# Gap Scan > Find market gaps by chaining demand evidence with a supply audit — verify people want something, then grade how well existing tools serve it, and classify each pocket UNSERVED / UNDERSERVED / WELL-SERVED with cited evidence. Trigger with /gap-scan , or when the user asks "is there a gap in X", "what's missing in the X market", "who already does this and are they good", or wants demand+supply evidence before committing to an idea. - Skill: `davemaynard/gap-scan` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add davemaynard/gap-scan` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/davemaynard/gap-scan/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: davemaynard (https://skillmd.com/u/davemaynard) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/davemaynard/gap-scan --- # Gap Scan — demand × supply → market gaps Three stages: **demand pass** (is anyone asking for this?) → **supply audit** (who serves it, and how well?) → **gap verdict**. Every claim carries a URL — this pipeline exists because market research is only trustworthy when it's verifiable. **Before starting:** if the user keeps a written set of idea-evaluation principles or gates, read it first so the verdicts route into it. One rule is load-bearing here regardless: **competition is evidence, not a red flag. A well-served market is never an auto-kill.** ## Tools Paths are relative to this skill's directory (the folder containing this SKILL.md). The demand-check skill is expected as a sibling directory; set `SKILL_DIR` first: ```bash SKILL_DIR= # e.g. ~/.claude/skills/gap-scan # Stage 1 muscle — the sibling demand-check skill, if it is installed beside this one. # Installed alone (--skill gap-scan), these two paths will not exist: either install # demand-check too, or skip to Stage 2 and gather demand evidence with web search. # See that skill's SKILL.md for setup and caveats. DPY=$SKILL_DIR/../demand-check/.venv/bin/python DCLI=$SKILL_DIR/../demand-check/scripts/demand.py # Stage 1+2 muscle — this skill's stdlib-only wrappers (plain python3, no venv): SIG=$SKILL_DIR/scripts/signals.py python3 $SIG hn "ableton mcp" # HN stories: points, comments, dates, links python3 $SIG hn "x" --recent # newest-first (frontier pain shows up here early) python3 $SIG npm "@scope/pkg" # 12-mo download trend + verdict python3 $SIG pypi somepkg # flaky upstream; falls back per its error hint python3 $SIG reddit "x" # 403s unauthenticated (2026-07) — use the # WebSearch fallback below instead ``` **Channel notes (verified live 2026-07-22):** - **Reddit blocks unauthenticated JSON.** Mine it via `WebSearch site:reddit.com ""`, then WebFetch the promising threads. Pain phrasings that work: "is there a tool", "how do I X without", "alternative to", "X sucks", "why is there no". - **GitHub goes through the authenticated `gh` CLI** (better rate limits than anonymous API): - Incumbents: `gh search repos "" --sort stars --limit 15 --json fullName,description,stargazersCount,updatedAt` - Feature gaps users beg for: `gh search issues --repo --state open --sort reactions --limit 10 --json title,reactionGroups,url` - Maintenance: last release / commit dates via `gh api repos/ --jq '{pushed_at, open_issues_count}'` - App/Chrome-store and G2/Capterra **1-3★ reviews of incumbents** are the "does it do the whole job well?" dataset — WebFetch the review pages directly. ## Stage 1 — Demand pass Goal: turn the seed into **3-5 demand pockets**, each with dated evidence. 1. `demand-check` suggest (free, unlimited) on the seed + obvious variants; `--deep` if the seed is broad. 2. Trends (`trend`/`explore`) on only the 2-3 terms that matter — pulls are soft-block-prone; space them. 3. Pain mining: `$SIG hn` (both relevance and `--recent`), WebSearch over Reddit, YouTube tutorial comments where relevant. 4. Willingness-to-pay probes where the pocket suggests money: Keyword Planner CPC (manual, note it), Fiverr/Upwork gig counts + pricing for the manual version of the task (WebSearch/WebFetch). A pocket = a one-line demand statement + its evidence block (trend verdict, autocomplete tail, 2-3 complaint quotes with URLs, WTP signal if any). ## Stage 2 — Supply audit (per pocket) For pockets that survive Stage 1, fan out **one subagent per pocket** (they're independent — run them in parallel via the Agent tool). Each audit: 1. **Enumerate incumbents** — gh search, WebSearch (" tool/app/plugin"), Product Hunt, relevant registries (mcp.so/PulseMCP for agent tools, app stores for consumer). 2. **Grade each incumbent** on three axes, evidence per cell: - **Coverage** — whole demand or a slice? (feature list vs. the pocket's demand statement) - **Quality** — 1-3★ review themes, top-reacted open issues, community sentiment - **Momentum** — last commit/release, download/star velocity (`$SIG npm`), team size/funding if visible 3. Capture the **complaint themes verbatim** — for an UNDERSERVED verdict these are the roadmap. ## Stage 3 — Gap verdict Per pocket, exactly one of: - **UNSERVED** — demand evidence but no credible supply. Treat with suspicion: usually the demand isn't real either (or isn't reachable). Requires the strongest Stage-1 evidence to stand. - **UNDERSERVED** — real demand, weak/partial/stale supply. **The sweet spot.** List the specific complaints the gap-filler would fix. - **WELL-SERVED** — real demand, good supply. **Not a kill**: this is validated demand. Verdict output = "enter only with a named wedge + a distribution edge," and name the candidate wedge if one is visible. Then run the surviving gap(s) through the gates that data can't answer: why-now, moat/distribution, founder-fit, model-timing. ## Output 1. Write the report to a file, so it can be cited later: `gap-scans/-YYYY-MM-DD.md` in the current project, or the equivalent folder in the user's notes directory if they keep one (create the folder if missing). Contents: pockets, evidence blocks, incumbent grade tables, verdicts, gate notes. Every factual claim gets its URL. 2. Chat summary: the verdicts and the single most decision-relevant fact per pocket — not the firehose. ## Hand-offs - Gap looks real → `/idea-check ` for the calibrated-realism pass. - The user agrees it's worth taking on → **suggest** evolving the variation and building the pitch/plan as the next step. That is the deliberate *next* step after conviction, not part of this chain — don't auto-run it. - Scores/state worth keeping → the project's own scorecard or notes (evidence, dated), if it keeps one.