# Idea Validator > Critically evaluate and enhance app ideas, startup concepts, and product proposals. Use when users ask to "evaluate my idea", "review this concept", "is this a good idea", "validate my startup idea", or want honest feedback on technical feasibility and market viability. Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/idea-validator` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/idea-validator` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/idea-validator/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/idea-validator --- # Idea Validator Critically evaluate ideas with honest feedback on market viability, technical feasibility, and actionable improvements. ## Repo Sync Before Edits (mandatory) Before creating/updating/deleting files in an existing repository, sync the current branch with remote: ```bash branch="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)" git fetch origin git pull --rebase origin "$branch" ``` If the working tree is not clean, stash first, sync, then restore: ```bash git stash push -u -m "pre-sync" branch="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)" git fetch origin && git pull --rebase origin "$branch" git stash pop ``` If `origin` is missing, pull is unavailable, or rebase/stash conflicts occur, stop and ask the user before continuing. ## Setup 0. **Resolve storage location (tool-agnostic, ask once per environment)** - Prefer env var `IDEAS_ROOT` if set. - Else use shared marker file: `~/.config/ideas-root.txt`. - Backward compatibility: if shared marker is missing but legacy `~/.openclaw/ideas-root.txt` exists, reuse its value and write it into `~/.config/ideas-root.txt`. - If no marker exists (new environment), ask user once where to store generated docs. - Suggested default: `~/workspace/ideas`. - Save chosen root to `~/.config/ideas-root.txt`. - Only ask again if the user explicitly asks to change location. 1. **Create project folder** under resolved root: `YYYY_MM_DD_/` 2. **Create `idea.md`**: Document the idea and clarifications 3. **Create `validate.md`**: Document evaluation and recommendations 4. **Echo the absolute project folder path** in your response so downstream skills can auto-pick it. If no idea provided in `$ARGUMENTS`, ask user to describe their concept. ## Phase 1: Clarify the Idea Ask user (via AskUserQuestion): - What problem does this solve? Who has this pain? - Who is your target user? Be specific. - What makes this different from existing solutions? - What does success look like in 6-12 months? Update `idea.md` with responses. ## Phase 2: Gather Technical Context Ask user: - Preferred tech stack? - Timeline and team size? - Budget situation (bootstrapped/funded/side project)? - Existing assets (code, designs, research)? Update `idea.md` technical section. ## Phase 3: Competitive Landscape Research Before evaluating the idea, search the internet to find what already exists in the space. This grounds the analysis in real-world data instead of guessing about competitors — it prevents the user from unknowingly building something that's already been done, and reveals gaps they can exploit. Use WebSearch to find: **Direct competitors** — products/services solving the same problem for the same audience. Search for the core problem statement plus keywords like "app", "tool", "platform", "SaaS", "startup". Try 2-3 different search queries to cover variations (e.g., both the problem description and the solution category). **Adjacent solutions** — products that solve a related problem or serve the same audience differently. These reveal how users currently cope without the proposed solution. **Failed attempts** — startups or products that tried something similar and shut down. Search for "[concept] startup failed", "[concept] post-mortem", or check product directories. Understanding why predecessors failed is often more valuable than knowing who succeeded. For each competitor found, capture: - **Name and URL** - **What they do** (one sentence) - **Pricing model** (free, freemium, paid, enterprise) - **Apparent traction** (user reviews, app store ratings, social media presence, funding if findable) - **Key weakness or gap** the user's idea could exploit Aim for 3-8 competitors total (direct + adjacent). If fewer than 3 are found, that's a signal — either the market is very niche (potential opportunity) or the search terms need refining. Update `validate.md` with a **## Competitive Landscape** section containing: 1. A summary table of competitors found 2. A "white space" analysis — what's missing in the current market 3. Honest assessment: is the user's differentiation real or imagined given what exists? If WebSearch is unavailable, note it in the report and proceed to Phase 4 with best-effort analysis based on general knowledge. Flag that the competitive section should be verified manually. ## Phase 4: Critical Evaluation Evaluate honestly and update `validate.md`: **Market Analysis:** - Similar existing products - Market size and competition - Unique differentiation **Demand Assessment:** - Evidence people will pay - Problem urgency level **Feasibility:** - Can this ship in 2-4 weeks MVP? - Minimum viable features - Complex dependencies? **Monetization:** - Clear revenue path? - Willingness to pay? **Technical Risk:** - Buildable with stated constraints? - Key technical risks? **Verdict:** `Build it` / `Maybe` / `Skip it` **Ratings (1-10):** - Creativity - Feasibility - Market Impact - Technical Execution ## Phase 5: Improvements Update `validate.md` with: - **How to Strengthen**: Specific, actionable improvements - **Enhanced Version**: Reworked, optimized concept - **Implementation Roadmap**: Phased approach (if applicable) ## Step Completion Reports After completing each major step, output a status report in this format: ``` ◆ [Step Name] ([step N of M] — [context]) ·································································· [Check 1]: √ pass [Check 2]: √ pass (note if relevant) [Check 3]: × fail — [reason] [Check 4]: √ pass [Criteria]: √ N/M met ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` Adapt the check names to match what the step actually validates. Use `√` for pass, `×` for fail, and `—` to add brief context. The "Criteria" line summarizes how many acceptance criteria were met. The "Result" line gives the overall verdict. ### Phase-specific checks **Setup** ``` ◆ Setup (step 1 of 6 — [idea name]) ·································································· Storage resolved: √ pass ([path]) Folder created: √ pass ([YYYY_MM_DD_name/]) ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` **Phase 1 — Clarify** ``` ◆ Clarify (step 2 of 6 — [idea name]) ·································································· Questions answered: √ pass ([N] responses collected) idea.md updated: √ pass | × fail — [missing sections] ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` **Phase 2 — Gather Technical Context** ``` ◆ Gather Technical Context (step 3 of 6 — [idea name]) ·································································· Context sources identified: √ pass ([N] inputs collected) Technical feasibility assessed: √ pass | × fail — [gaps noted] idea.md technical section updated: √ pass | × fail — [missing fields] ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` **Phase 3 — Competitive Landscape** ``` ◆ Competitive Landscape (step 4 of 6 — [idea name]) ·································································· Web searches executed: √ pass ([N] queries run) Competitors found: √ pass ([N] direct + [N] adjacent) Failed attempts checked: √ pass | × fail — [no results or skipped] validate.md updated: √ pass | × fail — [missing sections] ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` **Phase 4 — Evaluate** ``` ◆ Evaluate (step 5 of 6 — [idea name]) ·································································· Feasibility scored: √ pass ([score]/10) Market assessed: √ pass | × fail — [gaps in analysis] validate.md updated:√ pass | × fail — [missing sections] ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` **Phase 5 — Improve** ``` ◆ Improve (step 6 of 6 — [idea name]) ·································································· Enhancements identified: √ pass ([N] improvements listed) Recommendations added: √ pass | × fail — [what's missing] ____________________________ Result: PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL ``` ## Tone - **Brutally honest**: Don't sugarcoat fatal flaws - **Constructive**: Every criticism includes a suggestion - **Specific**: Concrete examples, not vague feedback - **Balanced**: Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses ## README Maintenance (when running inside ideas repo) If the current working directory looks like the root of an `ideas` repo (contains `README.md` + multiple `YYYY_MM_DD_*` idea folders): - After creating/updating `idea.md` + `validate.md`, update `README.md` by inserting/updating an `## Ideas index` table with: - link to each `idea.md` - PRD/tasks status - verdict link to `validate.md` ## Commit and push (mandatory) After file updates are complete: - Commit immediately with a clear message. - Push immediately to remote. - If push is rejected: `git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main && git push`. Do not ask for additional push permission once this skill is invoked. ## Reporting with GitHub links (mandatory) When reporting completion, include: - GitHub link to `idea.md` - GitHub link to `validate.md` - GitHub link to `README.md` when it was updated - Commit hash Link format (derive `/` from `git remote get-url origin`): - `https://github.com///blob/main/` ## Output Summary After all phases: 1. Confirm folder/files created 2. State verdict and key ratings 3. Top 3 strengths, top 3 concerns 4. Single most important next step ## File Templates ### idea.md ```markdown # Idea: [Name] ## Original Concept [From $ARGUMENTS] ## Clarified Understanding [After Phase 1] ## Target Audience [Specific user profile] ## Goals & Objectives [Success criteria] ## Technical Context - Stack: - Timeline: - Budget: - Constraints: ## Discussion Notes [Updates from conversation] ``` ### validate.md ```markdown # Validation: [Name] ## Quick Verdict **[Build it / Maybe / Skip it]** ## Why [2-3 sentence explanation] ## Competitive Landscape | Competitor | What They Do | Pricing | Traction | Key Weakness | |---|---|---|---|---| | [Name](URL) | [One sentence] | [Model] | [Evidence] | [Gap to exploit] | ### White Space Analysis [What's missing in the current market] ### Differentiation Assessment [Is the proposed differentiation real or imagined given existing competitors?] ### Failed Predecessors [Products that tried and failed — and why] ## Similar Products [Competitors] ## Differentiation [Unique angle] ## Strengths - ## Concerns - ## Ratings - Creativity: /10 - Feasibility: /10 - Market Impact: /10 - Technical Execution: /10 ## How to Strengthen [Actionable improvements] ## Enhanced Version [Optimized concept] ## Implementation Roadmap [Phased approach] ``` --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/luongnv89) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.