solo-validate

通过 S.E.E.D 对创业想法进行评分利基检查+STREAM 6层分析+Devil's Advocate反演，自动拾取堆栈，并生成带有验收标准的PRD。当用户说“验证想法”、“对这个想法进行评分”、“我应该构建这个”、“走还是杀掉”、“生成 PRD”或“评估机会”时使用。请勿用于深入研究（首先使用/研究）或仅用于决策的框架（使用/流）。

## 概述（中文）

通过 S.E.E.D 对创业想法进行评分利基检查+STREAM 6层分析+Devil's Advocate反演，自动拾取堆栈，并生成带有验收标准的PRD。当用户说“验证想法”、“对这个想法进行评分”、“我应该构建这个”、“走还是杀掉”、“生成 PRD”或“评估机会”时使用。请勿用于深入研究（首先使用/研究）或仅用于决策的框架（使用/流）。

## 原文

# /validate

Validate a startup idea end-to-end: search KB, run Manifest alignment, S.E.E.D. niche check, Devil's Advocate inversion, STREAM 6-layer analysis, pick stack, generate PRD.

**Philosophy:** Validation should be honest, not optimistic. Better to kill a bad idea in 5 minutes than waste 3 months building it. The goal is truth, not encouragement.

## MCP Tools (use if available)

If MCP tools are available, prefer them over CLI:
- `kb_search(query, n_results)` — search knowledge base for related docs
- `project_info()` — list active projects with stacks
- `web_search(query)` — search for dead startups, competitor failures

If MCP tools are not available, fall back to Grep/Glob/WebSearch.

## Steps

1. **Parse the idea** from `$ARGUMENTS`. If empty, ask the user what idea they want to validate.

2. **Search for related knowledge:**
   If MCP `kb_search` tool is available, use it directly:
   - `kb_search(query="<idea keywords>", n_results=5)`
   Otherwise search locally:
   - Grep for idea keywords in `.md` files across the project and knowledge base
   Summarize any related documents found (existing ideas, frameworks, opportunities).

3. **Deep research (optional):** Check if `research.md` exists for this idea (look in `docs/` or the current working directory).
   - If it exists: read it and use findings to inform STREAM analysis and PRD filling (competitors, pain points, market size).
   - If it does not exist: ask the user if they want to run deep research first. If yes, tell them to run `/research <idea>` and come back. If no, continue without it.

4. **Manifest Alignment Check (with teeth):**

   Consult `references/manifest-checklist.md` (bundled with this skill) for the full checklist of 9 principles and 6 red flags. Check the idea against EACH one. This is not a formality — a manifest violation is a soft kill flag.

   For each principle, assess: comply or violate? If violating — cite the specific principle.

   **Key principles** (see checklist for details):
   1. Privacy-first / offline-first
   2. One pain -> one feature -> launch
   3. AI as foundation, not feature
   4. Speed over perfection (MVP in days)
   5. Antifragile architecture
   6. Money without overheating
   7. Against exploitation
   8. Subscription fatigue
   9. Creators, not robots

   **Scoring:** 0 violations = perfect, 1-2 = caution, 3+ = strong KILL signal.

   **Be honest.** If the idea conflicts with principles, SAY SO. Don't rationalize alignment.

5. **S.E.E.D. niche check** (quick, before deep analysis):

   Score the idea on four dimensions:
   - **S — Searchability:** Can you rank? Forums/Reddit in top-10, few fresh giants, no video blocks?
   - **E — Evidence:** Real pain with real quotes/URLs? Or hypothetical?
   - **E — Ease:** MVP in 1-2 days on existing stack? No heavy dependencies?
   - **D — Demand:** Long-tail keywords exist? Clear monetization path?

   **Kill flags** (stop immediately if any):
   - Top-10 SERP dominated by media giants or encyclopedias
   - Fresh competing content (<60 days old) already covers it well
   - No evidence of real user pain (only founder's hypothesis)
   - MVP needs >1 week even on best-fit stack

   If any kill flag triggers → recommend KILL with explanation. Don't proceed to STREAM.

6. **Devil's Advocate (Inversion):**

   > "Flip the question: how would you guarantee failure?" — STREAM Layer 3 (Inversion)

   This step is mandatory — before scoring positively, actively try to kill the idea. The goal is to find reasons NOT to build it.

   **6a. Inversion — 5 ways this fails:**
   List 5 specific, concrete ways this idea could fail. Not generic risks ("competition") but specific scenarios with evidence:
   - What specific competitor could crush this? (name, funding, strategy)
   - What user behavior makes this unviable? (churn data, willingness to pay)
   - What regulatory/legal event kills this? (specific laws, precedents)
   - What technical limitation blocks this? (latency, cost, accuracy)
   - What market dynamic makes the "opportunity" a mirage?

   **6b. Dead startup search:**
   Search for startups that tried something similar and failed or pivoted:
   - WebSearch: `"<idea category>" startup failed OR pivoted OR shut down`
   - WebSearch: `"<competitor>" pivot OR layoffs OR shutdown`
   - If any found: what killed them? Does the same risk apply here?

   **6c. Unit economics stress test (if research.md exists):**
   Recalculate unit economics with PESSIMISTIC assumptions:

   | Metric | Optimistic | Realistic | Pessimistic |
   |--------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
   | Monthly churn | 10% | 30-40% (industry data) | 50%+ (first year) |
   | Average lifetime | 10 months | 2.5-3 months | 1.5 months |
   | LTV | (price × 10) | (price × 2.5) | (price × 1.5) |
   | CAC | <$20 | $30-50 | $50-80 |
   | LTV:CAC | >3:1 | ~1:1 | <1:1 (UNPROFITABLE) |

   If pessimistic LTV:CAC < 1 → flag as critical risk.

   **6d. "Empty market" test:**
   If the analysis found an "empty" market segment or pricing gap, ask:
   - **Why is it empty?** Is it opportunity or graveyard?
   - Search for companies that tried this exact positioning and failed
   - Is the segment empty because demand doesn't exist at that price point?

   **6e. Manifest conflict honesty:**
   Re-check findings from step 4. For each manifest violation found, state the conflict clearly: "This requires X, which violates principle Y because Z."
   Do NOT rationalize conflicts away. The user decides whether to proceed — not the skill.

7. **STREAM analysis:** Walk the idea through all 6 layers.

   Consult `references/stream-layers.md` (bundled with this skill) for the complete 6-layer framework with questions per layer.

   For EACH layer, provide BOTH positive and negative assessment. Use the actual framework questions:
   - **Layer 1 (Scope):** Map!=Territory, Simplicity, Boundaries — what assumptions are unproven?
   - **Layer 2 (Time):** Entropy, Lindy — will this exist in 5 years?
   - **Layer 3 (Route):** Inversion (use Devil's Advocate findings), Second-Order Effects — effects of effects?
   - **Layer 4 (Stakes):** Asymmetry, Antifragility — real risk/reward with pessimistic numbers
   - **Layer 5 (Audience):** Reputation, Network — deposit or withdrawal?
   - **Layer 6 (Meta):** Mortality, Balance — worth finite time? Aligns with mission?

   **Scoring rules:**
   - Each layer scored 1-10
   - If Devil's Advocate found critical issues, the affected layer score MUST be reduced
   - If Manifest alignment has violations, Layer 6 (Meta) score MUST be reduced
   - Final score = weighted average (Meta and Stakes weighted 1.5x)

8. **Stack selection:** Auto-detect from research data, then confirm or ask.

   **Auto-detection rules** (from `research.md` `product_type` field or idea keywords):
   - `product_type: ios` → `ios-swift`
   - `product_type: android` → `kotlin-android`
   - `product_type: web` + mentions AI/ML → `nextjs-supabase` (or `nextjs-ai-agents`)
   - `product_type: web` + landing/static → `astro-static`
   - `product_type: web` + content site + needs SSR for some pages (CDN data, transcripts, dynamic) → `astro-hybrid`
   - `product_type: web` (default) → `nextjs-supabase`
   - `product_type: api` → `python-api`
   - `product_type: cli` + Python keywords → `python-ml`
   - `product_type: cli` + JS/TS keywords → `nextjs-supabase` (monorepo)
   - Edge/serverless keywords → `cloudflare-workers`

   If auto-detected with high confidence, state the choice and proceed.
   If ambiguous (e.g., could be web or mobile), ask via AskUserQuestion with the top 2-3 options.
   If MCP `project_info` is available, show user's existing stacks as reference.

9. **Generate PRD:** Create a PRD document at `docs/prd.md` in the current project directory. Use a kebab-case