent B2: Why Now & Market Timing - -``` -Research task: Build "why now" timing thesis for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Market: {market/category from intake} -Wave 1 findings: {trends mentioned in comparable narratives} - -IMPORTANT — THE "WHY NOW" QUESTION: -Every investor asks "why now?" — why is this the right moment for this company? -A pitch without a credible timing thesis leaves investors wondering -"why hasn't someone done this already?" or "why will this work NOW vs. 2 years ago?" - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Technology and market shifts (4-5 searches): -- "{product category} market growth {current year}" -- "{technology enabling this product} adoption rate {current year}" -- "{product category} inflection point" OR "{product space} tipping point" -- "why now {product category}" OR "{product space} momentum {current year}" -- "{enabling technology} cost reduction" OR "{enabling technology} democratization" - -ROUND 2 — Behavioral and regulatory changes (3-4 searches): -- "{customer behavior change} driving {product category}" -- "{regulatory change} affecting {product space} {current year}" -- "COVID / remote work / AI impact on {product category}" -- "{product space} buyer behavior shift {current year}" - -ROUND 3 — Adoption curves and precedents (2-3 searches): -- "{product category} adoption curve" -- "{comparable market} adoption timeline" (analog from adjacent space) -- "{product category} early adopters vs mainstream" -- "when did {similar product category} take off" - -ROUND 4 — Counter-arguments (2-3 searches): -- "why {product category} won't work" OR "{product space} headwinds" -- "{product category} too early" OR "{product space} not ready" -- Skeptical takes on the timing thesis - -OUTPUT FORMAT: - -## Why Now: Timing Thesis - -### Primary Timing Driver -- **What changed:** {specific shift — technology, regulation, behavior} -- **When it changed:** {date or timeframe} -- **Evidence:** {data with source} -- **Impact on this company:** {how it enables or accelerates the pitch} - -### Supporting Timing Signals -1. **{Signal}** — {description with data} - - Source: {citation} - - Strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak - -2. **{Signal}** — {description with data} - [same structure] - -### "Why Now" Narrative for the Pitch -Craft a 2-3 sentence "why now" that can slot into the pitch: -- Version 1 (data-led): "{version}" -- Version 2 (story-led): "{version}" -- Recommended: {which and why} - -### Counter-Arguments (Investor Skepticism) -| Skeptical View | Evidence For It | How to Address | -|---------------|-----------------|----------------| -| "{concern}" | {data} | "{response with evidence}" | - -### Timing Assessment -- **Is the timing genuinely strong?** Yes / Partially / No -- **Risk of being too early:** {assessment} -- **Risk of being too late:** {assessment} -- **Honest recommendation:** {use the timing thesis / downplay timing / find a different angle} - -If the timing isn't genuinely strong, say so. A forced "why now" is worse than none — investors see through it. In that case, recommend leading with a different pitch element instead. - -> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning} -> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion] -``` +核实替代方案、竞品融资/产品动态、政策与产业周期。为“为什么现在”“为什么我们”分别提供证据和反方观点。准备投资人可能追问的价格战、平台依赖、合规、毛利、回款和扩张问题。 diff --git a/startup-pitch/references/verification-agent.md b/startup-pitch/references/verification-agent.md index 73e63e0..a55cd26 100644 --- a/startup-pitch/references/verification-agent.md +++ b/startup-pitch/references/verification-agent.md @@ -1,129 +1,16 @@ -# Verification Agent Protocol +# 核验清单 -After pitch construction completes, spawn a **Verification Agent (V1)** that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## When to Run +## 核验任务 -- After all pitch deliverables are written (before the scorecard/review phase) -- Uses one agent: **V1: Verification** +独立复查全部交付物： -## Agent Task +- 数字是否有来源、日期、地域、单位和统一口径； +- 事实、推断、假设是否清楚标注； +- 是否存在自相矛盾、过期价格、重复来源假佐证； +- 是否遗漏中国的数据、广告、行业许可、税务或平台规则风险； +- 建议是否与证据一致，战卡/定位/路演之间是否冲突； +- 是否泄露个人信息或使用无法证明的绝对化表达。 -The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a `verification-report.md` in the project directory. - -## Universal Checks - -These apply to every skill in the startup plugin: - -### 1. Claims Without Source -Every quantitative claim must have a data label: **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, or **[Opinion]**. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label. - -### 2. Internal Contradictions -Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when: -- The same metric appears with different values in two files -- A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another -- Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium) - -### 3. Confidence Rating Consistency -Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence: -- A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated **High** -- A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated **Low** -- Every major section must have a confidence rating - -### 4. Data Gaps Declared -Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag: -- Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely -- Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared -- Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables - -### 5. Flags Present -Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag: -- Files missing these sections -- Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks - -### 6. Stale Data -Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated. - -### 7. Duplicate Sources -Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification. - -## Skill-Specific Checks: startup-pitch - -In addition to the universal checks above, verify: - -### Pitch Claims vs. Source Data -- Every numerical claim in the pitch narratives (traction, market size, revenue, growth rate) must be traceable to either intake data or prior session files -- If the pitch was built on startup-design data, verify that market size numbers match `market-analysis.md` -- If built on startup-competitors data, verify competitive claims match `competitors-report.md` -- Flag any number in the pitch that doesn't appear in any source file - -### Cross-Format Consistency -- The 2-sentence opener must be identical (or a faithful compression) across all pitch formats -- Market size, traction numbers, and the ask must be consistent across pitch-full, pitch-5min, pitch-2min, pitch-1min, and pitch-email -- The unique insight must be the same concept across all formats (phrased differently but same core idea) -- Team credentials must not vary between formats (no inflated version in one, modest in another) - -### Pitch vs. Appendix Alignment -- Every objection in `pitch-appendix.md` must have a corresponding answer -- Known weaknesses in the appendix must match the Red/Yellow Flags in pitch files -- Q&A answers must not contradict claims made in the pitch narratives -- If competitive backup references battle cards, verify the competitor names and claims match - -### Honesty Checks -- Flag any traction claim without a timeframe ("10K users" without "in X months") -- Flag top-down TAM without bottom-up math -- Flag team credentials that are titles without accomplishments -- Flag "no competition" or equivalent claims - -## Output: verification-report.md - -```markdown -# Verification Report: {project-name} -*Generated: {date}* - -## Summary -- **Critical issues:** {count} -- **Warnings:** {count} -- **Info:** {count} - -## Critical Issues -Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Section:** {section name} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Warnings -Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Info -Minor improvements and observations. - -- {observation} -- {observation} - -## Verification Checklist -- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled -- [ ] No internal contradictions found -- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence -- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables -- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables -- [ ] No stale data unmarked -- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration -- [ ] Pitch claims traceable to source data (skill-specific) -- [ ] Cross-format consistency verified (skill-specific) -- [ ] Pitch and appendix aligned (skill-specific) -- [ ] Honesty checks passed (skill-specific) -``` - -## Flow Control - -- **If Critical issues > 0:** Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?" -- **If only Warnings/Info:** Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See `verification-report.md` for details." Continue to scorecard/review phase. +输出 `verification-report.md`，按严重/重要/建议分级，列出文件位置、问题、修正方式。严重问题必须暂停并请求用户决定；不得自行把问题标为已解决。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/SKILL.md b/startup-positioning/SKILL.md index 1aa046e..b25d5e5 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/SKILL.md +++ b/startup-positioning/SKILL.md @@ -1,302 +1,60 @@ --- name: startup-positioning -description: Market positioning strategy using the April Dunford framework, enriched with JTBD discovery, Moore positioning statement, and Neumeier's Onliness Test. Produces a complete positioning document, positioning statement, competitive alternatives map, and market category analysis. Use when the user wants to define or refine their market positioning, find their unique position, differentiate from competitors, craft a positioning statement, choose a market category, or figure out "how should we position this product." Triggers for "positioning", "how to position", "market position", "differentiation strategy", "positioning statement", "competitive positioning", "category strategy", "where do we fit in the market", "how are we different", "unique value proposition", or any request to define, sharpen, or rethink positioning. Works standalone — no prior startup-design or startup-competitors session needed, but leverages their output if available. +description: 基于竞争替代、最佳客户、差异化能力、客户价值和市场类别建立适合中国市场的定位，输出定位文档、定位陈述、替代方案地图、品类分析和信息表达建议。适用于品牌定位、差异化、品类选择、价值主张等请求。 --- -# Startup Positioning +# 中国市场定位 -Market positioning strategy that produces a complete positioning document, Moore + Neumeier positioning statements, competitive alternatives map, and market category analysis. Built on April Dunford's framework, enriched with JTBD discovery and stress-tested with Neumeier's Onliness Test. +需求确认 → 研究深度评估 → 两轮研究 → 定位综合 → 核验 -## How It Works +默认全程输出简体中文，以可追溯证据服务中国市场决策。 -``` -INTAKE → RESEARCH (2 sequential waves) → POSITIONING SYNTHESIS -``` +## 中国市场通用规则 -The process: understand the product and its customers, research competitive alternatives and market context, then build positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components. Typical runtime: 10-15 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 20-30 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential). +- 默认使用简体中文提问、检索、分析和交付；用户明确要求其他语言时再切换。 +- 金额默认以人民币（CNY）表示，同时写清含税/未税、月付/年付及数据日期。 +- 先确认目标区域是中国大陆、港澳台还是出海市场；不得把“中文市场”等同于中国大陆。 +- 检索优先级：政府与监管部门、国家统计局/地方统计局、交易所公告、企业官网/公众号、主流电商与应用商店，再到可信行业报告和社区内容。 +- 社区信号可来自微信、知乎、小红书、抖音、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、少数派及垂直论坛；受登录限制时说明缺口，不伪造浏览结果。 +- 涉及个人信息、数据跨境、生成式 AI、算法推荐、广告、电商、金融、医疗、教育、地图或出版时，只做风险识别并建议咨询中国执业专业人士，不输出无依据的“合规确认”。 +- 明确区分事实、推断、假设和建议；事实附可访问链接、发布日期/访问日期，关键结论至少两类独立来源交叉验证。 +- 禁止把媒体转载链当作多个独立来源，禁止虚构市场规模、融资、客户数、价格、备案或牌照。 +- 免费工具优先：具备免费额度的通义千问/Qwen、DeepSeek、豆包、Kimi、智谱清言、Gemini CLI，或通过 Ollama 本地运行 Qwen/DeepSeek 等开源模型。免费政策会变化，使用前由用户确认；不得要求特定付费模型或订阅。 +- 工具不可用时进入“知识库模式”：只产出假设、检索清单和待验证项，不把模型记忆包装成实时调研。 -### Language -Default output language is **English**. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead. +## 执行流程 ---- - -## Phase 0: Resume Check - -Before anything else, check if a `PROGRESS.md` created by this skill exists in the working directory or a project subdirectory (the skill name field says `startup-positioning`). If it does, read it and resume from the last incomplete phase. Tell the user: "I found progress from a previous session. You completed [phases]. Picking up from [next phase]." - -If no progress file exists — or the one found belongs to a different skill — start from Phase 1. - ---- - -## Phase 1: Intake - -Short and focused — 1-2 rounds of questions. The goal is enough context to research alternatives and build positioning. - -### Check for Prior Work - -Before asking questions, check if prior sessions have been completed. Look for these files in the working directory or subdirectories: - -**From startup-design:** -- `00-intake/brief.md` — product description and context -- `01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md` — competitor profiles -- `01-discovery/target-audience.md` — customer personas, pain points -- `02-strategy/positioning.md` — initial positioning work - -**From startup-competitors:** -- `intake.md` — product and market context -- `competitors-report.md` — strategic competitive analysis -- `battle-cards/` — per-competitor profiles -- `pricing-landscape.md` — pricing analysis - -If these files exist, read them and use the data as a head start: -- Extract the product description, known competitors, and customer pain points -- Use competitor profiles and battle cards to seed the competitive alternatives map -- Pull any existing positioning work as a starting hypothesis to test, not a conclusion to keep -- Use customer language and pain points to inform JTBD discovery - -Tell the user: "I found data from a previous session. I'll use it as a starting point for positioning analysis." - -Skip redundant intake questions. Go straight to research if prior data is sufficient. - -### What to Ask (if no prior data exists) - -**Round 1 — Core context:** -- What's your product? (one sentence is fine) -- What problem does it solve and for whom? -- What do your customers do today instead of using you? (alternatives, workarounds, doing nothing) -- Who are your best existing customers? (if any — describe them, not demographics) - -**Round 2 — Sharpening (only if needed):** -- How is your product different from the alternatives you mentioned? -- Have you tried positioning before? What didn't work? -- Are there competitors you're often compared to? - -Don't over-interview. If the user gives a clear description upfront, move to research. The positioning process itself will surface what matters. - -### Output - -Save to `{project-name}/intake.md` — a brief summary of the product, problem, alternatives, and customers. If built on prior session data, note the source files used. Project name: kebab-case (e.g., `ai-email-assistant`). - -Create `{project-name}/PROGRESS.md` with: project name, skill name (`startup-positioning`), start date, language, research mode (Live / Knowledge-Based), and a phase checklist. Update it after each phase completes. If PROGRESS.md already exists from a previous session, resume from the last incomplete phase. - ---- - -## Phase 1.5: Research Depth Assessment +### 0—1. 续跑与需求确认 +查找本技能进度，并复用创业设计和竞品分析结果。确认产品、最佳客户、当前替代方案、购买者/使用者、地域与既有表达。避免用人口属性代替真实购买情境。 -After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user. +### 1.5—2. 研究 +评估轻量/标准/深度。第一轮研究直接竞品、手工流程、通用工具、外包和“不解决”等替代方案及中文客户原话；第二轮研究品类认知、搜索词、政策与技术趋势、渠道语境和品类教育成本。 -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-scaling.md` for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template. - -### Process - -1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1-3), known competitors (1-3), geographic scope (1-3) -2. Sum the scores (range 3-9) and map to a tier: Light (3-4), Standard (5-7), Deep (8-9) -3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see `research-scaling.md` for the exact template) -4. Wait for user response: **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation -5. Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md - -The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See `research-scaling.md` for exact wave configurations per tier. - ---- - -## Phase 2: Research - -Two sequential research waves exploring competitive alternatives and market context — agents within a wave run in parallel, and Wave 2 builds on Wave 1's findings. Together they provide the raw material for Dunford's 5+1 positioning components. - -### Environment Detection - -Check if the `Agent` tool is available: - -- **Agent tool available (Claude Code):** Spawn all agents within each wave in parallel. This is faster. -- **Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web):** Execute research sequentially, following the same templates. Same depth, just slower. - -### Web Search - -This skill requires WebSearch for real data. If WebSearch is unavailable or denied, fall back to **Knowledge-Based Mode**: use training data, mark all findings with **[Knowledge-Based — verify independently]**, and reduce confidence ratings by one level. Note the mode in PROGRESS.md. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-principles.md` before starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross-referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps. - -### Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives & Customer Context - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md` for agent templates. - -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): - -**A1: Alternative Mapping (JTBD Lens)** — Map ALL competitive alternatives, not just direct competitors. Include: direct competitors, adjacent tools competing for the same budget, manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing / status quo. For each: what job does the customer hire it for, where does it fall short, what triggers switching? The goal is the full set of things your product replaces. - -**A2: Customer Intelligence** — Mine voice-of-customer data: reviews, forums, communities. Extract: pain points with current alternatives, exact language customers use, what "better" means to them, best-fit customer profile (who gets the most value fastest), switching triggers (what makes someone finally change). Build a **language map** — the words customers use to describe their problem and desired outcome. - -### Wave 2: Market Frame & Trends - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md` for agent templates. - -Two agents (or two sequential blocks): - -**B1: Market Category Analysis** — Identify 3-5 candidate market categories. For each: what do buyers expect from this category, who are the leaders, what's the competitive dynamic, how mature is it? Apply Dunford's category types: head-to-head (existing category), big fish/small pond (subcategory), or category creation. Assess which frame makes your unique strengths matter most. - -**B2: Trend & Timing Analysis** — Identify relevant trends: technology shifts, behavioral changes, regulatory moves. For each: is it real or hype, how does it affect buyer expectations, does it make your positioning stronger or weaker? Assess timing — are you early, on-time, or late to the trend? Only include trends that genuinely change how buyers evaluate solutions. - ---- +### 3. 定位综合 +按顺序完成：①客户真正会替换的方案；②我方可证明的独特能力；③能力给客户带来的业务/情绪价值；④最在意该价值的客户；⑤能让价值自然成立的市场类别；⑥趋势与进入时机。每一步必须有证据或标为假设。 -### Post-Research Checkpoint +同时给出三种定位候选并说明取舍，使用面向中国客户的自然表达，不直译英文营销套话，不使用“唯一、第一、国家级”等无法证明或可能违法的绝对化用语。最后用销售访谈、落地页和广告小预算实验验证。 -After both waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: the competitive alternative landscape (how many direct, adjacent, status quo), the strongest customer pains, and the most promising category candidates. Ask: "Does this align with your expectations? Anything to adjust before I synthesize the positioning?" +## 交付文件 -Keep it to one message — this is a quick alignment check, not a full report. +`positioning-doc.md`、`positioning-statement.md`、`competitive-alternatives.md`、`market-category-analysis.md`、`messaging-implications.md`、`verification-report.md` 和 `raw/`。定位陈述应同时提供内部严谨版、客户口语版和一句话版。 ---- - -## Phase 3: Positioning Synthesis - -> **Reference:** Read `references/research-synthesis.md` for synthesis protocol and Dunford process details. - -After the checkpoint, build positioning through Dunford's 5+1 components **in order**. The sequence matters — each step builds on the previous. - -Positioning is a reasoning problem, not a fill-in-the-blanks exercise. The "only" in the Onliness Test has to be *true*, and finding a frame where it's both true and valuable takes real thought — you're searching for the angle that makes the product's strengths matter most to the right buyer. Before committing to a frame, think hard about how each candidate category changes what the product gets compared against and whether the differentiation still holds. If the model supports extended thinking, this is where to spend it; a forced or generic position is worse than none. - -### The 5+1 Components - -1. **Competitive Alternatives** — From Wave 1. What would customers use if your product didn't exist? This is the anchor — positioning is always relative. - -2. **Unique Attributes** — What do you have that the alternatives lack? Be specific and honest. Features, architecture, team expertise, business model, speed — anything defensible. - - **⏸ PAUSE — User Input Required.** Present the research-derived attributes to the user. Ask them to confirm, add, or remove before proceeding to Value Themes. The founder knows capabilities that research can't surface. - -3. **Value Themes** — Translate each unique attribute into a customer outcome. Attribute → "so what?" → value. Group related attributes into 2-3 value themes. Use customer language from Wave 1's language map. - -4. **Best-Fit Customers** — From Wave 1 customer intelligence. Who cares most about your value themes? Define by characteristics that make them care, not demographics. These customers should be reachable, recognizable, and willing to pay. - -5. **Market Category** — From Wave 2. Choose the category frame that makes your value obvious. Present 3-5 options with trade-offs. Recommend one. The right category triggers the right buyer expectations. - -6. **Trend Overlay (optional)** — From Wave 2. Only include if a genuine trend makes your positioning stronger. Forced trend alignment is worse than none. - -### Validation - -Two stress tests before finalizing: - -**Neumeier Onliness Test:** - -Basic form: -> "Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator]." - -Extended form (6 elements — WHAT/HOW/WHO/WHERE/WHY/WHEN): -> "Our [product] is the only [category] that [differentiator] for [target] who [need] in [context]." - -If you can't fill the basic form convincingly — if "only" feels like a stretch — the positioning is too weak. Iterate. - -**Ries/Trout Mental Ladder:** -- Is it simple enough to remember? -- Does it claim one clear rung? -- Is that rung available (not owned by a competitor)? -- Can you explain it in one sentence? - -If either test fails, revisit the 5+1 components. Don't ship weak positioning. - -### Output Files - -Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: `# {Title}: {product}` followed by `*Skill: startup-positioning | Generated: {date}*`. Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections (see templates in `references/research-synthesis.md`). - -**`{project-name}/positioning-doc.md`** — The main deliverable: -- Executive summary (positioning in 3 sentences) -- The 5+1 components with supporting evidence -- Strength assessment per component (Strong / Moderate / Needs Work) -- Strategic recommendations and next steps -- Data gaps & limitations - -**`{project-name}/positioning-statement.md`** — Statements and messaging: -- Moore template: "For [target] who [need], [product] is a [category] that [benefit]. Unlike [alternative], we [differentiator]." -- Neumeier Onliness Statement (basic + extended) -- Elevator pitch (30-second version) -- Tagline candidates with stress-tested "Possible Misread" column -- One-liner variants for different channels (GitHub, marketplace, social, elevator) -- Freemium positioning (if applicable) - -**`{project-name}/competitive-alternatives.md`** — Complete alternatives map: -- All alternatives (direct, adjacent, manual, status quo) -- Per alternative: job hired for, strengths, shortcomings, switching triggers -- Your unique attributes vs. each alternative - -**`{project-name}/market-category-analysis.md`** — Category strategy: -- 3-5 candidate categories with buyer expectations -- Category type assessment (head-to-head / subcategory / creation) -- Recommendation with reasoning -- Implementation (category label, tagline direction, buyer expectation alignment) -- Red flags and yellow flags - -**`{project-name}/messaging-implications.md`** — Bridge from positioning to copy: -- Messaging hierarchy (what to communicate first, second, third) -- Category label (exact phrase to use everywhere) -- Value anchor (what to compare value to, separate from category) -- Customer language vs. category language map (which words are customer verbs, which are category nouns) -- Words to use / avoid -- Social proof guidelines -- Freemium positioning (if applicable) - -### Raw Data - -Each agent saves its raw output to `{project-name}/raw/`. The synthesis phase reads these raw files and produces the polished deliverables above. Agents must NOT write directly to deliverable paths — raw and synthesized output are separate. - -Raw research files: -- `alternative-mapping.md` -- `customer-intelligence.md` -- `market-categories.md` -- `trends-timing.md` - ---- - -## Phase 3.5: Research Verification - -After all positioning deliverables are written, run a verification pass. - -> **Reference:** Read `references/verification-agent.md` for the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks. - -### Process - -1. Spawn agent **V1: Verification** — it reads all deliverable files and checks for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration -2. V1 also runs startup-positioning-specific checks: positioning statement vs. research data, JTBD vs. customer intelligence, cross-deliverable coherence, validation test integrity -3. V1 produces `{project-name}/verification-report.md` -4. **If Critical issues found:** Pause and present issues to the user. Ask: fix first, or proceed as-is? -5. **If only Warnings/Info:** Show one-line summary - -In Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol. - ---- - -## Honesty Protocol - -> **Reference:** Read `references/honesty-protocol.md` for full protocol and anti-pattern details. - -Positioning is only useful if it's honest. Core rules apply (label claims, quantify, declare gaps), plus positioning-specific additions: - -1. **No aspirational positioning.** Position on what you ARE, not what you hope to become. Aspirational positioning crumbles at first customer contact. -2. **Challenge "we're unique."** The Onliness Test must be genuinely convincing. If it reads like marketing fluff, iterate. -3. **Research wins over narrative.** When customer data contradicts internal beliefs about positioning, the data wins. -4. **Flag category creation risk.** Most startups can't afford to educate a market. Default to existing categories unless the evidence is overwhelming. - -| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say | -|---|---|---| -| "We're for everyone" | No target segment defined | "If you're for everyone, you're for no one. Who cares MOST?" | -| Feature-based positioning | Leading with features not outcomes | "Customers don't buy features. What outcome do they get?" | -| Aspirational positioning | "We'll be the AI-powered..." | "Position on what you deliver today, not the roadmap." | -| Category-of-one | Inventing a category to avoid comparison | "New categories cost millions. Is there an existing frame?" | -| Copycat positioning | Same message as the market leader | "Find genuinely different ground — you can't out-position the leader." | - -See `references/honesty-protocol.md` for the full anti-pattern table (7 entries) and detailed protocol. - ---- +## 质量闸门 -## Reference Files +- 每个关键数字都有来源、口径、日期和置信度；找不到就写“待验证”。 +- 将结果分为“已验证事实 / 有依据推断 / 创始人假设 / 建议动作”。 +- 发现关键矛盾、监管硬风险或证据不足时暂停，向用户展示问题与可选路径。 +- 每阶段完成后更新 `PROGRESS.md`，记录研究模式、深度、已完成文件和下一步。 +- 只读取当前阶段需要的参考资料，控制上下文和免费模型用量。 -Read only what you need for the current phase. +## 参考资料 -| File | When to Read | ~Lines | Purpose | -|------|-------------|--------|---------| -| `honesty-protocol.md` | Start of session | ~73 | Full honesty protocol with anti-patterns | -| `research-principles.md` | Before starting Phase 2 | ~65 | Source quality, cross-referencing, data gaps | -| `research-wave-1-alternatives.md` | When running Wave 1 | ~235 | Agent templates for alternatives + customer intel | -| `research-wave-2-market-frame.md` | When running Wave 2 | ~210 | Agent templates for categories + trends | -| `research-synthesis.md` | After both waves complete | ~419 | Synthesis protocol, Dunford process, validation tests, messaging implications | -| `frameworks.md` | During Phase 3 | ~132 | Dunford/Moore/Neumeier/JTBD/Ries reference | -| `research-scaling.md` | After intake, before Phase 2 | ~96 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations | -| `verification-agent.md` | After synthesis | ~128 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks | +- `startup-positioning/references/frameworks.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/honesty-protocol.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/research-principles.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/research-scaling.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/research-synthesis.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md` +- `startup-positioning/references/verification-agent.md` diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/frameworks.md b/startup-positioning/references/frameworks.md index 1142ec4..3ed158b 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/frameworks.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/frameworks.md @@ -1,132 +1,5 @@ -# Positioning Frameworks Reference +# 适用于中国市场的框架 -Canonical definitions for the 5 positioning frameworks used in this skill. Apply them in order: Dunford's process first (primary engine), then express the result through Moore and Neumeier formats, grounded by JTBD thinking, and sanity-checked against Ries & Trout principles. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## 1. April Dunford — Obviously Awesome - -Positioning defines how your product is the best in the world at providing something that a well-defined set of customers cares a lot about. - -**The 5 components (work through in this order):** - -1. **Competitive Alternatives** — What would customers do if your solution didn't exist? Not just direct competitors — include manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing. This grounds the positioning in reality. - -2. **Unique Attributes** — What do you have that the alternatives don't? Be specific and factual. Not "better UX" but "drag-and-drop workflow builder that requires zero code." Capabilities, features, expertise, integrations, data, speed, etc. - -3. **Value Themes** — What do those attributes enable for the customer? Map each attribute to a customer benefit. Attributes are features; value themes are outcomes. "Drag-and-drop builder" → "Non-technical teams can build workflows without waiting for engineering." Group related attributes into 2-3 themes. - -4. **Best-Fit Customers** — Who cares the most about these value themes? The best customers are those for whom your unique value is critical, not just nice-to-have. Define by characteristics that make them care more than others. - -5. **Market Category** — The context you position your product in so the value is obvious. Three options: - - **Existing category**: You're a better version of something people already buy (e.g., "CRM for real estate agents") - - **New sub-category**: You take an existing category and add a qualifier (e.g., "AI-powered recruiting platform") - - **New category**: Rare and expensive to do. Only if nothing else frames your value well. - -**Adapted 10-step process for AI-guided positioning:** - -1. Understand your best customers — who loves your product and why -2. Form the positioning team — in our case: the AI + the founder -3. Align on vocabulary — define terms, abandon preconceptions about current positioning -4. List your true competitive alternatives — EVERYTHING customers would do instead -5. Isolate your unique attributes — what you have that alternatives don't -6. Map attributes to value themes — attribute → "so what" → customer outcome -7. Determine who cares most — best-fit customer characteristics -8. Find your best market frame — category that makes value obvious -9. Layer on a trend — only if genuine, optional -10. Capture the positioning — multiple formats: Moore statement, Onliness, elevator pitch - -**Common pitfalls by component:** - -- **Alternatives:** Only listing direct competitors. Miss the status quo — manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring someone, doing nothing. These are often the real competition. -- **Attributes:** Listing features that alternatives also have. That is table stakes, not differentiation. If two competitors also have it, it is not unique. -- **Value Themes:** Staying at the feature level instead of translating to outcomes. "AI-powered" is an attribute. "Get answers in seconds instead of hours" is a value theme. -- **Best-Fit Customers:** Too broad ("SMBs") or demographic ("25-34 year olds") instead of characteristic-based. Define by behaviors, situations, and needs that make them care more. -- **Category:** Inventing a category nobody searches for. If customers cannot Google it, they cannot find you. - ---- - -## 2. Geoffrey Moore — Crossing the Chasm Positioning Statement - -**The template:** - -> **For** [target customer] -> **who** [statement of need/opportunity], -> **the** [product name] **is a** [market category] -> **that** [statement of key benefit]. -> **Unlike** [primary competitive alternative], -> **our product** [statement of primary differentiation]. - -**Field definitions:** - -- **Target customer** = Dunford component 4: Best-Fit Customers -- **Need** = The job to be done (from JTBD analysis) -- **Category** = Dunford component 5: Market Category -- **Key benefit** = Dunford component 3: Value Themes (pick the strongest) -- **Alternative** = Dunford component 1: top Competitive Alternative -- **Differentiation** = Dunford component 2: Unique Attributes (most defensible) - -**Example:** - -For mid-market engineering teams who need to track deployment reliability across microservices, DeployWatch is a deployment observability platform that surfaces breaking changes before they reach production. Unlike generic APM tools, DeployWatch correlates deployments with performance regressions in real-time. - ---- - -## 3. Marty Neumeier — Zag (Onliness Statement) - -**Basic template:** - -> Our [brand/product] is the only [category] that [point of radical differentiation]. - -**Extended template (6 elements):** - -> - **WHAT:** The category you are in -> - **HOW:** Your point of differentiation -> - **WHO:** Your target audience -> - **WHERE:** Your market geography -> - **WHY:** The customer need you fulfill -> - **WHEN:** The trend or moment that makes this relevant - -**Example (Harley-Davidson):** - -"The only motorcycle manufacturer [WHAT] that makes big, loud motorcycles [HOW] for macho guys and macho wannabes [WHO] mostly in the United States [WHERE] who want to join a gang of cowboys [WHY] in an era of decreasing personal freedom [WHEN]." - -**How to use as validation:** - -- If you cannot complete the basic statement convincingly, your positioning lacks a clear differentiator -- If "only" feels like a stretch, you have not found genuinely unique ground yet -- The extended version forces completeness — every element should feel natural, not forced -- Try completing it from the customer's perspective: would THEY describe you this way? - ---- - -## 4. JTBD — Jobs to Be Done - -**Core concept:** Customers do not buy products — they "hire" products to get a job done. The job is stable even as products come and go. - -**Three types of jobs:** - -- **Functional:** The practical task (e.g., "track my team's project status") -- **Social:** How they want to be perceived (e.g., "look organized and in control to stakeholders") -- **Emotional:** How they want to feel (e.g., "feel confident nothing is falling through the cracks") - -**Application to positioning:** - -- JTBD broadens the competitive alternative set — ALL solutions hired for the same job compete, regardless of category -- Understanding the emotional and social jobs reveals positioning angles that feature comparisons miss -- The language customers use to describe their job IS the language your positioning should use -- Underserved jobs (important but poorly satisfied) = strongest positioning opportunities - ---- - -## 5. Ries & Trout — Positioning Principles - -**Core principles from "Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind":** - -- **Positioning lives in the customer's mind, not your product.** It is about perception, not reality. You cannot force a position — you claim one that is available. -- **Simplicity wins.** In an over-communicated world, only simple messages get through. One idea, clearly stated. -- **The mental ladder.** Customers organize brands on mental ladders by attribute. You need to claim a rung. If the top rung is taken, find a different ladder. -- **First beats best.** Being first in a category (in the customer's mind) is more powerful than being better. If you cannot be first in an existing category, create a subcategory where you ARE first. -- **Consistency over time.** Positioning takes time to stick. Do not change it every quarter. Pick a position and hold it. - -**Application:** These principles act as a final sanity check. After building positioning through Dunford's process, test it: Is it simple? Does it claim one clear rung? Is that rung available? Would it stick over time? +可使用精益画布、待办任务（JTBD）、波特五力、SWOT、价值主张画布和定位五组件，但框架只是提问工具。每一格都要回到证据。中国市场额外检查：决策链与回款、城市/区域差异、平台依赖、私域与渠道层级、发票税务、备案许可、数据驻留和价格敏感度。海外基准只能作为假设，不能直接套用。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/honesty-protocol.md b/startup-positioning/references/honesty-protocol.md index 33aeba5..91cb9d8 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/honesty-protocol.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/honesty-protocol.md @@ -1,72 +1,16 @@ -# Radical Honesty Protocol +# 诚实与证据协议 -This skill exists to help founders make good decisions — not to feel good. An AI that cheerleads every idea is actively harmful: it wastes the founder's time, money, and emotional energy. These principles are non-negotiable and apply to every phase. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Tell the truth, even when it's uncomfortable +## 四类陈述 -- If the market is too small, say so directly. Don't soften "$12M and shrinking" into "room for a focused player." -- If the idea has a fatal flaw, name it up front. Don't bury it in a list of minor risks. -- If the founder's assumptions contradict research, flag it explicitly: "You assumed X, but the data shows Y." -- Challenge "everyone needs this" (who specifically?), "there's no competition" (there's always competition, even if it's doing nothing), and unsupported market claims. -- Never use vague positive language to avoid delivering bad news. Replace "interesting opportunity" with the specific finding. +1. **事实**：有可访问来源、日期和明确口径。 +2. **推断**：由事实推导，写出推理链和置信度。 +3. **假设**：尚无证据，必须进入验证清单。 +4. **建议**：说明依据、成本、风险和停止条件。 -## Separate facts from opinions +不得编造链接、引用、用户原话、价格、融资、牌照、备案、客户或市场规模。搜索不到不等于不存在。来源受登录、反爬或付费墙限制时直接说明。关键数据优先两类独立来源；转载不得算独立佐证。发现证据冲突时并列展示，不擅自取对自己有利的一项。 -- Label every major claim with its basis: - - **[Data]** — sourced finding with citation - - **[Estimate]** — calculated projection with stated assumptions - - **[Assumption]** — unverified belief that needs testing - - **[Opinion]** — your analytical judgment -- When data is missing or weak, say so. -- Never present estimates as facts. -- A confident-sounding fabrication is worse than an honest "I don't know." +## 中国市场敏感边界 -## Surface flags proactively - -In every output file, include a **Flags** section at the end: - -- **Red Flags** — Issues that could undermine the positioning or the business. -- **Yellow Flags** — Concerns that need investigation or monitoring. - -If there are no flags, write "No flags identified" — don't skip the section. - -## Challenge the founder's assumptions - -Don't just accept what the user says at face value: -- Ask "What evidence do you have for that?" when the founder makes positioning claims -- Push back on "we're unique" — in what way, specifically? -- Question "there's no competition" — there's always competition, even doing nothing -- When the founder is emotionally attached to a positioning or category, note it and test it against data - -## Positioning-Specific Rules - -1. **No aspirational positioning.** Position based on current capabilities, not roadmap promises. "We plan to add AI" is not a positioning attribute — it's a hope. If the product doesn't deliver on the positioning TODAY, it will fail at first customer contact. - -2. **Challenge "we're unique."** If the Onliness Statement isn't convincing, say so directly. Most products aren't truly unique — the skill's job is to find the angle where they ARE unique for a specific customer in a specific context. Generic uniqueness claims are lazy positioning. - -3. **Test against customer reality.** If customer language from research doesn't match the proposed positioning, the research wins. Positioning that sounds great in a boardroom but doesn't resonate with actual buyers is worse than no positioning — it creates false confidence. - -4. **Flag category creation risk.** If the recommended positioning requires educating buyers on a new category, explicitly flag the cost, time, and risk. Most startups don't have the resources, patience, or market power to create a new category. Default to existing categories or subcategories unless the evidence is overwhelming. - -5. **Rate positioning strength honestly.** The final positioning doc must include an honest strength assessment: - - **Strong** — Clear, defensible, resonant with customer language, occupies available mental position - - **Moderate** — Works but has gaps (e.g., differentiation is real but narrow, or best-fit segment is small) - - **Needs Work** — Positioning is weak, generic, or untestable. Don't deliver weak positioning as if it's strong. - -## Positioning Anti-Patterns - -| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say | -|---|---|---| -| "We're for everyone" | No target segment defined | "If you're for everyone, you're for no one. Who cares MOST about this value?" | -| Feature-based positioning | Leading with features not outcomes | "Customers don't buy features. What outcome do they get? What changes for them?" | -| Aspirational positioning | "We'll be the AI-powered..." | "Position on what you deliver today. The roadmap isn't positioning — it's hope." | -| Category-of-one | Inventing a category to avoid comparison | "New categories cost millions to establish. Is there an existing frame that works?" | -| Copycat positioning | Same message as the market leader | "You can't out-position the leader on their own terms. Find genuinely different ground." | -| "Better and cheaper" | Claiming to beat incumbents on everything | "Pick your battle. You can't be best at everything — where do you win decisively?" | -| Positioning by negation | "We're NOT like them" | "What ARE you? Buyers remember what you stand for, not what you stand against." | - -## Ground rules - -- **Ground in evidence.** Every positioning claim should trace to research findings. -- **Make it actionable.** Positioning that can't be implemented is worthless. -- **No fabrication.** If data not found, say so. +不提供法律、税务、证券或医疗结论；只识别风险并建议咨询持证专业人士。处理社区内容时去标识化，不收集无关个人信息。不得建议刷量、虚假评价、诱导分享、绕过平台规则或监管。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/research-principles.md b/startup-positioning/references/research-principles.md index e43e338..e29798e 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/research-principles.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/research-principles.md @@ -1,64 +1,17 @@ -# Research Principles +# 中国市场研究原则 -These principles apply to ALL research agents across all waves. Every agent must follow them. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Iterative Deep Research +## 来源优先级 -Each agent performs **5-8 web searches minimum**, organized in sequential rounds that drill deeper: -- Round 1: Broad overview queries -- Round 2: Drill-down into specific findings from Round 1 -- Round 3: Cross-reference and validate -- Round 4: Reality check and edge cases +1. 国务院及部委、地方政府、国家/地方统计局、法院与交易所等一手公开材料； +2. 企业官网、公告、帮助中心、定价页、应用商店页面与官方账号； +3. 行业协会、学术机构、可信研究机构； +4. 主流媒体； +5. 知乎、小红书、B站、微博、脉脉、即刻、电商评论和垂直论坛等用户信号。 -Do NOT stop after a single query. The first search gives you the surface — the follow-ups give you the insight. +社区内容适合发现语言、场景和抱怨，不适合直接推算全国市场。记录检索词、访问日期、样本量、平台偏差和缺失。中文与英文关键词并用，加入城市层级、行业俗称、政策用语和竞品品牌词。 -## Source Quality Tiers +## 数据口径 -Rank every finding by source reliability: - -| Tier | Source Type | Use For | -|------|-----------|---------| -| **Tier 1** | Industry reports (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, IBISWorld), SEC filings, government data, G2/Capterra aggregate data | Hard numbers, market share, verified metrics | -| **Tier 2** | Reputable tech press (TechCrunch, Bloomberg, WSJ), company press releases, Crunchbase, investor presentations | Funding data, company news, expert opinions | -| **Tier 3** | Blog posts, Reddit threads, individual reviews, social media | Sentiment, customer voice, anecdotal evidence | - -For positioning research, Tier 3 sources are ESPECIALLY valuable — customer reviews and forum posts reveal how buyers describe their problems and what "better" means to them. This is the language map that drives positioning. But don't use them for hard numbers. - -## Positioning-Specific Search Strategies - -When researching alternatives and buyer behavior: -- Search for "what do you use for [problem]", "[competitor] vs", "switching from [tool]", "alternative to [tool]" -- These queries surface the language customers actually use, revealing positioning opportunities - -When researching category definitions: -- Search for analyst reports on category definitions, Gartner/Forrester quadrants, buyer guides -- Track how the category is evolving — new subcategories and adjacent spaces signal positioning white space - -## Cross-Referencing - -Never trust a single source for important claims. For every key finding: -- Look for 2-3 independent sources -- If sources agree: note convergence and cite all -- If sources disagree: note both figures, explain the discrepancy, and state which you trust more and why - -## Quantification - -Vague claims are worthless. Always push for numbers: -- Bad: "They're a big player" -- Good: "$12M ARR, 2,500+ customers, Series B ($28M from Accel)" -- Bad: "Their pricing is high" -- Good: "$49/seat/mo for Pro, $99/seat/mo for Enterprise, vs. market median of $35/seat/mo" - -## Dating - -Always note when data was published. Flag anything older than 12 months as potentially outdated. Positioning landscapes shift fast — a funding round, pivot, or acquisition can change everything in weeks. - -## Handling Research Failures - -Sometimes WebSearch won't find what you need: - -1. **Try alternative queries.** Rephrase, use synonyms, try different angles. At least 3 variations before declaring a gap. -2. **Use proxy data.** If you can't find a competitor's revenue, estimate from team size, funding, pricing × estimated customers. Show your math. -3. **Declare the gap explicitly.** Write: "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]. Closest proxy: [Y]. Confidence: Low." -4. **Never fabricate.** An honest "unknown" is infinitely more valuable than a made-up number. -5. **Suggest how to fill the gap.** Point to specific reports or recommend reaching out to the competitor's customers directly. +市场规模注明年份、地域、含税口径和汇率；企业信息区分工商登记、官方披露和第三方推算；收入区分 GMV、合同额、回款和确认收入；用户量区分注册、月活、付费与企业客户。所有实时信息在交付前复核。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/research-scaling.md b/startup-positioning/references/research-scaling.md index a6bed15..1d7f128 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/research-scaling.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/research-scaling.md @@ -1,96 +1,13 @@ -# Research Scaling Protocol +# 动态研究深度 -Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Complexity Score +## 评分 -Assess three factors from the intake data: +市场宽度、已知竞品、地域跨度各 1—3 分，总分 3—9： -| Factor | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | -|--------|---------|------------|----------| -| **Market breadth** | Ultra-niche, few players, well-defined segment | Defined market, moderate competition | Broad market, many segments, diverse players | -| **Known competitors** | 0-2 identified | 3-5 identified | 6+ identified | -| **Geographic scope** | Single country | Regional (e.g., Europe, North America) | Global or multi-region | +- **轻量（3—4）**：每轮合并任务，2—3 组检索，适合单一城市或窄品类。 +- **标准（5—7）**：按技能默认轮次，3—4 组检索，覆盖主要渠道。 +- **深度（8—9）**：拆分更多研究任务，5—6 组检索，覆盖区域/细分差异与反证。 -**Complexity score** = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9) - -## Research Depth Tiers - -| Tier | Score Range | Manual Trigger | Description | -|------|-----------|----------------|-------------| -| **Light** | 3-4 | User says "light", "quick", or "fast research" | Quick scan, fewer agents, 2-3 search rounds | -| **Standard** | 5-7 | Default (no override needed) | Current behavior, balanced depth | -| **Deep** | 8-9 | User says "deep", "thorough", or "deep research" | More agents, 5-6 search rounds, extra coverage | - -**Manual override always wins.** If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep. - -## User Communication - -After calculating the score, show this to the user: - -``` -## Research Depth - -Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity: - -| Factor | Assessment | Score | -|------------------|---------------------|-------| -| Market breadth | {description} | {1-3} | -| Known competitors| {N} identified | {1-3} | -| Geographic scope | {description} | {1-3} | - -**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}** - -You can override this. Here's what each depth means: - -| Depth | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for | -|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------| -| **Light** | {N} | 2-3 rounds | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions | -| **Standard** | {N} | 3-4 rounds | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed | -| **Deep** | {N} | 5-6 rounds | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence | - -→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation. -``` - -The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below). - -## Wave Configuration: startup-positioning - -### Light (3-4 score or user override) - -**Wave 1** (1 wave, 2 agents) -- A1: Alternative Mapping & Customer Intelligence (merge A1+A2 into one agent) -- B1: Market Category & Trends (merge B1+B2 into one agent) - -Merge both waves into a single wave since there's no dependency between them at this scale. - -**Total: 2 agents** (vs. 4 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent - -### Standard (5-7 score, default) - -No changes to current wave structure: -- Wave 1: 2 agents (A1, A2) -- Wave 2: 2 agents (B1, B2) - -**Total: 4 agents**, 3-4 search rounds per agent - -### Deep (8-9 score or user override) - -**Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives & Customer** (3 agents) -- A1: Alternative Mapping (unchanged) -- A2: Customer Intelligence (unchanged) -- A3: Positioning Perception Audit (NEW: research how competitors position themselves, what messaging they use, what category they claim, where buyer perception differs from positioning intent) - -**Wave 2: Market Frame & Trends** (2 agents) -- B1: Market Category Analysis (unchanged) -- B2: Trend & Timing Analysis (unchanged) - -**Total: 5 agents**, 5-6 search rounds per agent - -## PROGRESS.md - -Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md: - -```markdown -- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto}) -``` +向用户展示推荐档位、预计研究轮次、主要来源和局限，让用户回复“轻量 / 深度 / 按推荐”。免费模型上下文不足时分阶段落盘，不能通过删掉来源和反证来省 token。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/research-synthesis.md b/startup-positioning/references/research-synthesis.md index 29a183f..d3f25db 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/research-synthesis.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/research-synthesis.md @@ -1,421 +1,13 @@ -# Positioning Research Synthesis Protocol +# 研究综合方法 -**Contents:** Before Writing · Cross-Wave Connections to Look For · Confidence Rating · Dunford's 5+1 Components — Detailed Synthesis Process · Validation Tests · Output File Templates (positioning-doc, positioning-statement, competitive-alternatives, market-category-analysis, messaging-implications) · Post-Synthesis Verification +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## Before Writing +## 综合顺序 -1. Read ALL raw files in `{project-name}/raw/` before writing anything -2. Look for patterns that repeat across multiple sources -3. Identify contradictions — explain which source to trust and why -4. Connect the dots across Wave 1 and Wave 2 +1. 按研究问题整理证据，不按来源堆砌摘要。 +2. 合并重复转载，标记时间、地域和口径冲突。 +3. 提取共识、反证、异常值和重要空白。 +4. 用“事实—含义—行动”形成结论，并给高/中/低置信度。 +5. 生成未来 30 天可执行验证：负责人、成本、成功指标和停止条件。 -## Cross-Wave Connections to Look For - -These are positioning-specific patterns that emerge when you combine raw research: - -- **Customer pain + alternative limitation = positioning opportunity** — your product addresses the pain where alternatives fall short -- **Best-fit customer characteristics + category expectations = right market frame** — the category where your best customers already shop -- **Customer language + switching triggers = messaging foundation** — position in the words customers already use -- **Trend + buyer expectation shift = timing advantage** — position now while the frame is forming -- **Multiple alternatives failing at the same job = underserved JTBD** — opportunity to own a job that nobody does well - -## Confidence Rating - -Apply to every major claim in the final deliverables: - -- **High:** Multiple Tier 1/2 sources agree, recent data, matches customer voice -- **Medium:** Some evidence but gaps, or sources partially disagree -- **Low:** Limited data, mostly inferred, or data older than 12 months - ---- - -## Dunford's 5+1 Components — Detailed Synthesis Process - -Work through each component in order. Each one builds on the last. - -### 1. Competitive Alternatives - -- Pull from `raw/alternative-mapping.md` -- Organize by job-match relevance (closest job match first) -- Include non-obvious alternatives — the "do nothing" option is often the real competitor -- Common mistake: Only listing direct competitors. The founder already knows those. The value is surfacing alternatives they haven't considered. -- For each alternative, note: what job it solves, how well, and where it breaks down - -### 2. Unique Attributes - -- This step is COLLABORATIVE — present what research reveals, then ask the founder to confirm and add -- Look for attributes in: product capabilities, technical architecture, team expertise, business model, speed, integrations, data access -- Be specific: "Drag-and-drop workflow builder requiring zero code" not "easy to use" -- Test each attribute: Is it truly unique? Or do alternatives have it too? -- If alternatives have it, it's not a positioning attribute — it's table stakes -- Aim for 5-10 candidates; the best positioning uses 3-5 - -### 3. Value Themes - -- For each unique attribute, ask: "So what? What does this enable for the customer?" -- Chain: Attribute → "which means that..." → customer outcome -- Group related attributes into 2-3 themes maximum (more than 3 dilutes the message) -- USE THE LANGUAGE MAP from customer intelligence — frame value in the words customers already use -- Test: Would a customer care about this? Would they pay for it? -- If a value theme doesn't connect to a real customer pain from Wave 2, drop it - -**Category language vs. Customer language check:** -Customers often describe their problem using words that would position the product in the wrong category. Example: founders search "validate my startup idea" (customer language), but "validation tool" triggers the wrong buyer expectations (instant score, shallow analysis). When this tension exists: -- Document both the customer verbs and the category nouns -- Recommend bridging in copy: use customer verbs + category nouns (e.g., "validate your startup idea" as the action, "validated strategy" as the outcome) -- Flag this explicitly in the messaging-implications deliverable so copywriters know which words are customer-language (use as verbs) and which are category-language (use as outcomes/nouns) - -### 4. Best-Fit Customers - -- Pull from `raw/customer-intelligence.md` — best-fit customer profile -- Define by characteristics that make them CARE MORE, not demographics -- Good: "Mid-market teams with 5-15 people who outgrew spreadsheets but can't afford enterprise tools" -- Bad: "Companies with 50-200 employees in the US" -- The right best-fit customers: get value fast, don't haggle price, become champions -- Cross-check: do these customers actually experience the pains your value themes address? - -### 5. Market Category - -- Pull from `raw/market-categories.md` -- Present 2-3 top candidates with pros/cons for each -- Recommend one with clear reasoning -- The right category makes the value OBVIOUS without explanation -- If unsure between two: default to the one where the product has the strongest existing proof points -- Consider: existing category, subcategory, or new category (new is highest risk) -- **Separate three things clearly:** (1) the category label (what the product IS), (2) the value anchor (what you compare value TO), (3) the distribution descriptor (HOW to get it). These are different and serve different purposes in copy. Example: category = "AI Startup Strategy Toolkit", value anchor = "what a $10K consultant delivers", distribution = "open-source Claude skill" - -### 6. Trend Overlay (Optional) - -- Pull from `raw/trends-timing.md` -- Only include if a trend genuinely amplifies the positioning -- "None" is a valid and often better answer than a forced trend -- A bad trend overlay makes positioning feel gimmicky -- Good test: Would the positioning still work without the trend? If yes, the trend is a bonus. If no, the positioning is too dependent on hype. - ---- - -## Validation Tests - -Run all three tests on the synthesized positioning. If any test fails, iterate on the 5+1 components before finalizing. - -### Test 1: Neumeier Onliness Statement - -Basic form: -> "Our [product] is the only [category] that [key differentiator]." - -Extended (6 elements): -> - **WHAT:** The category -> - **HOW:** The point of radical differentiation -> - **WHO:** The target audience -> - **WHERE:** The market geography -> - **WHY:** The need it fulfills -> - **WHEN:** The underlying trend - -If the basic statement isn't convincing — if "only" feels like a stretch — the positioning needs more work. Go back to components 2-3 and sharpen. - -### Test 2: Moore Positioning Statement - -> **For** [target customer] -> **who** [statement of need/opportunity], -> **the** [product name] **is a** [market category] -> **that** [statement of key benefit]. -> **Unlike** [primary competitive alternative], -> **our product** [statement of primary differentiation]. - -Every field must be fillable with confidence. If any field is vague or generic, the component it draws from needs work. - -### Test 3: Ries/Trout Mental Ladder - -- Can you state the position in 10 words or fewer? -- Does it claim ONE clear rung (not "best at everything")? -- Is that rung available (not already owned by a stronger competitor)? -- Would a customer use these words to describe you to a colleague? - -If any test fails, iterate on the 5+1 components. Do not ship weak positioning. - ---- - -## Output File Templates - -### positioning-doc.md - -```markdown -# Market Positioning: {product} -*Skill: startup-positioning | Generated: {date}* - -## Executive Summary -{Positioning in 3 sentences: who you are, for whom, why you win.} - -## 1. Competitive Alternatives -{What customers would do if your product didn't exist. Full map from research.} - -### Alternative Landscape -| Alternative | Type | Job Match | Where It Falls Short | -|---|---|---|---| - -> **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low — {reasoning} - -## 2. Unique Attributes -| Attribute | Evidence | Defensible? | -|---|---|---| - -> **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low — {reasoning} - -## 3. Value Themes -### Theme 1: {name} -- **Attributes:** {which unique attributes drive this} -- **Customer outcome:** {in their language} -- **Evidence:** {from research} - -### Theme 2: {name} -[same structure] - -> **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low — {reasoning} - -## 4. Best-Fit Customers -**Profile:** {characteristics that predict high value and fast adoption} -**Evidence:** {from customer intelligence} -**Why they care more:** {what makes this value theme critical for them vs. others} - -> **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low — {reasoning} - -## 5. Market Category -**Chosen category:** {name} ({type: existing / subcategory / new}) -**Why this frame:** {reasoning — how it makes unique value obvious} -**Buyer expectations:** {what this category signals to buyers} -**Risk:** {what expectations might work against you} - -> **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low — {reasoning} - -## 6. Trend Overlay -{Trend and how it amplifies positioning — or "None. The positioning stands on its own."} -**Would the positioning work without this trend?** {Yes/No + reasoning. If No, the positioning is too trend-dependent — revisit.} - -> **Confidence:** High/Medium/Low — {reasoning} - -## Positioning Strength Assessment -| Component | Strength | Notes | -|---|---|---| -| Competitive Alternatives | Strong/Moderate/Needs Work | {brief} | -| Unique Attributes | ... | ... | -| Value Themes | ... | ... | -| Best-Fit Customers | ... | ... | -| Market Category | ... | ... | -| Overall | ... | ... | - -## Strategic Recommendations -{next steps for implementing the positioning} - -**Social proof warning:** Do not fabricate or pre-write social proof quotes. Only use quotes from published, verifiable sources. Placeholder quotes damage credibility more than no quotes at all. Build social proof by encouraging early users to share results publicly, then reference those real posts. - -## Red Flags -- {issues that could undermine this positioning} - -## Yellow Flags -- {concerns to monitor} - -## Data Gaps & Limitations -- {what data is missing and how to fill it} - -## Sources -- {key sources with tier ratings} -``` - -### positioning-statement.md - -```markdown -# Positioning Statements: {product} -*Skill: startup-positioning | Generated: {date}* - -## Moore Positioning Statement -For [target customer] who [need/opportunity], [product] is a [category] that [key benefit]. Unlike [primary alternative], our product [primary differentiation]. - -## Neumeier Onliness Statement -[product] is the only [category] that [key differentiator]. - -## Onliness Statement (Extended) -- **WHAT:** {category} -- **HOW:** {point of differentiation} -- **WHO:** {target audience} -- **WHERE:** {market} -- **WHY:** {need it fulfills} -- **WHEN:** {underlying trend} - -## Elevator Pitch (30 seconds) -{Conversational version of the positioning — what you'd say at a dinner party} - -## Tagline Candidates - -| Tagline | Angle | Best For | Possible Misread | -|---------|-------|----------|-----------------| -| {tagline 1} | {angle} | {context} | {how could a reader misinterpret this?} | -| {tagline 2} | {angle} | {context} | {possible objection or wrong reading} | - -For each tagline, actively ask: "What could a skeptical reader think when reading this? What objection does it trigger?" If the misread is serious (e.g., sounds condescending, makes an assumption about the reader's situation, or positions in the wrong category), flag it and suggest a safer alternative. - -## One-Liner Variants - -Provide context-specific versions: -- **For GitHub README:** {lead with open-source, end with free} -- **For marketplace listing:** {lead with what user can DO, list deliverables} -- **For social media:** {hook + transformation + differentiator} -- **For elevator pitch:** {conversational, 30 seconds} - -## Freemium Positioning (if applicable) - -If the product has or plans a freemium model: - -**Free tier message:** {how to communicate that free is complete, not limited} -**Premium tier message:** {how to communicate premium extends, not unlocks} -**Upgrade trigger:** {natural moment when user would want premium} - -Anti-pattern: never make the free tier feel "incomplete" to push premium. The free tier should deliver full value for its scope. Premium adds a different scope (e.g., strategy vs. execution), not "more of the same." - -## Validation Notes -- Onliness Test: {Pass/Fail + notes} -- Moore Template: {Pass/Fail + notes} -- Mental Ladder: {Pass/Fail + notes} -- Overall Positioning Strength: Strong / Moderate / Needs Work -``` - -### competitive-alternatives.md - -```markdown -# Competitive Alternatives Map: {product} -*Skill: startup-positioning | Generated: {date}* - -## The Job to Be Done -{Core job customers are hiring for} - -## Direct Competitors -[table or structured sections from raw data] - -## Adjacent Alternatives -[from raw data] - -## Manual / Status Quo -[from raw data] - -## Your Unique Attributes vs. Each Alternative -| Alternative | What They Offer | Where You Win | Where They Win | -|---|---|---|---| - -## Switching Cost Analysis -| Alternative | Technical | Contractual | Emotional | Net Switching Barrier | -|---|---|---|---|---| -| {name} | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | {summary} | - -## Key Positioning Insights -- {what the alternative landscape tells us about positioning} - -## Red Flags -- {issues in the competitive alternative landscape} - -## Yellow Flags -- {concerns to monitor} - -## Sources -- {key sources with tier ratings} -``` - -### market-category-analysis.md - -```markdown -# Market Category Analysis: {product} -*Skill: startup-positioning | Generated: {date}* - -## Candidate Categories -### {Category 1}: {type} -[from raw data + synthesis] - -## Recommendation -{Chosen category with reasoning} - -## Implementation -- **Category label:** {exact words to use} -- **Tagline direction:** {how to frame it} -- **Buyer expectation alignment:** {what expectations you meet, which you need to manage} - -## Red Flags -- {issues that could undermine the category choice} - -## Yellow Flags -- {concerns to monitor} - -## Data Gaps -- {what data is missing about category dynamics} - -## Sources -- {key sources with tier ratings} -``` - -## Post-Synthesis Verification - -After writing all deliverables, run the Verification Agent protocol. See `references/verification-agent.md` for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-positioning-specific coherence (positioning statement vs. research data, JTBD vs. customer intelligence, cross-deliverable messaging consistency, validation test integrity). - ---- - -### messaging-implications.md - -```markdown -# Messaging Implications: {product} -*Skill: startup-positioning | Generated: {date}* - -## Messaging Hierarchy - -What to communicate first, second, third. Every piece of copy should follow this priority: - -1. {Primary message — the outcome, what the user gets} -2. {Secondary — time/effort, how fast or easy} -3. {Tertiary — key differentiator} -4. {Fourth — cost/access} -5. {Fifth — specific deliverables or features} -6. {Sixth — value anchor or comparison} - -Not every piece of copy needs all levels. But when present, they should appear in this order. - -## Category Label - -**Always use:** "{exact category phrase}" - -Use this exact phrase consistently across: website, GitHub, marketplace, social bios, README. - -## Value Anchor - -**"{value anchor phrase}"** — used in supporting copy to set perceived value. This is NOT the category label. The category describes WHAT it is. The value anchor describes WHAT IT'S WORTH. - -Where to use: body copy, comparison sections, pricing context. -Where NOT to use: headlines, category descriptions, taglines (unless carefully tested). - -## Customer Language vs. Category Language - -| Customer says (use as verbs) | Category says (use as nouns/outcomes) | -|------------------------------|--------------------------------------| -| {e.g., "validate my idea"} | {e.g., "validated strategy"} | - -Bridge in copy: use customer verbs with category nouns. - -## Words to Use / Avoid - -| Use | Instead of | Why | -|-----|-----------|-----| -| {preferred term} | {avoided term} | {reason from positioning} | - -## Social Proof Guidelines - -Do not fabricate or pre-write social proof. Only use quotes from published, verifiable sources. Placeholder quotes damage credibility more than no quotes at all. If no real social proof exists yet, omit the section entirely and note it as a gap to fill. - -## Freemium Positioning (if applicable) - -**Free tier message:** {how to communicate that free is complete, not limited} -**Premium tier message:** {how to communicate premium extends, not unlocks} -**Upgrade trigger:** {natural moment when user would want premium} - -Anti-pattern: never make the free tier feel "incomplete" to push premium. The free tier should deliver full value for its scope. Premium adds a different scope (e.g., strategy vs. execution), not "more of the same." - -## Red Flags -- {messaging risks} - -## Sources -- {key sources} -``` +综合报告必须包含执行摘要、关键证据表、风险与反方观点、数据缺口和来源清单。不得用漂亮框架掩盖证据不足。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md b/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md index 53d9752..bea43bb 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-1-alternatives.md @@ -1,236 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 1: Competitive Alternatives & Customer Context +# 第一轮：替代方案与客户语言 -Read `research-principles.md` first. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent A1: Alternative Mapping (JTBD Lens) - -``` -Research task: Map ALL competitive alternatives for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Known competitors: {list from intake, if any} - -IMPORTANT — JTBD FRAMING: -Start with the job, not the product. Ask: "What job is the customer hiring -a solution for?" Alternatives are EVERYTHING that competes for this job: -direct competitors, adjacent tools, manual processes, spreadsheets, hiring -someone, agencies, internal tools, doing nothing / accepting the status quo. -Think from the customer's perspective, not the product's perspective. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Direct competitors in the category (4-5 searches): -- "{product category} software/tool {current year}" -- "best {product category} tools {current year}" -- "{known competitor} vs alternatives" -- "G2 {product category} comparison" -- "{product category} review roundup {current year}" - -ROUND 2 — Adjacent and indirect alternatives (4-5 searches): -- "how do people solve {problem} without {product category}" -- "{problem} workaround" -- "alternative to {product category}" -- "{problem} spreadsheet template" OR "{problem} manual process" -- "{customer type} {problem} workflow" - -ROUND 3 — Non-consumption (2-3 searches): -- "why don't {customer type} use {product category}" -- "{problem} not worth solving" OR "{problem} low priority" -- "{customer type} ignore {problem}" OR "{problem} status quo" -Identify: who faces this problem but does nothing? Why? What would trigger -them to act? - -ROUND 4 — Cross-reference and validate (2-3 searches): -- "{competitor} switched from" OR "migrated from {competitor}" -- "replaced {competitor} with" -- "{product category} switching stories reddit" -Check review sites for "switched from" and "previously used" stories. - -For EACH alternative, capture: - -### {Alternative Name} -- **Type:** Direct competitor / Adjacent tool / Manual process / Status quo / Agency-outsource -- **Hired for:** {specific job — same job or adjacent job?} -- **Strengths:** {why customers choose it} - - {strength 1} - - {strength 2} -- **Limitations:** {where it falls short} - - {limitation 1} - - {limitation 2} -- **Best for:** {customer profile} -- **Switching triggers:** {what makes customers leave this for something else} -- **Switching costs:** Technical: H/M/L | Contractual: H/M/L | Emotional: H/M/L - ---- - -After all alternatives: - -# Alternative Mapping: {product/market} -*Generated: {date}* - -## The Job to Be Done -{1-2 paragraphs describing the core job customers are hiring for, in customer language} - -## Direct Competitors -### {Competitor Name} -- **Type:** Direct competitor -- **Hired for:** {specific job} -- **Strengths:** {bulleted} -- **Limitations:** {bulleted} -- **Best for:** {customer profile} -- **Switching triggers:** {what makes people leave} -- **Switching costs:** Technical: H/M/L | Contractual: H/M/L | Emotional: H/M/L - -[Repeat for each direct competitor] - -## Adjacent Alternatives -[Same structure for adjacent tools] - -## Manual / Status Quo Alternatives -[Same structure for manual processes, spreadsheets, doing nothing] - -## Alternative Landscape Summary -| Alternative | Type | Job Match | Key Strength | Key Limitation | -|---|---|---|---|---| -| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | - -## Key Insights -- {insight about the competitive alternative landscape} -- {insight about gaps or opportunities} - -## Data Gaps -- [What you couldn't find and why it matters] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/alternative-mapping.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent A2: Customer Intelligence - -``` -Research task: Map the voice of the customer for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Category: {product category} -Top competitors: {list from intake, if any} - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Review sites (4-5 searches): -- "G2 {product category} reviews" -- "Capterra {product category} reviews" -- "TrustRadius {product category}" -- "{top competitor 1} reviews {current year}" -- "{top competitor 2} reviews {current year}" -Focus on: what customers praise, what they complain about, exact language -they use to describe the problem and desired outcomes. - -ROUND 2 — Community mining (4-5 searches): -- "what do you use for {problem} reddit" -- "{competitor} frustrations reddit" -- "switching from {competitor} reddit" -- "{problem} {customer type} Hacker News" -- "{product category} recommendations indie hackers" OR "quora {problem}" -Capture verbatim language — exact words matter for positioning. - -ROUND 3 — Switching stories (3-4 searches): -- "migrated from {competitor 1} to {competitor 2}" -- "{product category} comparison {current year}" -- "why I switched from {competitor}" blog OR reddit -- "{competitor} vs {competitor} experience" -Focus on: what triggered the search, what sealed the decision, what -surprised them after switching. - -ROUND 4 — Best-fit customer patterns (2-3 searches): -- "{competitor} case study" -- "{product category} power users" -- "{competitor} testimonial" -- "{product category} ROI" OR "{product category} results" -Look for: who gets the most value, what characteristics predict high -satisfaction, who pays willingly without negotiation. - -Capture the following: - -LANGUAGE MAP — exact words and phrases customers use to describe: -- The problem they're solving -- What they want (desired outcomes) -- How they evaluate alternatives -- What "better" means to them - -PAIN HIERARCHY — ranked by frequency AND severity: -- Pain point -- Frequency (Common / Occasional / Rare) -- Severity (Deal-breaker / Frustrating / Annoying) -- Verbatim quote from a real source - -JOBS TO BE DONE: -- Functional jobs (tasks they need to accomplish) -- Social jobs (how they want to be perceived) -- Emotional jobs (how they want to feel) - -BEST-FIT CUSTOMER PROFILE: -- What characteristics predict high satisfaction? -- Who gets value fastest? -- Who pays willingly without price negotiation? -- Who becomes a champion/referrer? - -SWITCHING TRIGGERS: -- What events trigger a search for alternatives? -- What makes someone finally switch? -- What objections prevent switching? - ---- - -Output format: - -# Customer Intelligence: {product/market} -*Generated: {date}* - -## Language Map -### How customers describe the problem -- "{verbatim}" — {source} -- "{verbatim}" — {source} - -### What "better" means to them -- "{verbatim}" — {source} - -### Words they use to evaluate -- "{verbatim}" — {source} - -## Pain Hierarchy -| Pain Point | Frequency | Severity | Example Quote | -|---|---|---|---| -| ... | Common/Occasional/Rare | Deal-breaker/Frustrating/Annoying | "..." | - -## Jobs to Be Done -### Functional Jobs -- {job description} - -### Social Jobs -- {job description} - -### Emotional Jobs -- {job description} - -## Best-Fit Customer Profile -{Description of characteristics that predict high satisfaction and fast value realization} - -## Switching Triggers -### What triggers a search -- {trigger} - -### What triggers the actual switch -- {trigger} - -### What prevents switching -- {barrier} - -## Key Insights for Positioning -- {positioning-relevant insight from customer data} - -## Data Gaps -- [What you couldn't find and why it matters] - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/customer-intelligence.md -``` +从客户任务出发列出直接产品、通用工具、Excel/微信、人工服务、自建、外包和不处理。研究切换触发、购买阻力与客户原话，判断谁最在意我方能力。避免只列知名竞品。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md b/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md index 34d2a35..7e9e057 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/research-wave-2-market-frame.md @@ -1,208 +1,5 @@ -# Wave 2: Market Frame & Trends +# 第二轮：市场框架与品类 -Read `research-principles.md` first. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 ---- - -## Agent B1: Market Category Analysis - -``` -Research task: Identify and evaluate candidate market categories for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Competitive alternatives: {summary from Wave 1 alternative mapping} -Customer intelligence: {summary from Wave 1 customer intelligence} - -GOAL: -Identify 3-5 candidate market categories the product could position into. -The right category triggers the right buyer expectations — it is the frame -of reference that tells buyers what to compare you to and what to expect. - -THREE CATEGORY OPTIONS (from Dunford): -- Head-to-head (existing category): You're a better version of something - buyers already know (e.g., "CRM" or "project management"). Buyers have - established expectations. Win by being clearly better on dimensions that - matter. -- Big fish/small pond (subcategory): Take an existing category and add a - qualifier that makes you the leader of a narrower space (e.g., "CRM for - real estate agents", "AI-powered recruiting platform"). Best when existing - categories don't highlight your unique strength. -- Category creation: Define an entirely new category. Rare, expensive, and - risky — but powerful when nothing else frames your value well. Only - recommend if the evidence is overwhelming. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — How competitors frame themselves (4-5 searches): -- "{competitor 1} tagline" OR "{competitor 1} about page" -- "{competitor 2} LinkedIn description" -- "G2 {product category} category" -- "Capterra {product category} software directory" -- "{competitor} meta description site:{competitor domain}" -Capture: self-described categories, taglines, how they explain what they are. - -ROUND 2 — How analysts define the space (3-4 searches): -- "Gartner {product category} market guide {current year}" -- "Forrester {product category} wave {current year}" -- "{product category} market map {current year}" -- "{product category} buyer guide {current year}" -Capture: analyst-defined categories, segment names, market boundaries. - -ROUND 3 — How buyers search for solutions (3-4 searches): -- "how to choose a {product category}" -- "best {product category} for {customer type} {current year}" -- "{problem} software buyer guide" -- "what is {product category}" OR "{category term} vs {category term}" -Capture: category terms buyers use, search phrasing, buyer expectations. - -ROUND 4 — Category dynamics (3-4 searches): -- "{product category} market size {current year}" -- "{product category} market growth" OR "{product category} trends" -- "{product category} consolidation" OR "{product category} fragmentation" -- "new {product category} startups {current year}" -Capture: growth trajectory, competitive density, room for new entrants. - -For EACH candidate category, capture: - -### {Category Name} -- **Type:** Existing / Subcategory / New -- **Buyer expectations:** {what buyers assume a product in this category includes} -- **Current leaders:** {who owns this category in buyers' minds} -- **Competitive density:** Low / Medium / High — {count of notable players} -- **Growth trajectory:** Growing / Stable / Declining — {evidence} -- **Pros:** {what expectations work in your favor} -- **Cons:** {what expectations work against you, table stakes you lack} -- **Dunford fit:** Does this frame make your unique strengths OBVIOUS? {yes/no + reasoning} - ---- - -Output format: - -# Market Category Analysis: {product} -*Generated: {date}* - -## How Competitors Frame Themselves -| Competitor | Self-Described Category | Tagline | G2/Capterra Category | -|---|---|---|---| -| ... | ... | ... | ... | - -## Candidate Categories - -### Category 1: {name} -- **Type:** Existing / Subcategory / New -- **Buyer expectations:** {what buyers assume this category includes} -- **Current leaders:** {who dominates} -- **Competitive density:** Low / Medium / High — {count of notable players} -- **Growth:** Growing / Stable / Declining — {evidence} -- **Pros:** {what works in your favor} -- **Cons:** {what works against you, table stakes you lack} -- **Dunford fit:** Does this frame make your unique value obvious? {yes/no + reasoning} - -[Repeat for 3-5 candidates] - -## Category Comparison -| Category | Type | Leaders | Density | Your Fit | Risk | -|---|---|---|---|---|---| -| ... | ... | ... | ... | Strong/Moderate/Weak | H/M/L | - -## Recommendation -{Which category and why. If subcategory: what qualifier? If none fits well: explain why and whether category creation is warranted.} - -## Data Gaps -- {what couldn't be found, how to fill it} - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/market-categories.md -``` - ---- - -## Agent B2: Trend & Timing Analysis - -``` -Research task: Identify market trends and timing signals for {product description} -Context: {product summary from intake} -Category candidates: {from Agent B1 or best-guess category from intake} -Customer intelligence: {summary from Wave 1 customer intelligence} - -GOAL: -Identify market trends that could strengthen (or weaken) the product's -positioning, and assess whether the timing is right. - -KEY PRINCIPLE: -Only include trends that genuinely change how buyers evaluate solutions. -"AI is hot" is not useful. "Buyers now expect AI-powered automation in -[category], and 60% of RFPs require it" is useful. Every trend must connect -to a concrete positioning implication. - -RESEARCH PROTOCOL: - -ROUND 1 — Industry trend reports (4-5 searches): -- "{product category} trends {current year}" -- "{industry} market outlook {current year}" -- "{product category} predictions {current year}" -- "Gartner top trends {industry} {current year}" -- "{product category} state of the market {current year}" - -ROUND 2 — Technology adoption signals (3-4 searches): -- "{relevant technology} adoption rate {current year}" -- "Gartner Hype Cycle {industry} {current year}" -- "{relevant technology} enterprise adoption" -- "{product category} AI adoption" OR "{product category} automation trends" -Focus on: where the relevant technology sits on the adoption curve — is it -mainstream, early majority, or bleeding edge? - -ROUND 3 — Behavioral and regulatory shifts (3-4 searches): -- "{customer type} buying behavior changes {current year}" -- "{industry} new regulations {current year}" -- "{industry} compliance requirements {current year}" -- "{customer type} generational shift" OR "{customer type} workflow changes" -Focus on: changes in how buyers work, buy, or comply that affect what they -need from solutions. - -ROUND 4 — Timing signals (3-4 searches): -- "{product category} early adopter success stories" -- "{product category} failed startups" OR "{product category} too early" -- "{product category} market readiness" -- "{similar product} traction {current year}" -Focus on: is the market ready NOW? Are there predecessors that failed on -timing? Are early adopters already seeing results? - -For EACH trend, capture: - -### {Trend Name} -- **Type:** Technology / Behavioral / Regulatory / Economic -- **Evidence:** {what data supports this — cite sources} -- **Strength:** Strong / Emerging / Speculative -- **Direction for positioning:** Tailwind (helps) / Headwind (hurts) / Neutral -- **Timing:** Early / On-time / Late -- **Positioning implication:** {how this should affect positioning} - ---- - -Output format: - -# Trend & Timing Analysis: {product/market} -*Generated: {date}* - -## Relevant Trends - -### Trend 1: {name} -- **Type:** Technology / Behavioral / Regulatory / Economic -- **Evidence:** {what data supports this — cite sources} -- **Strength:** Strong / Emerging / Speculative -- **Direction for positioning:** Tailwind (helps) / Headwind (hurts) / Neutral -- **Timing:** Early / On-time / Late -- **Positioning implication:** {how this should affect positioning} - -[Repeat for each relevant trend] - -## Timing Assessment -{Overall assessment: Is NOW the right time for this positioning? What's the 12-18 month trajectory?} - -## Trend Overlay Recommendation -{Which trend(s), if any, should be referenced in the positioning? Only recommend trends that genuinely amplify the value proposition. "None" is a valid answer — forced trend alignment weakens positioning.} - -## Data Gaps -- {what couldn't be found} - -Save to: {project-name}/raw/trends-timing.md -``` +比较现有品类、子品类和新建品类三种路径，研究搜索词、客户认知、渠道归类、政策趋势和教育成本。推荐一个主框架并给失败条件，不能为了显得创新强造无人理解的新名词。 diff --git a/startup-positioning/references/verification-agent.md b/startup-positioning/references/verification-agent.md index a9595f0..a55cd26 100644 --- a/startup-positioning/references/verification-agent.md +++ b/startup-positioning/references/verification-agent.md @@ -1,128 +1,16 @@ -# Verification Agent Protocol +# 核验清单 -After synthesis completes, spawn a **Verification Agent (V1)** that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss. +> 本文供技能按需读取。默认面向中国大陆市场、使用简体中文；若目标含港澳台或海外，须单独说明制度与数据差异。 -## When to Run +## 核验任务 -- After all positioning deliverables are written -- Before presenting the final output to the user -- Uses one agent: **V1: Verification** +独立复查全部交付物： -## Agent Task +- 数字是否有来源、日期、地域、单位和统一口径； +- 事实、推断、假设是否清楚标注； +- 是否存在自相矛盾、过期价格、重复来源假佐证； +- 是否遗漏中国的数据、广告、行业许可、税务或平台规则风险； +- 建议是否与证据一致，战卡/定位/路演之间是否冲突； +- 是否泄露个人信息或使用无法证明的绝对化表达。 -The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a `verification-report.md` in the project directory. - -## Universal Checks - -These apply to every skill in the startup plugin: - -### 1. Claims Without Source -Every quantitative claim must have a data label: **[Data]**, **[Estimate]**, **[Assumption]**, or **[Opinion]**. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label. - -### 2. Internal Contradictions -Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when: -- The same metric appears with different values in two files -- A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another -- Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium) - -### 3. Confidence Rating Consistency -Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence: -- A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated **High** -- A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated **Low** -- Every major section must have a confidence rating - -### 4. Data Gaps Declared -Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag: -- Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely -- Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared -- Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables - -### 5. Flags Present -Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag: -- Files missing these sections -- Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks - -### 6. Stale Data -Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated. - -### 7. Duplicate Sources -Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification. - -## Skill-Specific Checks: startup-positioning - -In addition to the universal checks above, verify: - -### Positioning Statement vs. Research -- The Moore positioning statement must use the exact best-fit customer profile from `positioning-doc.md` Component 4 -- The category in the statement must match the recommended category from `market-category-analysis.md` -- The differentiator must map to a verified unique attribute from Component 2 -- The Neumeier Onliness Statement must pass: does "only" genuinely hold up given the competitive alternatives in `competitive-alternatives.md`? - -### JTBD vs. Customer Intelligence -- Jobs-to-be-done referenced in the positioning must have evidence in `competitive-alternatives.md` -- Best-fit customer characteristics must connect to actual pain points from customer intelligence research -- Value themes must trace back to real customer language from the language map - -### Cross-Deliverable Coherence -- The messaging hierarchy in `messaging-implications.md` must reflect the positioning priority from `positioning-doc.md` -- Category label must be consistent across all deliverables -- Words to use/avoid must not contradict the language used in positioning statements -- Freemium positioning (if present) must be consistent across `positioning-statement.md` and `messaging-implications.md` - -### Validation Test Results -- If Neumeier Onliness Test is marked "Pass" but the basic statement contains qualifiers or hedging, flag it -- If Moore Template is marked "Pass" but any field is vague or generic, flag it -- If Mental Ladder test is marked "Pass" but the position requires more than 10 words to state, flag it - -## Output: verification-report.md - -```markdown -# Verification Report: {project-name} -*Generated: {date}* - -## Summary -- **Critical issues:** {count} -- **Warnings:** {count} -- **Info:** {count} - -## Critical Issues -Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Section:** {section name} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Warnings -Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions. - -### {Issue title} -- **File(s):** {affected files} -- **Problem:** {description} -- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve} - -## Info -Minor improvements and observations. - -- {observation} -- {observation} - -## Verification Checklist -- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled -- [ ] No internal contradictions found -- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence -- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables -- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables -- [ ] No stale data unmarked -- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration -- [ ] Positioning statements match research data (skill-specific) -- [ ] JTBD consistent with customer intelligence (skill-specific) -- [ ] Cross-deliverable coherence verified (skill-specific) -- [ ] Validation tests genuinely pass (skill-specific) -``` - -## Flow Control - -- **If Critical issues > 0:** Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?" -- **If only Warnings/Info:** Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See `verification-report.md` for details." Continue. +输出 `verification-report.md`，按严重/重要/建议分级，列出文件位置、问题、修正方式。严重问题必须暂停并请求用户决定；不得自行把问题标为已解决。