me2resh Writing rule
When this skill writes a durable artifact, read .claude/rules/writing-standard.md. Use the controlled technical writing profile.
/validate-idea — Pre-spec validation gate
A 10-minute, 5-question check before committing the time of /write-spec. Most ideas should die before the PRD round; this skill makes that decision explicit. Invokable standalone, and offered as an optional follow-up step inside /idea (after capture) and /handover (when the project looks dormant).
What this is not. Not Wardley mapping. Not event storming. Not business-model canvas. No scoring rubric. Five plain questions, one per turn, then a verdict.
Path resolution
Read the registry path via portfolio_registry, the per-project docs dir via portfolio_projects_dir, and the ideas backlog via portfolio_ideas_backlog — all from .claude/hooks/_lib-portfolio-paths.sh. Source the helper at the top of any bash block that touches those paths:
source "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.claude/hooks/_lib-read-config.sh"
source "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.claude/hooks/_lib-portfolio-paths.sh"
registry=$(portfolio_registry)
Defaults match today's single-fork layout (./apexyard.projects.yaml, ./projects, ./projects/ideas-backlog.md). Adopters in split-portfolio mode override the portfolio.{registry, projects_dir, ideas_backlog} keys in .claude/project-config.json. Don't hardcode literal apexyard.projects.yaml or projects/ paths in bash blocks — the helper resolves whichever mode the adopter is in. See docs/multi-project.md.
Activated role
When /validate-idea runs, activate the Product Manager role for the validation read-out, with optional handoff to Head of Product if the verdict is green and a roadmap-impact call is needed. The role's "is this worth doing?" lens is exactly the right perspective.
See .claude/rules/role-triggers.md for the activation protocol.
Usage
/validate-idea IDEA-042 # validate a backlog entry by ID
/validate-idea curios-dog # validate a registered project (handover follow-up)
/validate-idea AI-powered linter # free-form description (no IDEA-NNN yet)
Process
1. Resolve the input
IDEA-NNNform — readprojects/ideas-backlog.md; pull the row's title + one-line description as starting context. Output path:projects/<project>/validation/<IDEA-NNN>-validation.md(orprojects/_inbox/validation/<IDEA-NNN>-validation.mdif the IDEA hasn't been assigned to a project yet).- Project-name form — read
apexyard.projects.yaml; pull the project's README + handover-assessment if available, as starting context. Output path:projects/<project>/validation/handover-validation.md. - Free-form description — slugify the title; output path:
projects/_inbox/validation/<slug>.md.
If the input is ambiguous or absent, ask:
What are you validating? An IDEA-NNN, a project name, or a free-form pitch?
2. Show the starting context
Print whatever you pulled from step 1 (3-5 lines max), so the user can read what the skill thinks the idea is before answering questions. If the user disagrees, they can correct in their first answer.
3. Ask the five questions — ONE AT A TIME
Never batch. Wait for the answer before asking the next.
Q1 — Target user
Who specifically is this for? Be concrete — a role, a context, a moment of need.
"Everyone" is a red flag; "freelance designers who manage three or more
client invoices a month" is the right level.
If the answer is "everyone" / "anyone" / vague: probe once with Pick the narrowest plausible group — even if you'll expand later. Who would benefit MOST from this in the first 30 days?
Q2 — Current alternative
What do they do today instead?
Possible answers: a competitor product (specific name), a manual workaround (e.g. "a spreadsheet"), or "nothing — it's just an unmet need." If "nothing", probe: If there's no alternative, the gap is either real-but-low-priority or fictional. Which? What evidence?
Q3 — Smallest version that proves the value
What's the smallest thing you could build that would prove this is valuable?
1-2 days of work, max. Not "the MVP" — the SMALLEST testable slice.
If the answer is large (≥ 1 week of work): probe Cut it in half. What's the half that, if it works, tells you the rest is worth building?
Q4 — Kill criteria
What would prove this is wrong? What would you observe — concretely —
that would tell you to park this?
This question is the one most ideas can't answer cleanly. Inability to articulate kill criteria is itself signal — note it in the output.
Q5 — Build, buy, or rent
Is this:
- BUILD (genuinely differentiating — your moat is the implementation)
- BUY / OSS (commodity — someone has already shipped this; just adopt)
- RENT (utility — pay a SaaS, don't build infrastructure for it)
If the answer is "build" but Q2's alternative is a working competitor product, probe: If <competitor> already does this, what's your specific angle they don't have? If "I'd do it better" — that's not a moat; surface a real differentiator or move to BUY.
4. Synthesise the verdict
Read all five answers together. Score in the PM's head (no rubric — this is a judgement call):
- GREEN — Q1 is concrete, Q2 has a clear alternative being beaten, Q3 fits in 1-2 days, Q4 is articulable, Q5 is BUILD with a real differentiator. Proceed to
/write-spec. - YELLOW — One or two answers are weak; the idea has a kernel but needs reshaping. Park for revision; revisit in a week with sharper answers.
- RED — Two or more answers are weak, OR Q5 is "build" with no differentiation, OR Q4 has no kill criteria. Park as
WONTDO.
The verdict is a one-line statement at the bottom of the output, in bold, with a one-sentence reason.
5. Write the validation document
Output template (~50 lines):
# {Title} — Validation
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Source**: {IDEA-NNN | project name | free-form}
**Verdict**: **{GREEN | YELLOW | RED}** — {one-sentence reason}
## Starting context
{3-5 lines from step 2}
## Q1. Target user
{user's answer + any probe response}
## Q2. Current alternative
{user's answer}
## Q3. Smallest version
{user's answer}
## Q4. Kill criteria
{user's answer; note explicitly if it was hard to articulate}
## Q5. Build / buy / rent
{user's answer + any probe}
## Read-out
{2-4 sentences synthesising the answers — what stood out, what's strong,
what's weak}
## Next step
{ONE of:
- GREEN → "Proceed to `/write-spec {title}`."
- YELLOW → "Park for {N} days. Revisit when {sharpening criterion} is in place."
- RED → "Archive. Updating `projects/ideas-backlog.md` row to status WONTDO."
}
6. Side effects on the verdict
- GREEN — leave the IDEA-NNN backlog row at
NEW(or whatever it was). The skill does NOT advance status; that's/write-spec's job. - YELLOW — leave the row unchanged; add a comment in the validation doc noting the revisit date.
- RED — if input was an IDEA-NNN, update the row in
projects/ideas-backlog.md: changeStatusfrom current toWONTDO. Append a one-line reason to the row's notes.
7. Confirm
Validation written: projects/<...>/validation/<...>-validation.md
Verdict: {GREEN | YELLOW | RED}
{Side effect, if any: "ideas-backlog.md updated to WONTDO." | nothing}
Rules
- One question at a time. Never batch. The whole point is making the user think between answers.
- No scoring rubric. Verdict is a PM judgement call, not a numeric average.
- Probes are at most one per question. If the user's answer is still weak after one probe, capture it as-is and let it surface in the verdict.
- No competitive research. The skill doesn't crawl the web for alternatives — Q2's "what do they do today?" is the user's own observation.
- Output is one page. Synthesis section ≤ 4 sentences. Read-out should fit on one screen.
REDupdates the backlog automatically —WONTDOis a recoverable state (the row stays); no destruction.GREENdoes NOT auto-trigger/write-spec. The user makes that call. Decoupling validation from spec-authoring keeps each step's intent explicit.
Integration with sibling skills
/idea
After the IDEA-NNN is captured (and the optional GitHub Issue is offered), /idea adds a third optional step:
Validate now? Run /validate-idea {IDEA-NNN} — y/n (default n)
Default-no respects /idea's lightweight-capture intent. Most users batch-validate later.
/handover
At the end of the integration-plan emit, IF the project is dormant by the heuristic (last commit > 90 days ago AND zero open PRs AND no recent issue activity), /handover adds:
This project looks dormant — run /validate-idea {project-name} to confirm
it's still worth investing in? y/n (default n)
Healthy active projects don't see the prompt. Dormant ones do.
Anti-pattern
User: /validate-idea AI-powered grocery picker
Agent: [batches all 5 questions in one message]
1. Who is this for?
2. What's the alternative?
3. Smallest version?
4. Kill criteria?
5. Build, buy, or rent?
Wrong. Batching defeats the validation purpose — the user gives surface-level answers without thinking. Ask one, wait, then the next.
Related
/idea— captures the idea pre-validation/write-spec— authors the PRD post-validation (only on GREEN)/decide— captures the technical decision once the spec is in flight- The Mom Test (Rob Fitzpatrick) — companion reading; covers Q1 and Q2 in much more depth for live customer interviews
Part of ApexYard — multi-project SDLC framework for Claude Code · MIT.