Idea Comparison — Multi-Idea Decision Matrix
Side-by-side scoring of 2-4 business ideas to help founders choose which to pursue first. Not a replacement for deep analysis — a structured prioritization tool that forces honest comparison across the dimensions that matter most to bootstrappers.
Philosophy
You can take 50 swings per year. The question is which swing to take first. When building is cheap, founders often waste months on the wrong idea — not because it's bad, but because a better one was sitting in their notebook. This skill forces the comparison that intuition avoids.
Read .claude/skills/_shared/philosophy.md for the full bottleneck shift and bootstrapper framework. For idea comparison specifically:
Why founders need this:
- Founders fall in love with ideas. Love is not a scoring methodology.
- "I'll work on all of them" is code for "I'll make progress on none of them"
- The best idea is the one with the fastest path to revenue, not the most exciting vision
- Opportunity cost is the only cost that matters when building is free
What this skill is NOT:
- Not a substitute for
/analyze-idea — run that on the winner
- Not a deep validation tool — it scores on surface-level assessable dimensions
- Not an excuse to skip research — each idea still gets researched before scoring
The scoring philosophy:
- Weight distribution access and cash-flow speed highest — these determine bootstrapper survival
- Weight founder fit heavily — the best idea in the wrong founder's hands is the worst idea
- Revenue ceiling matters less than speed to first dollar — you can expand later
- "Effort to test" is a tiebreaker — when ideas score similarly, pursue the one you can validate fastest
Reference Books
Check references/INDEX.md for relevant frameworks. Key books for idea comparison:
- start-small (Walling) — Stair-step approach for sequencing ideas by complexity; market-first niche selection criteria; the philosophy that marketing validation comes before code
- disciplined-entrepreneurship (Aulet) — Market segmentation matrix for evaluating multiple opportunities; beachhead market selection methodology; 24-step framework for systematic idea assessment
- thinking-in-bets (Duke) — Probabilistic decision-making when comparing uncertain options; separating decision quality from outcome quality; avoiding resulting bias when choosing between ideas
- lean-startup (Ries) — Validated learning framework for deciding which idea to pursue; build-measure-learn loop for rapid testing; pivot-or-persevere decision criteria
- crossing-the-chasm (Moore) — Beachhead segment selection when comparing ideas targeting different adoption stages; whole product concept for assessing effort-to-test
Research-First Protocol
Research autonomously before scoring. See _shared/philosophy.md for the full protocol.
For each idea, run quick discovery searches:
- "[idea/market] competitors" / "[idea/market] existing solutions" (market validation)
- "[idea/market] pricing" / "[idea/market] SaaS" (revenue signals)
- "[target customer] frustrations" / "[target customer] complaints" (problem validation)
- "[idea/market] trends [current year]" (market trajectory)
Consume prior intelligence: If dimension skills have been run for any of the ideas in this session, use those findings for scoring instead of re-researching. Note which ideas have prior analysis and which are scored from quick research only.
End-to-End Flow
STEP 0 — COLLECT IDEAS
Extract from the user's input:
- 2-4 business ideas with enough description to research (what it does, who it's for)
- Founder context (skills, distribution access, constraints, time budget — if stated)
- Any weighting preferences (does the founder value speed? revenue ceiling? passion?)
If fewer than 2 ideas are provided, ask for at least one more. If more than 4 are provided, ask the founder to narrow to their top 4. If descriptions are too vague to compare, ask ONE clarifying question per vague idea.
STEP 1 — QUICK RESEARCH PER IDEA
For each idea, gather enough intelligence to score the 8 dimensions. This is NOT deep analysis — it's structured first-pass research.
For each idea:
- Does the market exist? (Competitors with paying customers?)
- Is the problem real? (People complaining, paying for workarounds?)
- How fast can revenue start? (Pricing signals, transaction complexity)
- Does the founder have distribution access to the target buyer?
- How hard is it to test? (MVP complexity, sales cycle length)
- What's the realistic revenue ceiling for a bootstrapper?
- How competitive is it? (Crowded, moderate, open?)
- Does the founder have relevant domain knowledge or relationships?
STEP 2 — SCORE ON 8 DIMENSIONS
Score each idea on each dimension using a 1-5 scale. Every score must have a one-sentence justification citing specific evidence.
Dimension 1: Problem Clarity (Weight: 15%)
How clear and validated is the problem this idea solves?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Problem is proven — people pay to solve it today, founder has first-hand evidence |
| 4 |
Problem is indicated — complaints, workarounds, competitor revenue visible |
| 3 |
Problem is plausible — logical pain, some signals, but limited direct evidence |
| 2 |
Problem is assumed — founder believes it exists, no independent validation |
| 1 |
Problem is unclear — can't articulate who has this problem or why it's painful |
Dimension 2: Market Validation (Weight: 15%)
Is there evidence that a market exists with paying customers?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Multiple competitors with revenue, growing market, clear demand signals |
| 4 |
Some competitors, pricing established, moderate demand evidence |
| 3 |
Emerging market, few competitors, demand is plausible but not proven |
| 2 |
Very early, no clear competitors, demand signals weak |
| 1 |
No evidence of market demand, no competitors, no pricing signals |
Dimension 3: Distribution Access (Weight: 15%)
Can the founder realistically reach the target buyer?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Founder has direct access — existing audience, community presence, warm relationships with buyers |
| 4 |
Founder has adjacent access — knows the ecosystem, can reach buyers through 1-2 degrees |
| 3 |
Channel exists and is accessible — SEO, marketplace, community — but founder starts from zero |
| 2 |
Distribution path is unclear or expensive — requires paid acquisition or outbound sales |
| 1 |
No obvious path to buyers — mass market, no clear channel, cold start problem |
Dimension 4: Cash-Flow Speed (Weight: 15%)
How fast can this idea generate its first dollar of revenue?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Revenue within weeks — self-serve purchase, low price point, instant value delivery |
| 4 |
Revenue within 1-2 months — short sales cycle, clear pricing, fast onboarding |
| 3 |
Revenue within 3-6 months — needs MVP, moderate sales cycle, some setup required |
| 2 |
Revenue in 6-12 months — complex product, long sales cycle, significant build needed |
| 1 |
Revenue in 12+ months — enterprise sales, regulatory approval, marketplace chicken-and-egg |
Dimension 5: Founder Fit (Weight: 12%)
How well does this idea match the founder's skills, experience, and situation?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Perfect fit — domain expert, relevant network, ideal time/money situation for this business |
| 4 |
Strong fit — adjacent expertise, some relevant relationships, manageable constraints |
| 3 |
Moderate fit — can learn the domain, no major blockers, but no unfair advantages |
| 2 |
Weak fit — outside domain, limited relevant network, significant constraints |
| 1 |
Poor fit — wrong founder for this business, critical gaps in knowledge/access/resources |
Dimension 6: Competition Gap (Weight: 10%)
Is there a viable opening in the competitive landscape?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Clear gap — underserved segment, frustrated customers, no quality solution exists |
| 4 |
Winnable gap — competitors exist but have exploitable weaknesses (price, UX, niche) |
| 3 |
Crowded but differentiation possible — need a strong angle to stand out |
| 2 |
Highly competitive — strong incumbents, hard to differentiate, requires heavy investment |
| 1 |
Dominated — monopoly/duopoly, or commodity market with no room for differentiation |
Dimension 7: Revenue Ceiling (Weight: 8%)
What's the realistic revenue cap for a bootstrapped player?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
$1M+ ARR achievable — large enough market, strong unit economics, expansion paths |
| 4 |
$500K-$1M ARR achievable — solid niche, good margins, sustainable |
| 3 |
$100K-$500K ARR achievable — viable lifestyle business, limited scale |
| 2 |
$50K-$100K ARR ceiling — very niche or commoditized, thin margins |
| 1 |
<$50K ARR ceiling — hobby-level revenue, not a business |
Dimension 8: Effort to Test (Weight: 10%)
How quickly and cheaply can you validate this idea with real customers?
| Score |
Meaning |
| 5 |
Test in days — landing page, manual delivery, existing tools, no code needed |
| 4 |
Test in 1-2 weeks — simple MVP, can use no-code/low-code or AI-built prototype |
| 3 |
Test in 1-2 months — needs a working product but scope is manageable |
| 2 |
Test in 3-6 months — complex product, integrations required, or need a beta group |
| 1 |
Test in 6+ months — significant build, regulatory compliance, or infrastructure needed |
STEP 3 — CALCULATE WEIGHTED SCORES
For each idea:
- Multiply each dimension score by its weight
- Sum for composite score (max 5.0)
- Rank ideas by composite score
Weights:
| Dimension |
Weight |
| Problem Clarity |
15% |
| Market Validation |
15% |
| Distribution Access |
15% |
| Cash-Flow Speed |
15% |
| Founder Fit |
12% |
| Competition Gap |
10% |
| Revenue Ceiling |
8% |
| Effort to Test |
10% |
STEP 4 — TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS
Beyond the numbers, analyze:
- Head-to-head matchups — Where does Idea A beat Idea B and vice versa? Are the trade-offs acceptable?
- Risk profiles — Which idea has the most downside risk? Which has the safest floor?
- Portfolio thinking — If Idea A fails, does it teach you something that makes Idea B better?
- Emotional bias check — Is the founder likely drawn to a lower-scoring idea? Why? Is that signal or noise?
- Sequencing — Could you test Idea A first (faster to validate), then pivot to Idea B if it fails?
STEP 5 — OUTPUT
Produce the full report using the template below.
Output Template
# IDEA COMPARISON: [Brief description of the comparison]
Research date: [date]
Ideas compared: [count]
Prior analysis consumed: [List any dimension skills already run for any idea, or "Standalone"]
---
## COMPARISON MATRIX
| Dimension (Weight) | [Idea 1 Name] | [Idea 2 Name] | [Idea 3 Name] | [Idea 4 Name] |
|---------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Problem Clarity (15%) | [1-5] — [one-line justification] | [1-5] — [one-line justification] | | |
| Market Validation (15%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| Distribution Access (15%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| Cash-Flow Speed (15%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| Founder Fit (12%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| Competition Gap (10%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| Revenue Ceiling (8%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| Effort to Test (10%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |
| **WEIGHTED SCORE** | **[n.nn]** | **[n.nn]** | | |
| **RANK** | **#[n]** | **#[n]** | | |
---
## IDEA PROFILES
### [Idea 1 Name]
**What it is:** [One-sentence description]
**Target buyer:** [Who pays]
**Revenue model:** [How they pay]
**Strongest dimension:** [Which dimension scored highest and why]
**Weakest dimension:** [Which dimension scored lowest and why]
**Biggest risk:** [The single thing most likely to kill this idea]
**Fastest path to $1K MRR:** [Concrete path description]
### [Idea 2 Name]
[Same structure]
### [Idea 3/4 if applicable]
[Same structure]
---
## HEAD-TO-HEAD ANALYSIS
### [Idea 1] vs. [Idea 2]
**Where [Idea 1] wins:** [Specific dimensions and why]
**Where [Idea 2] wins:** [Specific dimensions and why]
**The decisive factor:** [What tips the balance]
### [Additional matchups if 3+ ideas]
---
## TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS
**Risk profiles:**
| Idea | Upside Potential | Downside Risk | Risk-Adjusted View |
|------|-----------------|---------------|-------------------|
| [Idea 1] | [Best case] | [Worst case] | [Net assessment] |
| [Idea 2] | [Best case] | [Worst case] | [Net assessment] |
**Emotional bias check:**
[Is the founder likely drawn to a specific idea for reasons not captured in the scoring? What's driving that — signal or noise?]
**Sequencing opportunity:**
[Can these ideas be tested sequentially? Would one idea's failure teach something useful for the others? Is there a logical order beyond the scoring?]
---
## SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
**What would change the ranking:**
| Scenario | New #1 | Why |
|----------|--------|-----|
| If founder has stronger distribution for Idea [N] | [Idea N] | [Explanation] |
| If [market condition] changes | [Idea N] | [Explanation] |
| If founder values [dimension] more than scoring weights suggest | [Idea N] | [Explanation] |
---
## RECOMMENDATION
**PURSUE FIRST: [Idea Name]**
**Why this one:**
[2-3 sentences — the core argument for why this idea should get the founder's time and money first. Focus on the combination of dimensions, not just the highest score.]
**The case against it:**
[1-2 sentences — the strongest argument for NOT pursuing this idea. Intellectual honesty.]
**What to do with the other ideas:**
| Idea | Recommendation |
|------|---------------|
| [Idea 2] | [Pursue second / Park for 6 months / Kill it / Test in parallel if effort is low] |
| [Idea 3] | [Recommendation] |
| [Idea 4] | [Recommendation] |
---
## NEXT STEPS
**For the #1 idea:**
1. [Specific validation action — what to do in the next 7 days]
2. [Specific action — second priority]
3. [Run `/analyze-idea` for full 10-dimension deep analysis]
**Kill criteria:**
[What evidence in the next 30 days would make you switch to Idea #2 instead?]
---
## BOTTOM LINE
[2-3 sentences. Which idea wins, by how much, and what's the confidence level? Is this a clear winner or a close call?]
**The honest answer:** [One sentence — which idea gives this founder the best shot at revenue in the shortest time?]
Important Rules
See _shared/philosophy.md Universal Skill Rules.
Skill-specific rules:
- Every score needs a justification — a bare number is worthless. "Distribution Access: 4 — founder has 2K followers in the target subreddit and moderates a Slack group of 500 marketers" is useful.
- Research each idea, don't guess — even quick research beats assumptions. Spend 2-3 searches per idea minimum. Note where evidence is thin.
- Same depth for every idea — don't let founder enthusiasm bias research depth. If you research 5 competitors for Idea A, research 5 for Idea B too.
- Weights are defaults, not gospel — if the founder explicitly states different priorities (e.g., "I care most about passion/fit"), acknowledge the default ranking AND show what the ranking would be with their preferred weights.
- Close scores mean close call — if ideas are within 0.3 points, say so. Don't pretend a 3.72 vs. 3.68 is a clear winner. Surface the tiebreaker.
- Kill criteria are essential — the recommendation must include what would trigger switching to the #2 idea. Founders need an exit ramp, not just an on-ramp.
- This is a Meta skill — it operates across ideas, not within one. It does NOT produce validation gates or digest mode. The output is a decision framework, not an analysis report.
- Sequencing matters — sometimes the answer isn't "pursue the highest scorer" but "test the cheapest-to-validate first." Surface this when relevant.
1---2name: idea-comparison3description: Side-by-side comparison of 2-4 business ideas on 8 weighted dimensions. Produces a ranked matrix with scores, trade-off analysis, and a clear recommendation of which idea to pursue first. Use when user runs `/idea-comparison`, asks to "compare these ideas", "which idea should I pursue", "rank my ideas", "prioritize between ideas", or has multiple business concepts and needs to choose.4---56# Idea Comparison — Multi-Idea Decision Matrix78Side-by-side scoring of 2-4 business ideas to help founders choose which to pursue first. Not a replacement for deep analysis — a structured prioritization tool that forces honest comparison across the dimensions that matter most to bootstrappers.910## Philosophy1112**You can take 50 swings per year. The question is which swing to take first.** When building is cheap, founders often waste months on the wrong idea — not because it's bad, but because a better one was sitting in their notebook. This skill forces the comparison that intuition avoids.1314Read `.claude/skills/_shared/philosophy.md` for the full bottleneck shift and bootstrapper framework. For idea comparison specifically:1516**Why founders need this:**17- Founders fall in love with ideas. Love is not a scoring methodology.18- "I'll work on all of them" is code for "I'll make progress on none of them"19- The best idea is the one with the fastest path to revenue, not the most exciting vision20- Opportunity cost is the only cost that matters when building is free2122**What this skill is NOT:**23- Not a substitute for `/analyze-idea` — run that on the winner24- Not a deep validation tool — it scores on surface-level assessable dimensions25- Not an excuse to skip research — each idea still gets researched before scoring2627**The scoring philosophy:**28- Weight distribution access and cash-flow speed highest — these determine bootstrapper survival29- Weight founder fit heavily — the best idea in the wrong founder's hands is the worst idea30- Revenue ceiling matters less than speed to first dollar — you can expand later31- "Effort to test" is a tiebreaker — when ideas score similarly, pursue the one you can validate fastest3233## Reference Books3435Check `references/INDEX.md` for relevant frameworks. Key books for idea comparison:3637- **start-small** (Walling) — Stair-step approach for sequencing ideas by complexity; market-first niche selection criteria; the philosophy that marketing validation comes before code38- **disciplined-entrepreneurship** (Aulet) — Market segmentation matrix for evaluating multiple opportunities; beachhead market selection methodology; 24-step framework for systematic idea assessment39- **thinking-in-bets** (Duke) — Probabilistic decision-making when comparing uncertain options; separating decision quality from outcome quality; avoiding resulting bias when choosing between ideas40- **lean-startup** (Ries) — Validated learning framework for deciding which idea to pursue; build-measure-learn loop for rapid testing; pivot-or-persevere decision criteria41- **crossing-the-chasm** (Moore) — Beachhead segment selection when comparing ideas targeting different adoption stages; whole product concept for assessing effort-to-test4243## Research-First Protocol4445Research autonomously before scoring. See `_shared/philosophy.md` for the full protocol.4647**For each idea, run quick discovery searches:**48- "[idea/market] competitors" / "[idea/market] existing solutions" (market validation)49- "[idea/market] pricing" / "[idea/market] SaaS" (revenue signals)50- "[target customer] frustrations" / "[target customer] complaints" (problem validation)51- "[idea/market] trends [current year]" (market trajectory)5253**Consume prior intelligence:** If dimension skills have been run for any of the ideas in this session, use those findings for scoring instead of re-researching. Note which ideas have prior analysis and which are scored from quick research only.5455## End-to-End Flow5657### STEP 0 — COLLECT IDEAS5859Extract from the user's input:60- 2-4 business ideas with enough description to research (what it does, who it's for)61- Founder context (skills, distribution access, constraints, time budget — if stated)62- Any weighting preferences (does the founder value speed? revenue ceiling? passion?)6364If fewer than 2 ideas are provided, ask for at least one more. If more than 4 are provided, ask the founder to narrow to their top 4. If descriptions are too vague to compare, ask ONE clarifying question per vague idea.6566### STEP 1 — QUICK RESEARCH PER IDEA6768For each idea, gather enough intelligence to score the 8 dimensions. This is NOT deep analysis — it's structured first-pass research.6970**For each idea:**71- Does the market exist? (Competitors with paying customers?)72- Is the problem real? (People complaining, paying for workarounds?)73- How fast can revenue start? (Pricing signals, transaction complexity)74- Does the founder have distribution access to the target buyer?75- How hard is it to test? (MVP complexity, sales cycle length)76- What's the realistic revenue ceiling for a bootstrapper?77- How competitive is it? (Crowded, moderate, open?)78- Does the founder have relevant domain knowledge or relationships?7980### STEP 2 — SCORE ON 8 DIMENSIONS8182Score each idea on each dimension using a 1-5 scale. Every score must have a one-sentence justification citing specific evidence.8384---8586#### Dimension 1: Problem Clarity (Weight: 15%)8788How clear and validated is the problem this idea solves?8990| Score | Meaning |91|-------|---------|92| 5 | Problem is proven — people pay to solve it today, founder has first-hand evidence |93| 4 | Problem is indicated — complaints, workarounds, competitor revenue visible |94| 3 | Problem is plausible — logical pain, some signals, but limited direct evidence |95| 2 | Problem is assumed — founder believes it exists, no independent validation |96| 1 | Problem is unclear — can't articulate who has this problem or why it's painful |9798---99100#### Dimension 2: Market Validation (Weight: 15%)101102Is there evidence that a market exists with paying customers?103104| Score | Meaning |105|-------|---------|106| 5 | Multiple competitors with revenue, growing market, clear demand signals |107| 4 | Some competitors, pricing established, moderate demand evidence |108| 3 | Emerging market, few competitors, demand is plausible but not proven |109| 2 | Very early, no clear competitors, demand signals weak |110| 1 | No evidence of market demand, no competitors, no pricing signals |111112---113114#### Dimension 3: Distribution Access (Weight: 15%)115116Can the founder realistically reach the target buyer?117118| Score | Meaning |119|-------|---------|120| 5 | Founder has direct access — existing audience, community presence, warm relationships with buyers |121| 4 | Founder has adjacent access — knows the ecosystem, can reach buyers through 1-2 degrees |122| 3 | Channel exists and is accessible — SEO, marketplace, community — but founder starts from zero |123| 2 | Distribution path is unclear or expensive — requires paid acquisition or outbound sales |124| 1 | No obvious path to buyers — mass market, no clear channel, cold start problem |125126---127128#### Dimension 4: Cash-Flow Speed (Weight: 15%)129130How fast can this idea generate its first dollar of revenue?131132| Score | Meaning |133|-------|---------|134| 5 | Revenue within weeks — self-serve purchase, low price point, instant value delivery |135| 4 | Revenue within 1-2 months — short sales cycle, clear pricing, fast onboarding |136| 3 | Revenue within 3-6 months — needs MVP, moderate sales cycle, some setup required |137| 2 | Revenue in 6-12 months — complex product, long sales cycle, significant build needed |138| 1 | Revenue in 12+ months — enterprise sales, regulatory approval, marketplace chicken-and-egg |139140---141142#### Dimension 5: Founder Fit (Weight: 12%)143144How well does this idea match the founder's skills, experience, and situation?145146| Score | Meaning |147|-------|---------|148| 5 | Perfect fit — domain expert, relevant network, ideal time/money situation for this business |149| 4 | Strong fit — adjacent expertise, some relevant relationships, manageable constraints |150| 3 | Moderate fit — can learn the domain, no major blockers, but no unfair advantages |151| 2 | Weak fit — outside domain, limited relevant network, significant constraints |152| 1 | Poor fit — wrong founder for this business, critical gaps in knowledge/access/resources |153154---155156#### Dimension 6: Competition Gap (Weight: 10%)157158Is there a viable opening in the competitive landscape?159160| Score | Meaning |161|-------|---------|162| 5 | Clear gap — underserved segment, frustrated customers, no quality solution exists |163| 4 | Winnable gap — competitors exist but have exploitable weaknesses (price, UX, niche) |164| 3 | Crowded but differentiation possible — need a strong angle to stand out |165| 2 | Highly competitive — strong incumbents, hard to differentiate, requires heavy investment |166| 1 | Dominated — monopoly/duopoly, or commodity market with no room for differentiation |167168---169170#### Dimension 7: Revenue Ceiling (Weight: 8%)171172What's the realistic revenue cap for a bootstrapped player?173174| Score | Meaning |175|-------|---------|176| 5 | $1M+ ARR achievable — large enough market, strong unit economics, expansion paths |177| 4 | $500K-$1M ARR achievable — solid niche, good margins, sustainable |178| 3 | $100K-$500K ARR achievable — viable lifestyle business, limited scale |179| 2 | $50K-$100K ARR ceiling — very niche or commoditized, thin margins |180| 1 | <$50K ARR ceiling — hobby-level revenue, not a business |181182---183184#### Dimension 8: Effort to Test (Weight: 10%)185186How quickly and cheaply can you validate this idea with real customers?187188| Score | Meaning |189|-------|---------|190| 5 | Test in days — landing page, manual delivery, existing tools, no code needed |191| 4 | Test in 1-2 weeks — simple MVP, can use no-code/low-code or AI-built prototype |192| 3 | Test in 1-2 months — needs a working product but scope is manageable |193| 2 | Test in 3-6 months — complex product, integrations required, or need a beta group |194| 1 | Test in 6+ months — significant build, regulatory compliance, or infrastructure needed |195196---197198### STEP 3 — CALCULATE WEIGHTED SCORES199200For each idea:201- Multiply each dimension score by its weight202- Sum for composite score (max 5.0)203- Rank ideas by composite score204205**Weights:**206| Dimension | Weight |207|-----------|--------|208| Problem Clarity | 15% |209| Market Validation | 15% |210| Distribution Access | 15% |211| Cash-Flow Speed | 15% |212| Founder Fit | 12% |213| Competition Gap | 10% |214| Revenue Ceiling | 8% |215| Effort to Test | 10% |216217### STEP 4 — TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS218219Beyond the numbers, analyze:220- **Head-to-head matchups** — Where does Idea A beat Idea B and vice versa? Are the trade-offs acceptable?221- **Risk profiles** — Which idea has the most downside risk? Which has the safest floor?222- **Portfolio thinking** — If Idea A fails, does it teach you something that makes Idea B better?223- **Emotional bias check** — Is the founder likely drawn to a lower-scoring idea? Why? Is that signal or noise?224- **Sequencing** — Could you test Idea A first (faster to validate), then pivot to Idea B if it fails?225226### STEP 5 — OUTPUT227228Produce the full report using the template below.229230## Output Template231232```233# IDEA COMPARISON: [Brief description of the comparison]234235Research date: [date]236Ideas compared: [count]237Prior analysis consumed: [List any dimension skills already run for any idea, or "Standalone"]238239---240241## COMPARISON MATRIX242243| Dimension (Weight) | [Idea 1 Name] | [Idea 2 Name] | [Idea 3 Name] | [Idea 4 Name] |244|---------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|245| Problem Clarity (15%) | [1-5] — [one-line justification] | [1-5] — [one-line justification] | | |246| Market Validation (15%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |247| Distribution Access (15%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |248| Cash-Flow Speed (15%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |249| Founder Fit (12%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |250| Competition Gap (10%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |251| Revenue Ceiling (8%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |252| Effort to Test (10%) | [1-5] — [justification] | [1-5] — [justification] | | |253| **WEIGHTED SCORE** | **[n.nn]** | **[n.nn]** | | |254| **RANK** | **#[n]** | **#[n]** | | |255256---257258## IDEA PROFILES259260### [Idea 1 Name]261**What it is:** [One-sentence description]262**Target buyer:** [Who pays]263**Revenue model:** [How they pay]264**Strongest dimension:** [Which dimension scored highest and why]265**Weakest dimension:** [Which dimension scored lowest and why]266**Biggest risk:** [The single thing most likely to kill this idea]267**Fastest path to $1K MRR:** [Concrete path description]268269### [Idea 2 Name]270[Same structure]271272### [Idea 3/4 if applicable]273[Same structure]274275---276277## HEAD-TO-HEAD ANALYSIS278279### [Idea 1] vs. [Idea 2]280**Where [Idea 1] wins:** [Specific dimensions and why]281**Where [Idea 2] wins:** [Specific dimensions and why]282**The decisive factor:** [What tips the balance]283284### [Additional matchups if 3+ ideas]285286---287288## TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS289290**Risk profiles:**291| Idea | Upside Potential | Downside Risk | Risk-Adjusted View |292|------|-----------------|---------------|-------------------|293| [Idea 1] | [Best case] | [Worst case] | [Net assessment] |294| [Idea 2] | [Best case] | [Worst case] | [Net assessment] |295296**Emotional bias check:**297[Is the founder likely drawn to a specific idea for reasons not captured in the scoring? What's driving that — signal or noise?]298299**Sequencing opportunity:**300[Can these ideas be tested sequentially? Would one idea's failure teach something useful for the others? Is there a logical order beyond the scoring?]301302---303304## SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS305306**What would change the ranking:**307| Scenario | New #1 | Why |308|----------|--------|-----|309| If founder has stronger distribution for Idea [N] | [Idea N] | [Explanation] |310| If [market condition] changes | [Idea N] | [Explanation] |311| If founder values [dimension] more than scoring weights suggest | [Idea N] | [Explanation] |312313---314315## RECOMMENDATION316317**PURSUE FIRST: [Idea Name]**318319**Why this one:**320[2-3 sentences — the core argument for why this idea should get the founder's time and money first. Focus on the combination of dimensions, not just the highest score.]321322**The case against it:**323[1-2 sentences — the strongest argument for NOT pursuing this idea. Intellectual honesty.]324325**What to do with the other ideas:**326| Idea | Recommendation |327|------|---------------|328| [Idea 2] | [Pursue second / Park for 6 months / Kill it / Test in parallel if effort is low] |329| [Idea 3] | [Recommendation] |330| [Idea 4] | [Recommendation] |331332---333334## NEXT STEPS335336**For the #1 idea:**3371. [Specific validation action — what to do in the next 7 days]3382. [Specific action — second priority]3393. [Run `/analyze-idea` for full 10-dimension deep analysis]340341**Kill criteria:**342[What evidence in the next 30 days would make you switch to Idea #2 instead?]343344---345346## BOTTOM LINE347348[2-3 sentences. Which idea wins, by how much, and what's the confidence level? Is this a clear winner or a close call?]349350**The honest answer:** [One sentence — which idea gives this founder the best shot at revenue in the shortest time?]351```352353## Important Rules354355See `_shared/philosophy.md` Universal Skill Rules.356357**Skill-specific rules:**358- **Every score needs a justification** — a bare number is worthless. "Distribution Access: 4 — founder has 2K followers in the target subreddit and moderates a Slack group of 500 marketers" is useful.359- **Research each idea, don't guess** — even quick research beats assumptions. Spend 2-3 searches per idea minimum. Note where evidence is thin.360- **Same depth for every idea** — don't let founder enthusiasm bias research depth. If you research 5 competitors for Idea A, research 5 for Idea B too.361- **Weights are defaults, not gospel** — if the founder explicitly states different priorities (e.g., "I care most about passion/fit"), acknowledge the default ranking AND show what the ranking would be with their preferred weights.362- **Close scores mean close call** — if ideas are within 0.3 points, say so. Don't pretend a 3.72 vs. 3.68 is a clear winner. Surface the tiebreaker.363- **Kill criteria are essential** — the recommendation must include what would trigger switching to the #2 idea. Founders need an exit ramp, not just an on-ramp.364- **This is a Meta skill** — it operates across ideas, not within one. It does NOT produce validation gates or digest mode. The output is a decision framework, not an analysis report.365- **Sequencing matters** — sometimes the answer isn't "pursue the highest scorer" but "test the cheapest-to-validate first." Surface this when relevant.
entpnomad