Idea validator
BRAINIAC - SaaS Blueprint, NOT an APP. It's a comprehensive playbook and operating system designed for building, launching, and scaling a SaaS APP covering from MVP to Mass Scale. It is structured as a chronological and functional roadmap, containing over 80 specialized directories, each with its own PLAYBOOK.md.
npx -y skills add tuliosousapro/SaaS-blueprint --skill idea-validatorAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 3 stars3 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
Structured validation framework that scores product ideas. Use when evaluating problem severity, willingness-to-pay, or founder-market fit. For market intelligence, see market-research.
SKILL.md
4.4 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Idea Validator Skill
When to Use
- After completing Phase 0 (Idea) before entering Phase 1 (Validation)
- When the user proposes a new idea or pivot
- When deciding between multiple product directions
- As a sanity check before committing resources
Tools Required
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
firecrawl_search | Validate market signals, demand indicators |
firecrawl_extract | Pull data from market reports, forums |
Instructions
1. Collect Idea Inputs
Get from the user (or from completed Phase 0 deliverables):
- Problem statement: What pain does this solve?
- Target user: Who has this pain? (be specific: role, company size, industry)
- Proposed solution: How does this solve it? (one sentence)
- Revenue model: How does this make money?
- Differentiator: Why can't they just use {existing solution}?
2. Score on 5 Dimensions
Each dimension scored 1-5. Total score determines recommendation.
A. Problem Severity (1-5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | Nice-to-have. Users tolerate current solutions fine. |
| 2 | Mild annoyance. Users complain but don't switch. |
| 3 | Real pain. Users actively search for alternatives. |
| 4 | Hair-on-fire. Users lose money/time daily without a solution. |
| 5 | Mission-critical. Business cannot function without solving this. |
Validate with:
firecrawl_search: "{problem_statement} pain point frustrated"
firecrawl_search: "site:reddit.com {target_user} struggling with {problem}"
B. Willingness to Pay (1-5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | Users expect free. No existing paid solutions. |
| 2 | Users pay reluctantly. < $10/mo willingness. |
| 3 | Established paid market. $10-50/mo common. |
| 4 | Users budget for this. $50-200/mo normal. |
| 5 | Enterprise budgets. $200+/mo, multi-seat deals. |
Validate with:
firecrawl_search: "{category} pricing SaaS"
firecrawl_search: "{competitor} pricing plans"
C. Market Timing (1-5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | Market is saturated or declining. |
| 2 | Market exists but growth is flat. |
| 3 | Growing market with room for new entrants. |
| 4 | Emerging market with strong tailwinds (AI, regulation, etc.). |
| 5 | Category creation opportunity — no one owns this yet. |
D. Founder-Market Fit (1-5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | No domain expertise, no network, no unfair advantage. |
| 2 | Some interest but learning from scratch. |
| 3 | Adjacent experience. Understand the user but not the domain deeply. |
| 4 | Direct experience. Have felt this pain personally. |
| 5 | Deep domain expertise + network + distribution advantage. |
E. Execution Feasibility (1-5)
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1 | Requires team of 10+, $1M+, regulatory approval. |
| 2 | Needs specialized skills the founder lacks. |
| 3 | Achievable solo with AI tools in 3-6 months. |
| 4 | MVP shippable in 30-60 days with existing tools. |
| 5 | Can validate in a weekend with no-code or AI agents. |
3. Generate Scorecard
# Idea Validation Scorecard: {Idea Name}
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Problem Severity | X/5 | {one-line justification} |
| Willingness to Pay | X/5 | {one-line justification} |
| Market Timing | X/5 | {one-line justification} |
| Founder-Market Fit | X/5 | {one-line justification} |
| Execution Feasibility | X/5 | {one-line justification} |
| **TOTAL** | **XX/25** | |
## Recommendation
- 20-25: **STRONG GO** — Execute immediately.
- 15-19: **CONDITIONAL GO** — Proceed but validate {weakest dimension} first.
- 10-14: **PAUSE** — Significant risks. Pivot or de-risk before investing.
- 5-9: **NO GO** — Fundamental problems. Explore different ideas.
4. Risk Flags
Regardless of score, flag these as deal-breakers:
- Problem Severity = 1 → "No one needs this"
- Willingness to Pay = 1 → "Can't monetize"
- Execution Feasibility = 1 → "Can't build it"
5. Output Format
Save to BRAINIAC/0. Idea/VALIDATION_SCORECARD.md
Quality Gates
- Every score must have evidence (search result, data point, or user testimony)
- WTP score must reference actual competitor pricing
- Total recommendation must match the scoring bands exactly