## Original capture <verbatim source> ## Originality *(empty — you fill)* ## Market potential *(empty — you fill)* ## Moats ## Barriers ## Scaling vulnerabilities ## Manual burden ## Verdict ``` If a file you're asked to groom doesn't have the frontmatter shell, add it. Don't refuse the work just because the format is off. --- ## Posture (read this every time) - **Ground every claim in something concrete.** "There's clearly demand" is not a claim. "Stratechery has 30k+ paid subs at $120/yr in this exact category" is. - **Default to skepticism.** Most ideas are average. Originality is rare; mark `originality_score: 2` if that's the truth. - **Surface disagreement.** If two parts of the analysis tension (huge market BUT massive moats already in place), say so. - **No flattery.** If verdict is `kill`, write the kill reason cleanly. The whole point of grooming is sharper thinking, not validation. - **Write the body in plain language.** This is read by humans, not by other agents. No bureaucratese. --- ## Section-by-section rubric ### Originality (1-5) - **1** — exists at scale, undifferentiated copy - **2** — exists, this version has a small twist - **3** — meaningful differentiation in a crowded space - **4** — genuinely new angle in a known category - **5** — new category, no obvious comparable Always name the closest 2-3 comparables explicitly. If there are none, that's a flag — most "original" ideas just have unfindable competition, not zero. ### Market potential Three reads: - **Who buys/uses** — name the persona, not "people who want X" - **Demand signal** — what's already paying for nearby goods? Search trends? Subreddit activity? Conference floor density? - **Size band** — `small` (<$10M TAM, lifestyle), `mid` ($10M–$1B, real business), `large` ($1B–$50B, venture-scale), `massive` ($50B+, generational) Pick the band you can defend. If you'd cringe at a partner reading your defense, drop a band. ### Moats For each defensible advantage, mark it: - **Data** — proprietary data accumulating with use - **Distribution** — owned audience, established channel - **Brand** — recognized name worth a premium - **Network** — value increases with users - **Switching cost** — pain to leave, not just inertia - **Regulatory** — license/compliance barrier - **Talent** — rare skill concentrated here - **IP** — patents, copyright, trade secret For each: **load-bearing** (would actually defend in a price war) or **weak** (sounds defensible, isn't). Don't list a moat if it's weak — say "no real moat" honestly. ### Barriers What would actually stop us from shipping v1? - **Tech** — does it exist, is it ours to build, do we have skills - **Capital** — burn rate to MVP - **Distribution** — how do customers find this - **Regulation** — license/compliance to operate - **Talent** — who has to be hired - **Customer trust** — does the audience believe a 2-person op can deliver Rank by which would ACTUALLY stop us. Customer trust often beats tech. ### Scaling vulnerabilities What breaks between MVP and 10x / 100x / 1000x: - Manual-ops bottleneck (does someone have to touch every customer) - Unit economics (cost curve flat or flipping negative at scale) - Support burden (who answers tickets at 1k users) - Compliance scope (regulation tightens at audience size) - Vendor lock-in (Mailchimp limits, API rate limits, etc.) For each: at what scale does this bite? Day 1, 100 users, 10k users? ### Manual burden Honest labor estimate: - **low** — <2 hr/week to operate at MVP scale - **med** — 2–15 hr/week - **high** — 15+ hr/week, requires a hire to scale Be specific about WHERE the burden sits — content production, customer success, ops, content review. AI helps where it's actually generative; not where it's review/judgment. ### Verdict - **pursue** — passes on all dimensions OR strong enough on 2-3 to justify exploring deeper. Add 1-3 concrete next moves. - **park** — promising but blocked by timing, capital, or another priority. Add a "revisit when X" condition. - **kill** — fails core dimension (no moat AND no market AND no originality). Add the one-line kill reason. - **needs-more** — analysis genuinely can't conclude with available info. Add what to learn. --- ## Promotion rule (single file → folder) Promote a `.md` to a folder (`<idea-name>/Index.md` + `Notes/` + `References/` + `Open Questions.md`) when ALL true: - `verdict: pursue` - 3+ distinct work threads (e.g. tech build + brand work + customer dev + legal review) - The single-file structure is becoming hard to reason about Set `folder_promoted: true` in frontmatter when you do this. Move the original file to become `Index.md` in the new folder. --- ## Domain overlay (read agent config) Before grooming, check your agent's config for domain-specific signals: - `domains: [<list>]` — what spaces this agent works in (financial, perfumery, fitness, ai-communities, etc.) - `comparables_seed: [<list>]` — known companies/products in this space the rubric should consider - `market_signals: [<list>]` — things that count as demand evidence in this domain - `kill_dimensions: [<list>]` — domain-specific dealbreakers (e.g. "regulated advice without a license" for financial) If your agent has no domain config, run the rubric domain-agnostic and surface in the verdict that no domain context was loaded. --- ## Output You write the analysis **back into the source file in place**: 1. Update frontmatter: `status: groomed`, `groomed: <today's date>`, fill `originality_score`, `market_size`, `manual_burden`, `verdict`, populate `tags` if useful 2. Fill each section body in the rubric order above 3. If verdict is `pursue` and 3+ work threads emerge, also do the promotion (move file to folder, create subfolders) 4. Don't touch the `## Original capture` section — that's the historical record Confirm completion in the way your agent normally confirms work (Telegram message to operator, log entry, etc.). --- ## Re-grilling (cron pattern) When run on a schedule against existing `status: groomed` + `verdict: pursue` ideas: - Re-read the file - Check for fresh news/market shifts in the domain (use the `business-news-monitor` skill output if available) - If the original analysis still holds → update `groomed` date only - If something material has shifted (new competitor, regulation change, market shrinkage) → append a `## Re-grill <date>` section noting the shift + impact on verdict - If verdict needs to change → update frontmatter + add the re-grill section explaining why Don't rewrite the original analysis

--- name: idea-grooming description: "Pressure-test a captured idea against an objective rubric and write a structured analysis back into the source file. Use when: a new idea drops into an Ideas/ inbox (manual or cron-watched), or when re-grilling an existing groomed idea against fresh market data." --- # Idea Grooming You evaluate captured ideas against a rubric and write the analysis **back into the source file in place**. The original capture stays at the top, untouched. Frontmatter flips from `status: raw` to `status: groomed` and gets the structured fields populated. This skill is domain-agnostic — the rubric works for financial newsletters, perfumery products, fitness apps, AI tools, anything. **Domain customization** (which questions to emphasize, what counts as novelty in this space, what comparables to surface) lives in the **agent's config**, not in this skill. Read your `config.json` or domain-specific notes for that overlay. --- ## Inputs A markdown file at a path the operator provides (typically `/Ideas/.md`). The file follows the canonical template: ```yaml --- title: status: raw created: YYYY-MM-DD groomed: captured_by: tags: [] originality_score: market_size: manual_burden: verdict: folder_promoted: false --- # ## Original capture <verbatim source> ## Originality *(empty — you fill)* ## Market potential *(empty — you fill)* ## Moats ## Barriers ## Scaling vulnerabilities ## Manual burden ## Verdict ``` If a file you're asked to groom doesn't have the frontmatter shell, add it. Don't refuse the work just because the format is off. --- ## Posture (read this every time) - **Ground every claim in something concrete.** "There's clearly demand" is not a claim. "Stratechery has 30k+ paid subs at $120/yr in this exact category" is. - **Default to skepticism.** Most ideas are average. Originality is rare; mark `originality_score: 2` if that's the truth. - **Surface disagreement.** If two parts of the analysis tension (huge market BUT massive moats already in place), say so. - **No flattery.** If verdict is `kill`, write the kill reason cleanly. The whole point of grooming is sharper thinking, not validation. - **Write the body in plain language.** This is read by humans, not by other agents. No bureaucratese. --- ## Section-by-section rubric ### Originality (1-5) - **1** — exists at scale, undifferentiated copy - **2** — exists, this version has a small twist - **3** — meaningful differentiation in a crowded space - **4** — genuinely new angle in a known category - **5** — new category, no obvious comparable Always name the closest 2-3 comparables explicitly. If there are none, that's a flag — most "original" ideas just have unfindable competition, not zero. ### Market potential Three reads: - **Who buys/uses** — name the persona, not "people who want X" - **Demand signal** — what's already paying for nearby goods? Search trends? Subreddit activity? Conference floor density? - **Size band** — `small` (<$10M TAM, lifestyle), `mid` ($10M–$1B, real business), `large` ($1B–$50B, venture-scale), `massive` ($50B+, generational) Pick the band you can defend. If you'd cringe at a partner reading your defense, drop a band. ### Moats For each defensible advantage, mark it: - **Data** — proprietary data accumulating with use - **Distribution** — owned audience, established channel - **Brand** — recognized name worth a premium - **Network** — value increases with users - **Switching cost** — pain to leave, not just inertia - **Regulatory** — license/compliance barrier - **Talent** — rare skill concentrated here - **IP** — patents, copyright, trade secret For each: **load-bearing** (would actually defend in a price war) or **weak** (sounds defensible, isn't). Don't list a moat if it's weak — say "no real moat" honestly. ### Barriers What would actually stop us from shipping v1? - **Tech** — does it exist, is it ours to build, do we have skills - **Capital** — burn rate to MVP - **Distribution** — how do customers find this - **Regulation** — license/compliance to operate - **Talent** — who has to be hired - **Customer trust** — does the audience believe a 2-person op can deliver Rank by which would ACTUALLY stop us. Customer trust often beats tech. ### Scaling vulnerabilities What breaks between MVP and 10x / 100x / 1000x: - Manual-ops bottleneck (does someone have to touch every customer) - Unit economics (cost curve flat or flipping negative at scale) - Support burden (who answers tickets at 1k users) - Compliance scope (regulation tightens at audience size) - Vendor lock-in (Mailchimp limits, API rate limits, etc.) For each: at what scale does this bite? Day 1, 100 users, 10k users? ### Manual burden Honest labor estimate: - **low** — <2 hr/week to operate at MVP scale - **med** — 2–15 hr/week - **high** — 15+ hr/week, requires a hire to scale Be specific about WHERE the burden sits — content production, customer success, ops, content review. AI helps where it's actually generative; not where it's review/judgment. ### Verdict - **pursue** — passes on all dimensions OR strong enough on 2-3 to justify exploring deeper. Add 1-3 concrete next moves. - **park** — promising but blocked by timing, capital, or another priority. Add a "revisit when X" condition. - **kill** — fails core dimension (no moat AND no market AND no originality). Add the one-line kill reason. - **needs-more** — analysis genuinely can't conclude with available info. Add what to learn. --- ## Promotion rule (single file → folder) Promote a `.md` to a folder (`<idea-name>/Index.md` + `Notes/` + `References/` + `Open Questions.md`) when ALL true: - `verdict: pursue` - 3+ distinct work threads (e.g. tech build + brand work + customer dev + legal review) - The single-file structure is becoming hard to reason about Set `folder_promoted: true` in frontmatter when you do this. Move the original file to become `Index.md` in the new folder. --- ## Domain overlay (read agent config) Before grooming, check your agent's config for domain-specific signals: - `domains: [<list>]` — what spaces this agent works in (financial, perfumery, fitness, ai-communities, etc.) - `comparables_seed: [<list>]` — known companies/products in this space the rubric should consider - `market_signals: [<list>]` — things that count as demand evidence in this domain - `kill_dimensions: [<list>]` — domain-specific dealbreakers (e.g. "regulated advice without a license" for financial) If your agent has no domain config, run the rubric domain-agnostic and surface in the verdict that no domain context was loaded. --- ## Output You write the analysis **back into the source file in place**: 1. Update frontmatter: `status: groomed`, `groomed: <today's date>`, fill `originality_score`, `market_size`, `manual_burden`, `verdict`, populate `tags` if useful 2. Fill each section body in the rubric order above 3. If verdict is `pursue` and 3+ work threads emerge, also do the promotion (move file to folder, create subfolders) 4. Don't touch the `## Original capture` section — that's the historical record Confirm completion in the way your agent normally confirms work (Telegram message to operator, log entry, etc.). --- ## Re-grilling (cron pattern) When run on a schedule against existing `status: groomed` + `verdict: pursue` ideas: - Re-read the file - Check for fresh news/market shifts in the domain (use the `business-news-monitor` skill output if available) - If the original analysis still holds → update `groomed` date only - If something material has shifted (new competitor, regulation change, market shrinkage) → append a `## Re-grill <date>` section noting the shift + impact on verdict - If verdict needs to change → update frontmatter + add the re-grill section explaining why Don't rewrite the original analysis — append. The trail is part of the value.