# Business Evaluation > [Content] Use when evaluating business idea viability — Business Model Canvas, financial projections, risk matrix, go-to-market, execution plan. - Skill: `duc01226/business-evaluation-2` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/business-evaluation-2` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/business-evaluation-2/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/business-evaluation-2 --- > **[BLOCKING]** Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. > **[BLOCKING]** Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set `in_progress` when step starts, set `completed` when step ends. > **[BLOCKING]** Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. > **[BLOCKING]** If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions. ## Quick Summary **Goal:** Evaluate business idea viability to deliver an evidence-backed viability verdict — score + confidence + Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass recommendation — grounded in a complete 9-block BMC, 3-year financials with stated assumptions, 5+ risks with mitigation, and a phased execution + GTM plan, so the go/no-go decision rests on traced evidence, never optimism. **Summary:** - **All 7 main steps, in order:** (1) capture idea (problem/solution/target), (2) load market-analysis data as evidence, (3) Business Model Canvas — all 9 blocks, (4) 3-year financial projections + assumptions table, (5) risk assessment — 5+ risks, (6) phased execution plan, (7) go-to-market — then deliver the (Step 7) verdict. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge a step — why: AI forgets the skill's own steps and ships a partial evaluation. - Runs after market-analysis: pull its market data in as evidence rather than re-deriving market sizing here — this skill judges viability, it does not research the market. - Every artifact is evidence-gated — all 9 BMC blocks cite proof, every financial number carries an assumption + source, and each of the 5+ risks needs mitigation AND a residual-risk entry; an unbacked number or block fails the gate. - The verdict is the load-bearing output: a 1-10 viability score, an explicit confidence tier (95/80/60/<60%) with its evidence basis, a Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass call, and the single key condition that must hold to succeed — bias toward skepticism, never optimism. - Write the result to `docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{slug}.md` via the enforced `.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md`, then use `AskUserQuestion` to route next (domain-analysis recommended) — never auto-decide. **Workflow:** 1. **Capture idea** — Problem, solution, target customer 2. **Load market analysis** — Market data from `/market-analysis` at `docs/knowledge/strategy/market-analysis/{slug}.md` (or `{plan-dir}/research/market-analysis.md`). **Absent → do NOT re-derive:** state that `/market-analysis` did not run, mark every market-sizing figure (TAM/SAM/SOM, share, segment size) N/A with that reason, and cap the verdict confidence tier at 60% 3. **Business Model Canvas** — All 9 blocks with evidence 4. **Financial projections** — 3-year revenue, costs, break-even 5. **Risk assessment** — 5+ risks with mitigation 6. **Execution plan** — 3 phases with milestones 7. **Verdict** — Viability score, confidence, recommendation **Key Rules:** - All 9 BMC blocks required, each with evidence - Financial projections: explicit assumptions table - Minimum 5 risks with mitigation AND residual risk - Verdict must be evidence-backed with confidence declaration **Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).** # Business Evaluation ## Step 1: Capture the Idea From user input, extract: - **One-liner** — Elevator pitch in 1 sentence - **Problem** — What pain point does it solve? - **Solution** — How does it solve it? - **Target customer** — Who specifically benefits? ## Step 2: Business Model Canvas All 9 blocks required: | Block | Key Question | Evidence Required | | -------------------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------------- | | **Customer Segments** | Who are we serving? | Market research | | **Value Propositions** | What value do we deliver? | Customer pain points | | **Channels** | How do we reach customers? | Channel analysis | | **Customer Relationships** | How do we maintain relationships? | Retention strategy | | **Revenue Streams** | How do we make money? | Pricing research | | **Key Resources** | What do we need? | Resource assessment | | **Key Activities** | What must we do? | Operational analysis | | **Key Partnerships** | Who helps us? | Partner landscape | | **Cost Structure** | What does it cost? | Cost analysis | ## Step 3: Financial Projections (3 Years) ### Revenue Model | Year | Users/Customers | ARPU | Revenue | Growth | | ---- | --------------- | ---- | ------- | ------ | ### Cost Structure | Category | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | | -------- | --- | --- | --- | ### Break-Even - **Monthly burn:** ${X} - **Break-even point:** Month/Year - **Funding needed:** ${X} ### Assumptions Table Every number must list its assumption and source. ## Step 4: Risk Assessment Minimum 5 risks: | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Residual Risk | | ---- | ---------- | ------ | ---------- | ------------- | Categories to consider: market, execution, financial, competitive, regulatory, technical. ## Step 5: Execution Plan | Phase | Timeline | Focus | Key Milestones | | -------------- | ----------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | | **Validation** | 0-3 months | Customer discovery, MVP | N interviews, prototype | | **Build** | 3-6 months | Core product, early users | Beta launch, first revenue | | **Growth** | 6-12 months | Scale, optimize | Revenue target, team size | ## Step 6: Go-to-Market - **Launch strategy** — How to enter the market - **Initial channels** — Top 3 acquisition channels - **Pricing strategy** — Model + rationale + competitive comparison ## Step 7: Verdict - **Viability score:** 1-10 with rationale - **Confidence:** 95%/80%/60%/<60% with evidence basis - **Recommendation:** Pursue | Pivot | Pause | Pass - **Key condition:** What must be true for this to succeed? ## Output Write to `docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{descriptive-slug}.md` using enforced template from `.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md`. --- ## Next Steps **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS** after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use `AskUserQuestion` to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides: - **"/domain-analysis (Recommended)"** — Analyze domain model from business evaluation - **"/plan"** — If ready to plan implementation - **"Skip, continue manually"** — user decides > **[IMPORTANT]** Use `TaskCreate` to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. > **External Memory:** For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in `plans/reports/` — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable. > **Evidence Gate:** MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires `file:line` proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first). > **AI Mistake Prevention** — Failure modes to avoid on every task: > > **Re-read files after context changes.** Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. > **Verify generated content against source evidence.** AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. > **Check downstream references before deleting or renaming.** Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. > **Trace the full impact chain after edits.** Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. > **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. > **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard. > **Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. > **Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns.** When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure. > **Keep shared guidance role-relevant.** Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols. > **Critical Thinking Mindset** — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. > **Anti-hallucination:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. **MUST ATTENTION** apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (`file:line` for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence. **MUST ATTENTION** apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting. ## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for every step/sub-skill call: set `in_progress` before execution, set `completed` after execution **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses > **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `/.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`. > > Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently. **MUST ATTENTION** resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > `*`, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at `/.md`; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user. ## Closing Reminders **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** Deliver an evidence-backed viability verdict — score + confidence + Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass recommendation — grounded in a complete 9-block BMC, 3-year financials with stated assumptions, 5+ risks with mitigation, and a phased execution + GTM plan, so the go/no-go decision rests on traced evidence, never optimism. **MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):** - **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity. - **Critical Thinking:** traced `file:line` proof, confidence >80% to act, NEVER guess as fact. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every claim, financial number, BMC block, and verdict carries evidence + confidence % (95/80/60/<60) — NEVER present a guess as fact — why: an unbacked number turns the go/no-go into optimism dressed as analysis. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** bias toward skepticism on the verdict — NEVER round optimism up; surface the single key condition that must hold and the residual risk if it fails — why: a falsely-rosy Pursue burns capital that an honest Pause would save. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** validate the next route with user via `AskUserQuestion` — NEVER auto-decide domain-analysis/plan — why: this skill judges viability, the human owns the go/no-go. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting; keep one `in_progress`, mark `completed` with evidence; add a final review todo — why: untracked multi-step work loses state on compaction. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** consume market data FROM market-analysis as evidence — NEVER re-derive market sizing here; if that producer did not run, mark the market figures N/A with the reason and cap verdict confidence at 60% rather than inventing them — why: this skill judges viability, it does not research the market; duplicated sizing diverges from the source. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** all 9 BMC blocks present, each citing proof; every financial number lists its assumption + source in the assumptions table — why: a missing block or bare number is a silent gap the verdict then rests on. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** minimum 5 risks, each with mitigation AND a residual-risk entry across market/execution/financial/competitive/regulatory/technical — why: a risk without residual pretends mitigation is total. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** run ALL 7 steps in order — idea → market-load → 9-block BMC → 3-year financials → 5+ risks → 3-phase execution plan (Validation/Build/Growth milestones) → go-to-market (launch + top-3 channels + pricing rationale) → verdict; NEVER drop financials, execution, or GTM because the idea "feels" decided — why: the verdict is only as sound as the weakest step it rests on. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** before writing any figure or claim, search market-analysis output + prior evaluations for 3+ comparable patterns and cite them — why: a number with no comparable anchor is a fabrication. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** write the result to `docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{slug}.md` via the enforced `.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md` — NEVER hand-roll the structure — why: the template is the contract downstream skills (domain-analysis/plan) read. **MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** persist intermediate findings to `plans/reports/` for lengthy evaluations — why: external memory survives context loss and serves as the deliverable. **Anti-Rationalization:** | Evasion | Rebuttal | | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | "Idea is obviously viable, skip rigor" | Optimism is not evidence. Run all 9 blocks + financials + risks anyway. | | "Skip a BMC block — not relevant" | Every block cites proof or states why N/A explicitly; silent omission fails the gate. | | "Estimate the number, source it later" | No assumption + source = no number. Fill the assumptions table before the verdict. | | "5 risks is a lot, 2 covers it" | Minimum 5, each with residual risk. Thin risk lists hide the real downside. | | "Recommendation is clear, skip the ask" | Still `AskUserQuestion` for the next route — the human owns go/no-go. | **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** evidence + confidence % on every number — NEVER present a guess as fact. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** bias toward skepticism — NEVER round optimism up. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** `AskUserQuestion` for the next route — NEVER auto-decide.