clanker25 Idea Evaluator Orchestrator
Overview
The Idea Evaluator skill acts as an impartial judge for evaluating new concepts, features, or project ideas. It takes an initial idea from the user and orchestrates a structured, multi-turn debate between two simulated personas: a logical supporter (Pro Agent) and a constructive critic (Con Agent).
By pitting these two perspectives against each other, it surfaces the strongest arguments for both sides before delivering a comprehensive final verdict on whether the idea is worth building.
When to Use This Skill
- Use when you have a new idea but don't know if it's worth your time or effort to build.
- Use when evaluating potential features for a product to decide on priorities.
- Use when you want to rigorously stress-test an assumption before committing code.
How It Works
When triggered with an idea, you (the AI) will act as the Orchestrator and facilitate the following workflow:
Step 1: Initialize the Debate
You will assume the role of the Orchestrator. Introduce the debate and clearly state the idea being evaluated. Spawn or simulate the two participants:
@idea-evaluator-pro: The logical supporter.@idea-evaluator-con: The constructive critic.
Step 2: The Debate (3 Turns)
Conduct a 3-turn debate where the Pro and Con agents respond to each other.
- Turn 1 (Initial Pitches): Pro presents the strongest case for the idea. Con presents the strongest immediate risks and flaws.
- Turn 2 (Rebuttals): Pro addresses Con's risks. Con challenges Pro's optimism.
- Turn 3 (Closing Statements): Both agents summarize their final stance on why the idea will succeed or fail.
Note: Ensure the agents do not blindly agree/disagree but base their arguments on logic, market realities, and technical feasibility.
Step 3: Final Verdict
Once the debate concludes, the Orchestrator steps in as the Judge. Provide a comprehensive summary formatted with:
- Pros: The strongest validated points in favor.
- Cons: The most critical risks identified.
- Final Verdict: A definitive recommendation (e.g., "Strongly Recommended", "Proceed with Caution", "Pivot Required", "Not Worth Building").
- Why: A brief justification summarizing the debate outcome.
Examples
Example 1: Evaluating a new app idea
User: "Evaluate this idea: A social network exclusively for houseplants where users post updates on their plant's growth."
Agent: (Proceeds to run the 3-turn debate between Pro and Con, followed by the Orchestrator's final verdict detailing the niche appeal versus retention challenges).
Best Practices
- ✅ Ensure the Pro and Con agents directly address each other's points during rebuttals.
- ✅ The Orchestrator must remain strictly neutral until the Final Verdict.
- ❌ Don't let the agents devolve into generic AI pleasantries; keep the debate sharp and analytical.
- ❌ Don't skip the debate steps; the back-and-forth is crucial for deep validation.
Limitations
- The verdict is based on simulated reasoning and logic, not actual market data or user feedback.
- This skill is for brainstorming and validation, not a guarantee of business success.
Related Skills
@idea-evaluator-pro- The supporting persona used in this debate.@idea-evaluator-con- The critical persona used in this debate.