Validate idea

Skill T4LEL/Claude-Arsenal/skills/validate-idea

25 Claude Code subagents + 14 lifecycle skills + CLAUDE.md templates - build, ship, and monetize products with AI. Clone, run sync, done.

Install

npx -y skills add T4LEL/Claude-Arsenal --skill validate-idea

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when deciding whether an idea is worth building - before any scaffolding or code - or when the user says validate, is this worth it, would anyone pay, market check, should I build this.

SKILL.md

3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Validate Idea

Kill or confirm an idea cheaply before /new-project scaffolds anything. No code, no scaffolding — this skill produces a verdict, not a repo.

Copy this checklist and check off items as you complete them:

Validate-Idea Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame — customer, problem, current alternative
- [ ] Step 2: Evidence — competitor scan + demand signals
- [ ] Step 3: Verdict — would they pay, differentiation
- [ ] Step 4: Cheapest real-world test
- [ ] Report

Step 1 — Frame

State each in one sentence. Use what the user gave; where they left gaps, state an assumption explicitly and label it unverified.

Who exactly is the customer?
What painful problem are they having?
What do they use today instead (including "nothing" or "a spreadsheet")?

Vague answers here (e.g. "everyone," "it'd just be useful") are the first sign the idea isn't ready — say so instead of pushing forward.

Step 2 — Evidence

Delegate to the researcher agent with the framing from Step 1:

Competitor scan: real products, real URLs, current prices — not "probably around $X."
Demand signals: actual search results, community complaints and threads (Reddit, forums, X, App Store reviews) showing people describing this exact pain.

No evidence found is itself a finding — report it, don't paper over it with assumptions.

For a deeper pass — market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM) or a full competitive landscape — delegate to the market-analyst agent with the same Step 1 framing.

Step 3 — Verdict

Delegate to the biz-strategist agent with the Step 2 evidence:

Would the target customer actually pay for this, and roughly how much?
What's the differentiation from what they use today — why switch?
A verdict — go / no-go / pivot — with the reasoning that drove it, not just the label.

Numbers the agent can't source from real evidence get labeled unverified assumptions, not stated as fact.

Step 4 — Cheapest real-world test

Pick exactly ONE, matched to how fast/cheap it is to run for this idea:

5 target-customer conversations — real people who fit the customer profile, scheduled this week.
Landing-page smoke test — one page, one CTA, traffic driven to it.
Community post — pitch the problem/solution where the target customer already hangs out.

Spell out the concrete next actions (who does what, by when) and a numeric success threshold up front — e.g. "10 signups in a week," "3 of 5 conversations confirm the pain unprompted." No threshold means no test.

If the Step 3 verdict is go, point the user at /new-project to scaffold and /monetize to lock pricing before building features.

Report

Verdict: go / no-go / pivot, one-line reason.
Evidence: competitor and demand findings, with sources.
Riskiest assumption: the single belief that, if wrong, breaks the idea.
Cheapest next test: the chosen test, concrete actions, and the numeric success threshold.