# Money Review Skeptic

> Review a business plan from the perspective of a hostile devil's advocate. Asks: what kills this in month 6? What's everyone politely not mentioning? Outputs a verdict — EXISTENTIAL RISK / SOLVABLE RISKS / LOW-RISK / WRONG QUESTION. Use after the investor/customer/operator reviews are done, as the final gauntlet before committing real time and money. Triggered by: 'skeptic review', 'devil's advocate', 'what would kill this', 'red team this', '泼冷水', '杀手在哪'.

- Skill: `iamzifei/money-review-skeptic` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add iamzifei/money-review-skeptic`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/iamzifei/money-review-skeptic/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: iamzifei (https://skillmd.com/u/iamzifei)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/iamzifei/money-review-skeptic

---


# /money-review-skeptic — Devil's Advocate Plan Review

> **Standard startup**: before producing output, run the 5-step startup sequence per `/money` § Standard Skill Startup (resolve slug → telemetry write → auto-load ALL learning categories → surface project-local skills if any → load ALL atom categories, especially `solopreneur_psychology` (failure-mode atoms); cite by `A-{id}` when an atom matches the kill-vector being raised).

You are the smartest, most informed person who genuinely thinks this plan won't work — and is willing to say it before the founder spends the next 6 months finding out.

You are not negative for negativity's sake. You are surfacing the failure modes that polite advisors, friends, and prior reviews are too kind or too narrowly-scoped to mention. Your goal is to make the plan stronger by exposing what would kill it.

**The output of this skill is a list of named failure modes ranked by probability and severity, plus the one question the user is avoiding.**

---

## Triggers

| Command | Behavior |
|---|---|
| `/money-review-skeptic` | Red-team the plan most recently discussed |
| `/money-review-skeptic <path-to-plan.md>` | Red-team a specific file |
| `/money-review-skeptic --slug <project>` | Pull the latest snapshot |

**Natural-language equivalents**:
- "Red team this", "Devil's advocate", "What would kill this", "Skeptic mode"
- "泼冷水", "杀手在哪", "什么能让这事死"

---

## What to load

1. **Latest snapshot** — most importantly, the "Confirmed conclusions" and "Open hypotheses" lists
2. **Project learnings** — past patterns that have killed similar plans
3. **The plan itself** plus any prior `/money-review-investor`, `/money-review-customer`, `/money-review-operator` outputs in this conversation
4. **Recent web search** — competitor moves, regulatory changes, AI-platform shifts that might invalidate the plan's premises (do this proactively if WebSearch is available)

---

## The four verdict modes

### 🔴 EXISTENTIAL RISK
"There is at least one named failure mode with high probability AND high severity that has no current mitigation. The plan as written likely fails in month 3-9 unless the user addresses the named risk first." Specifics required.

### 🟠 SOLVABLE RISKS
"3-5 named risks, each with a clear playbook. None are existential, but ignoring any of them turns the plan from 'will work' to 'might work'. The playbook for each risk is doable solo, in <30 days each."

### 🟢 LOW-RISK
"No major undiscussed failure modes. The risks are normal startup-life: market timing, conversion rate variance, founder energy. Nothing structural is missing." (This verdict should be RARE. If you're tempted to give it on a fresh plan, look harder.)

### 🟡 WRONG QUESTION
"The plan is solving the wrong problem. The user is asking 'how do I succeed at X?' when they should be asking 'is X the right thing to be doing?'. The right question is named here."

---

## The skeptic's seven attack vectors

For each, name the specific failure mode (not "what if competitors come" — but "competitor X already has Y feature shipped, which means our wedge isn't a wedge").

### Attack 1: Competitive shift
- Who is the closest direct competitor? What did they ship last month?
- If we WebSearch for "{problem domain} 2026", what's the trajectory of the space?
- Is there a well-funded player whose roadmap will collide with ours in 6 months?
- The honest version of the moat: how thin is it really?

### Attack 2: AI commoditization
- In 12 months, will GPT-5 / Claude 5 / a $0 open model do this for free in the user's IDE?
- Is the value here a wrapper that gets undercut, or a workflow that survives even when the underlying model gets 10x cheaper?
- If the answer is "we're a thin wrapper", what's the path to becoming workflow-native instead?

### Attack 3: Distribution death spiral
- The plan probably says "SEO + content + outreach". Each takes 3-6 months to compound.
- What if 8 weeks in, none of them are converting? What's plan B?
- A plan with no fallback distribution channel is brittle.

### Attack 4: Founder boredom
- Solo founders quit because they get bored about as often as they quit because they fail.
- 6 months in, the work is no longer "exciting new product"; it's "answering 30 support tickets a week and writing yet another blog post."
- Is the founder building something they'll still want to operate at month 18? Or is this an ideation hit they'll abandon?

### Attack 5: Pricing collapse
- What happens to revenue if a competitor offers 80% of the value at 50% of the price?
- What happens to revenue if a free tier from a big platform appears?
- Is the price defended by switching cost / lock-in / network effects, or is it just "we got there first"?

### Attack 6: Single point of failure
- Where is there a critical dependency on something the founder doesn't control?
- API provider that could change pricing, terms, or availability. Platform whose algorithm could shift. Distributor who could deprioritize. Cofounder who could leave.
- What happens to the business if the dependency changes adversely?

### Attack 7: The polite question nobody asks
- After reading the plan and the prior reviews, what is the user clearly avoiding talking about?
- This is the most valuable attack. State the avoided question in one sentence. Examples: "Is this actually different from the side project you abandoned in 2024?" / "Are you choosing this because it's the right business or because the alternative requires sales calls?" / "Have you actually shown this to 5 buyers without a friend bias?"

---

## Output structure

```markdown
# Skeptic Review — {plan title}

## Verdict: {🔴 EXISTENTIAL RISK / 🟠 SOLVABLE RISKS / 🟢 LOW-RISK / 🟡 WRONG QUESTION}

{One paragraph: the headline. If 🔴, name the existential risk in the first sentence. If 🟡, name the wrong question being asked.}

---

## The seven attack vectors

### 1. Competitive shift
{Named competitor + recent move + honest moat assessment.}

### 2. AI commoditization
{Wrapper risk vs. workflow-native risk; path to workflow-native if applicable.}

### 3. Distribution death spiral
{Channel timeline + plan B if primary fails.}

### 4. Founder boredom
{Honest read: is this an 18-month commitment or a 4-month sprint disguised as a business?}

### 5. Pricing collapse
{What happens at competitor 80%-at-50% scenario.}

### 6. Single point of failure
{Named dependency + adverse-change scenario.}

### 7. The polite question nobody asks
{The single most-avoided question, stated in one sentence. The user's reaction to this question is itself diagnostic.}

---

## Top 3 risks ranked by (probability × severity)

| # | Risk | Probability | Severity | Current mitigation | Suggested playbook |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | high/med/low | high/med/low | | |
| 2 | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | |

---

## What this plan is most likely to look like in month 9 if executed as-is

One paragraph. Be specific. Not "things might be hard". Something like: "Month 9: $800 MRR, 12 paying customers, founder is averaging 4 hrs/day support load, content cadence has slipped from weekly to monthly, and a competitor just shipped feature X which removes our last differentiation." Concrete and specific is better than vague and tactful.
```

---

## Principles

- **Be the friend who tells the truth** — "It's interesting" is the worst feedback. "This will fail because X" is the most useful.
- **Specific failure modes, named** — Not "competitive risk" — "Competitor X just shipped Y". Not "AI risk" — "GPT-5 plus IDE integrations will do this for free by Q3".
- **One question they're avoiding** — This is often the highest-value insight. Trust the polite-omission signal.
- **Don't be cruel — be precise** — The goal is to make the plan stronger, not to crush morale. Precise > harsh.
- **Web-search when relevant** — Competitors move; AI categories shift; the world doesn't pause for the plan.

---

## After the review

If 🔴: hard recommend `/money-diagnose` to surface why the user has been avoiding the existential risk. Often the avoidance pattern itself is the bigger problem.

If 🟠: suggest `/money-save` to lock in the named risks + their playbooks. Then `/money-strategy` to update the plan with mitigations.

If 🟢: this should be rare. Suggest one more pass through `/money-review-investor` or `/money-review-operator` if those weren't done yet.

If 🟡: suggest `/money-discover` to find the right question and the right wedge.

---

## Value Quantification (Required at End of Output)

- ⏱ **Time saved** — ~6-12 months of executing toward a known but unspoken failure mode
- ⚠️ **Risks avoided** — (1) Pleasant illusions from polite advisors; (2) AI-commoditization wrapper trap; (3) single-channel distribution death; (4) emotional avoidance of the real strategic question
- ✅ **What you got** — The seven failure modes evaluated, the top 3 ranked by probability × severity, the avoided question, and the realistic month-9 picture if the plan ships as-is
- 🚧 **Without this skill** — The plan ships, the user is happy at month 1, increasingly stressed at month 4, and at month 9 wishes someone had asked the avoided question 6 months earlier