---
name: falsification-gauntlet
description: Adversarial stress-testing framework for product ideas. Use when the user wants to rigorously evaluate a product thesis before building—identifying load-bearing assumptions, interrogating moats, testing technical feasibility, and mapping competitive landscape. Designed to KILL weak ideas early or REFINE them into stronger theses. Triggers on phrases like "stress-test this idea", "should I build this", "kill list", "validate my thesis", "is this worth building", or when a user presents a product concept and wants rigorous evaluation before committing resources.
---

# Falsification Gauntlet

Adversarial stress-testing framework for product ideas. Goal: Kill weak ideas fast, refine promising ones, proceed only with conviction.

## Core Principles

1. **Dialog, not checklist** — Multi-turn conversation by design. The user must arrive at conclusions themselves.
2. **Socratic method** — Surface questions, let user reason through. Never declare "this won't work"—guide them to see it.
3. **User expertise is material** — Explicitly prompt for domain knowledge. User knows things Claude doesn't.
4. **Three outcomes** — Kill (clean exit), Proceed (build with conviction), or Refine (thesis needs adjustment)
5. **Soft exit ramps** — If a phase clearly invalidates the thesis, offer to skip ahead. User can override.

## Workflow

### Before Starting

Create a state file in the working directory. See [references/templates.md](references/templates.md) for the state file template.

```
[idea-name]-gauntlet-state.md
```

Update this file after each phase.

### Phase 1: Thesis Articulation

**Goal**: Crystallize the core bet and surface load-bearing assumptions.

**Questions to explore**:
- What's the core bet in one sentence?
- Who is the customer? What's the acute pain?
- What has to be TRUE for this to work? (List 3-5 load-bearing assumptions)

**User expertise prompt**:
> "Before we dig in—what's your unique insight here? Why do you believe this when others might not?"

**Output**: Create `[idea-name]-phase1-thesis.md` using template in references.

---

### Phase 2: Moat Interrogation

**Goal**: Determine if there's a defensible advantage.

**Questions to explore**:
- Why you? Why now?
- What's the defensible advantage? (Network effects, data, switching costs, brand, regulatory, proprietary tech)
- Can incumbents do this? Will they?
- Can platforms (Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon) commoditize this?

**User expertise prompt**:
> "Who do you already know is playing in this space or adjacent? What's your read on their trajectory?"

**Soft exit ramp** (if moat is clearly absent):
> "Based on what we've found, there doesn't appear to be a defensible moat here. We can skip to Phase 5 (decision) unless you think there's value in continuing through technical feasibility and competitive landscape."

**Output**: Create `[idea-name]-phase2-moat.md` using template in references.

---

### Phase 3: Technical Feasibility

**Goal**: Determine if we can actually build this.

**Questions to explore**:
- Can we build this with current technology?
- What's in our control vs. dependent on platforms/APIs/partners?
- Are there hard technical blockers? (API limitations, data access, regulatory)
- What's the build complexity? (Solo founder viable? Requires team?)

**Research approach**: Use web search to investigate API capabilities, platform constraints, technical precedents.

**Soft exit ramp** (if technically blocked):
> "This appears to be technically blocked by [specific constraint]. We can skip to Phase 5 unless you see a path around this."

**Output**: Create `[idea-name]-phase3-technical.md` using template in references.

---

### Phase 4: Competitive Landscape

**Goal**: Map who else is here and assess commoditization risk.

**Questions to explore**:
- Who's already here? (Direct competitors)
- Who's adjacent and could enter? (Platform risk, big tech, well-funded startups)
- What's the trajectory? (Growing, consolidating, commoditizing)
- Is there a timing window? (Why now vs. 2 years ago or 2 years from now)

**User expertise prompt**:
> "Any adjacent players I should look at that might not show up in obvious searches?"

**Research approach**: Web search for competitors, funding news, platform announcements, market analysis.

**Output**: Create `[idea-name]-phase4-competitive.md` using template in references.

---

### Phase 5: Decision

**Goal**: Synthesize findings and reach a decision with conviction.

**Process**:
1. Summarize each load-bearing assumption and its status (Validated / Invalidated / Uncertain)
2. Present the three options: Kill, Proceed, Refine
3. Ask the user for their gut read
4. Let them make the call

**User expertise prompt**:
> "Given everything we've surfaced—what's your gut saying?"

**Do NOT make the decision for the user.** Present the evidence. Let them conclude.

**Output**: Create `[idea-name]-phase5-decision.md` using template in references.

---

## State Management

After each phase:
1. Update the state file with phase completion status
2. Update load-bearing assumptions with current status
3. Capture any key user expertise that surfaced

If context runs out mid-process, the state file + phase outputs enable resumption.

## Phase Output Templates

See [references/templates.md](references/templates.md) for all templates:
- State file template
- Phase 1-5 output templates