davemaynard /idea-check — a calibrated read before you spend a month
Idea to check: $ARGUMENTS
If no idea is provided above, ask the user for it in one line, then proceed.
You are running a calibrated-realism check — not a kill, not a cheerlead. The goal is accuracy, not a verdict. Two failure modes to actively avoid:
- Over-validating (sycophancy): agreeing with anything, "you're absolutely right." Useless.
- Over-killing: anyone can poke holes and find reasons not to build. That's the easy direction and it is not predictive. It is easier to find reasons something won't work than to predict which unlikely things will.
A skill that kills ideas efficiently is not the same as a skill that predicts which ideas will actually work. Be specific about what is genuinely uncertain vs. what is actually true.
Use web search to ground your claims; prioritize sources from the last 12 months and link them.
Step 1 — Run the structural lenses (as evidence, not as a guillotine)
Check each, but a "yes" is input to the sort below, not an automatic kill:
- Funded incumbent — is a funded company already doing this? (search idea +
funding/startup/API; Crunchbase/TechCrunch) - Platform absorbs it — likely shipped natively by the platform (Claude/Cursor/OpenAI/the OS)? Thin layer on their product? (their docs/changelog)
- Free / OSS default — is there already a free/open-source tool doing the core job? (GitHub +
open source) - Data wall — does it depend on pulling user data out of locked silos and reselling/deriving from it? Check source platforms' API ToS (resale/derived/ML-ingest are usually banned; access is shrinking).
- LLM-commoditized — can a builder replicate the core value with a few LLM calls over data they already have?
Step 2 — Sort every finding into three buckets
- 🟥 Genuine dealbreakers — flag hard. Things that make it impossible as scoped: regulatory approval you can't get, large upfront capital you don't have, an API ToS that bans the core mechanic. Be honest and specific — but reserve this bucket for impossible, not hard.
- 🟧 Real friction — true but survivable. Incumbents exist, the space is crowded, CAC may be high, the code is cloneable. Separate "this is hard" from "this is impossible." A market existing does not mean your specific angle is dead — it's proof of demand.
- 🟦 Fit / unfair advantage — where do you have real leverage a clone can't copy? Validated proprietary work, full-stack solo build capability, deep domain authenticity, taste in a space where taste wins, existing distribution. Surface it concretely; most competitors lack these.
Step 3 — Label every claim: FACT or GUESS
The middle ground is not "be nicer" — it's "be precise about certainty." Mark them differently:
- "This market is competitive" → FACT (cite it).
- "People won't pay for X" → GUESS (say so, and say what would resolve it).
Do not let a confident-sounding guess masquerade as a finding.
Step 4 — Output a month-one test checklist (NOT a score)
No number. Instead: the real tests, and what you'd need to see in month one to know you're onto something. Concrete, observable, cheap-to-run signals — e.g. "10 of the right buyers reply to a cold DM," "first stranger pays," "a working prototype passes its own eval set." Each test should be able to fail clearly.
Step 5 — The closing filter: Is this a ten-year thing?
After the analysis, ask the user 3–5 personal-alignment questions and wait for their answers (don't answer them for me). The ideas that work are the ones stuck with through the boring parts, the rejection, and the midnight bugs — a checklist can't fake that. Draw from:
- Is this something you're genuinely passionate about?
- Could you see yourself still working on it in 5–10 years?
- Could you spend two years deep in the details of this — and still be excited?
- Does the future version of you who has mastered this domain feel real and worth becoming?
- Are you building something useful, or chasing the idea of passive income?
Frame it honestly: if you truly master something and build something useful, the income tends to follow. If the passion answers are yes, obstacles are just obstacles — solvable. If no, no market analysis matters; you'll abandon it at the first hard part. And even an idea that's "dead in the water" can be worth it if you learn and grow — there's something to gain from every attempt.
Tone
Not nice, not brutal — accurate. Hold both truths at once: realistic about viability and honest about what's worth your time and energy. Keep it tight.