# Bootstrap Oracle > Structured business idea evaluator that outputs functionally narrow, painkiller businesses with built-in expansion to sustainable profitability. Use when user runs `/bootstrap-oracle`, asks to "score this business idea", "run oracle analysis", "evaluate this with oracle", "give me the oracle output", or needs a structured SaaS/bootstrap business evaluation with scoring, unit economics, and cash-flow analysis. - Skill: `entpnomad/bootstrap-oracle` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add entpnomad/bootstrap-oracle` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/entpnomad/bootstrap-oracle/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: entpnomad (https://skillmd.com/u/entpnomad) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/entpnomad/bootstrap-oracle --- # Bootstrap Oracle Originally created by [Andrew Shackleford](https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-s-a175623/), adapted for this toolkit. Andrew and Alex have been in the same Entrepreneur Mastermind through the [Dynamite Circle](https://dynamitecircle.com/) for over 5 years. Outputs functionally narrow, painkiller businesses with built-in expansion to sustainable, self-funded profitability. Preserves bootstrapped sanity, injects pre-validation & marketing-first doctrine, and recalibrates success probabilities to SaaS reality. Philosophy: farm cash cows, don't hunt unicorns. Build for revenue, not for sale. Read `.claude/skills/_shared/philosophy.md` first — all principles apply. Code is cheap. Weight Clarity and Distribution highest in scoring. Dev cost is near zero — discount it in unit economics. ## Sub-Skill Mode (Scoring-Only) **Invocation:** Standalone via `/bootstrap-oracle` (full pipeline) or as a scoring agent from `/analyze-idea` (scoring-only). When invoked from `/analyze-idea`: - **Skip Step 0** — dimension skills already did comprehensive research. Do NOT redo web searches. - **Receive dimension skill outputs as input** — score based ONLY on this evidence. - **Skip Step 3** — do NOT produce the full Pitch Deck. The orchestrator writes the final report. - **Execute Steps 1–2 only** — 5PM Filter, Scoring Sheet, Sanity Gate, Revenue Stairs, 3H/3L. - **Cite evidence sources** — every score must reference which dimension skill(s) informed it. If evidence is insufficient for a factor, score conservatively and flag the gap. ## Research-First Protocol **Sub-Skill Mode: SKIP this section and STEP 0 entirely — dimension skills already did the research.** When running standalone: research autonomously before scoring. See `_shared/philosophy.md` for the full protocol. Key searches: TAM data, competitors, pricing benchmarks, industry trends, recent funding/exits. ## End-to-End Flow ### STEP 0 — RESEARCH PHASE (do this first, silently) **Sub-Skill Mode: SKIP — go directly to STEP 1.** Use WebSearch and WebFetch to gather: - Market size data, growth rates, industry reports - Named competitors with pricing, features, funding, reviews - Comparable bootstrapped successes in the space - Regulatory landscape if relevant - Search volume / SEO data for core keywords if applicable ### STEP 1 — 5 PM FILTER Score the idea on five gates using your research. If the pain is not important & urgent or no budget-holder exists, mark **RED** and **STOP**. Only GREEN ideas advance. | Gate | Question | |------|----------| | **P**roblem | Is the pain important AND urgent? | | **P**urchaser | Does a budget-holder exist who will pay? | | **P**rice | Will they pay enough to sustain the business? | | **M**arket | Is the market large enough (≥€10M TAM)? | | **P**ersonal-fit | Can the founder actually build and run this? | ### STEP 2 — SCORING SHEET Score 9 factors using the weights below. Composite ≥ 0.85 required, else output **"RETRY"**. | Factor | Weight | Measurement | |--------|--------|-------------| | PMF | 18 | Includes 5PM pass & MPA completion % | | Clarity | 16 | Does the founder know exactly what to build, for whom, and why they'll pay? Vague = fatal when building is free. | | Distribution | 16 | Bonus if founder owns ≥5k audience; how will they reach buyers? Product is not the moat. | | Probability-of-Success (PoS) | 14 | Green: 0.55–0.70; Amber: 0.40–0.55; Red <0.40 | | Founder-Fit | 12 | Domain insight + market access + clarity of vision. Not "can they code it" — anyone can. Retreat scheduled? Y/N | | Moat | 10 | Distribution moats, data moats, relationship moats. Most product moats are fake when code is cheap. | | Scale Path | 5 | Based on Stair-Step clarity | | Cash-Flow Durability | 5 | Recurring rev quality, retention, revenue compounding | | Capex/Burn | 4 | Dev cost ≈ 0. Real burn = marketing, distribution, time-to-clarity. ≤€300/mo non-dev burn. | ### STEP 3 — IDEA OUTPUT Use the Pitch Deck Output Template below. ## 9 Expert Roles 1. **Clarity Analyst** — Does the founder know exactly what to build, for whom, and why they'll pay? Vague vision is fatal when execution is free. Forces specificity. 2. **Distribution Strategist** — How will buyers find this? Owned audience, channels, partnerships. Product is not the moat — reaching customers is. 3. **Moat Engineer** — Injects defensibility (distribution, data, network, relationships, regulation, user-investment lock-in). Most product moats are fake when code is cheap. Evaluates whether usage creates stored value that raises switching costs — if the product can be abandoned with zero loss, there is no moat. See `_shared/philosophy.md` for the lock-in checklist. 4. **Recession Strategist** — Validates durability under tariffs, AI disruption & pullbacks 5. **Competitor Auditor** — Proves gap vs incumbents / GTM edge (USE WEB SEARCH). When code is cheap, expect more competitors faster. 6. **Founder-Fit Analyst** — Domain insight, market access, clarity of vision. NOT "can they code it." ≤20h/wk; checks Quarterly Founder Retreat scheduled 7. **TAM & Pricing Modeler** — Maps path to ≥€1M ARR and €100M TAM; adds TRM (USE WEB SEARCH for data) 8. **Durability Analyst** — Validates long-term compounding potential, recurring revenue durability & cash-flow resilience 9. **Legal Sentinel** — Flags compliance, IP & license issues ## Structural Upgrades 1. **Secret Scale Lever** — "If X works in this niche, it unlocks Y with no extra product work" 2. **Bigger TAM Structure** — Niche TAM ≥€10M; full potential ≥€100M; explicit path 3. **Infrastructure Piggy-Back Test** — What existing workflow/tool do you replace or plug into? 4. **Cash-Flow Durability Score** — Revenue stickiness, retention quality, compounding potential; score 0–1 5. **Revenue Stairs (Stair-Step)** — Stair #1/#2/#3: feature scope + distribution channel + trigger to next stair ## Sanity Gate (all must be YES) - [ ] Founder can articulate the customer, the pain, and the willingness to pay in one sentence (Clarity Gate) - [ ] Distribution channel identified — how do buyers find this? (not "build it and they will come") - [ ] Monthly non-dev burn ≤€300 (marketing, tools, ops — dev cost ≈ 0) - [ ] Founder time ≤20h/wk - [ ] At least one named buyer persona - [ ] Customers already pay for similar outcomes - [ ] Solves a functionally narrow use-case - [ ] Expands laterally or vertically post-MVP - [ ] Validation-First: landing page, waitlist & ≥10 prospect interviews before polishing code (prototype is fine — clarity is the gate) - [ ] MPA defined & measurable (<15 min to first win) ## Pitch Deck Output Template ``` # [IDEA NAME] — Bootstrap Oracle Analysis MODEL TYPE: SaaS / Marketplace / DTC / Productised Service / etc. ACQUISITION TARGET (if any): ## THE PROBLEM WHY THE PAIN IS SEVERE: (3 bullets — quantify € or time loss) KILLER STAT: ## THE SOLUTION What it does, who it's for, how it works. MPA (Minimum Path to Awesome): ## WHY NOW What market shift, regulatory change, or technology inflection makes this viable today. Cite specific data from research. ## MARKET SIZE (researched) TAM (source) = ; SAM = ; SOM = TRM (Total Reachable Market via chosen channels in 24 mo) = PRICE BAND TEST: ARR if ARPU −20% / +20% = ## COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE (researched) COMPETITOR SNAPSHOT (30 words max each): • Player | price | gap we exploit [Include at least 3 named competitors from web research] ## CLARITY CHECK Can the founder articulate in one sentence: who the customer is, what pain they have, and why they'll pay? What's still unclear? What assumptions need testing before building more? Prototype-vs-PRD: What's the fastest way to test the core assumption? ## BUSINESS MODEL & UNIT ECONOMICS ARPU / GM per sale = ; COGS % = ; Payback = months ARR MATH: Target penetration = ; 24-mo recurring rev = Revenue Stairs: Stair #1 → #2 → #3 Note: Dev cost ≈ 0 (AI-native). Primary costs = marketing, distribution, founder time. ## UNFAIR ADVANTAGE / MOAT Distribution moat (how do buyers find you — this is the real moat when code is cheap): Data/relationship moat (hard to replicate even with AI): User-investment lock-in: Does usage create stored value (content, data, workflows, configurations)? Does the free tier require users to build things they'd lose by switching? Rate the switching cost flywheel: STRONG (months of investment at risk) / MODERATE (days-weeks of setup) / WEAK (can export and leave in minutes) / NONE (nothing stored). Secret Scale Lever: "If X works, we unlock Y in [sector/geo] with no extra product work." Infrastructure Piggy-Back: what existing workflow/tool do we replace or plug into? ## GO-TO-MARKET (this is the real bottleneck) DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY: – How do buyers find this? (not "build it and they will come") – Revenue lever #1 – Revenue lever #2 – CAC channel leverage (SEO/affiliate/paid/partnership) – Audience ownership: does the founder already have access to buyers? ## FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS 6-MONTH ROADMAP (table: month, deliverable, KPI — include MPA definition & marketing milestones) Stack / Ops / Supply Chain (40 words max) — assume AI-native development (near-zero dev cost) Non-dev burn: marketing, tools, ops (€/mo) Legal Budget: (launch € + yr-1 upkeep €) & main liability ## THE TEAM Founder-Fit assessment: domain insight, market access, clarity of vision. NOT "can they build it" — anyone can with AI tools. The question is: do they know what's worth building? FOUNDER ENERGY SCORE: 0–1 (include date of next Founder Retreat) ## KEY RISKS KEY RISKS & MITIGATIONS (table — include regulatory & competitive) PRE-MORTEM (top 3 failure modes, early warning, counter-move) REALITY CHECK: • Evidence market is real: • Proof people pay for similar outcomes: • What could break this: ## LONG-TERM VALUE & COMPOUNDING – Revenue compounding path (how does this get better with time?) – Retention & switching costs (why do customers stay forever?) • User-investment lock-in: What do customers build/store on the platform that they'd lose by leaving? • Cumulative value: Does the product get MORE valuable the longer they use it? (history, data, trained models, reputation, connections) • Team lock-in: Once multiple team members use it, switching requires organizational change, not just individual decision – Cash-flow durability under stress (recession, competition, AI disruption) Cash-Flow Durability Score: 0–1 ## VERDICT PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS: & 1-line rationale (PoS scale: Green 0.55–0.70; Amber 0.40–0.55; Red <0.40) COMPOSITE SCORE: (≥0.85 = GO, <0.85 = RETRY) SANITY GATE: [checklist with Y/N for each] BOOTSTRAPPER REALITY CHECK: Can this be self-funded to profitability? Y/N 3H / 3L METRIC RADAR: High Touch / High Intent / High Retention Low Churn / Low Payback / Low Refunds ``` ## Metric Definitions - **TRM** (Total Reachable Market): Subset of TAM attainable via chosen channels within 24 mo - **MPA Time-to-Win**: Minutes from sign-up until user experiences core value (goal <15 min) - **3H Metrics**: Leading indicators (touch, intent, retention) - **3L Metrics**: Lagging indicators (churn, payback, refunds)