Claude Skill

business-brainstorm

When you want to pressure-test a potential new business, product, or side project against the serial-founder filter. Not "marketing ideas for a product" (that's marketing-skills:marketing-ideas) — this is "should this business exist + can you win it." Runs the idea through a stru

LLM Mart · 0 points · 8 views 28 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download coreyhaines31-makerskills-skills_business-brainstorm-1868b81.zip · 5 KB
coreyhaines31/makerskills 819 67 forks MIT Updated 20d ago
Part of coreyhaines31/makerskills — 18 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/coreyhaines31/makerskills/tree/main/skills/business-brainstorm
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install coreyhaines31-makerskills@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/coreyhaines31/makerskills.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole coreyhaines31/makerskills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

/business-brainstorm — Pressure-test a business idea

Takes a vague idea, runs it through the user's filter, and outputs a structured viability brief. Composes with deep-research (for market) and /domain (for naming).

Step 1 — Capture the idea

Get from the user:

  • The idea in 1–2 sentences (the what)
  • The reason it's on their mind (the why now)
  • Any starting context (a chat where this came up, a tweet that inspired it, a problem they've hit)

If they point at a past chat / doc, load it first. Memory has project_*.md files for in-flight projects — check there before assuming the idea is brand-new.

If the idea is too vague to score, ask 1–2 clarifying questions and stop. Don't pad the brief with assumptions.

Step 2 — Load the framework + personal overlay

Read references/framework.md — the user's filter. Apply each dimension in order.

Also try to load ${MAKERSKILLS_CONFIG:-$HOME/.config/makerskills}/business-brainstorm/portfolio.local.md if it exists — this is where the user lists their real in-flight businesses, properties, audiences, and partners. When present, use it for the "portfolio fit," "distribution," and "opportunity cost" dimensions instead of asking the user to name each one.

Step 3 — Score each dimension

For each of the 9 dimensions in framework.md, give a 1-line take + a verdict (✅ strong / 🟡 OK / ❌ weak / ❓ unknown — needs research).

Don't BS the unknowns. Mark them ❓ and route to deep-research in Step 4.

Step 4 — Trigger research where needed (optional)

If 2+ dimensions are ❓ unknown, offer the user: "Want me to run /deep-research on [topic] before scoring?"

Useful research targets:

  • Market size / who pays signal → /last30days <space> + WebSearch
  • Competitive landscape → search for "alternatives to X", "X vs Y" pages
  • ICP signal → forums / Reddit / X where the audience hangs out
  • Pricing benchmarks → look at competitor pricing pages

If the user says yes, run Skill({skill: "deep-research", args: "<topic>"}) and incorporate the brief.

Step 5 — Check the .com

Always run /domain on the working name(s). A perfect idea with a $50k domain is a worse idea than a B+ idea with a free .com.

If naming is wide open, brainstorm 5–10 candidate names through /domain and report which are available.

Step 6 — Output the brief

Use this template:

# Business brainstorm: <name or idea slug>

**Date:** <YYYY-MM-DD>
**Idea:** <1–2 sentences>
**Why now:** <1 sentence>

## Verdict
**Build** / **Sleep on it** / **Pass** / **Steal an angle for [existing property]**

<2–3 sentence rationale>

## Score

| Dimension | Take | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Problem | … | ✅ |
| 2. Audience | … | 🟡 |
| 3. Wedge | … | ❓ |
| 4. Monetization | … | ✅ |
| 5. Moat | … | ❌ |
| 6. Portfolio fit | … | ✅ |
| 7. Distribution | … | ✅ |
| 8. Energy fit | … | 🟡 |
| 9. Opportunity cost | … | ❌ |

## Domain
- <name>.com — available / taken / aftermarket $<price>
- (other candidates if relevant)

## Research applied
- <link to deep-research brief in ~/.config/makerskills/deep-research/archive/, if run>

## Open questions
- <what would change the verdict>

## If you build it (sketch)
- **First 100 customers:** <how>
- **Wedge offer:** <what>
- **Price:** <range>
- **MVP scope:** <1–3 features>

## If you don't build it
- **Angle to steal for existing properties:**
  - Property A: …
  - Property B: …
  - Property C: …
  - (etc., only where relevant)

Step 7 — Archive

Archives live in ${MAKERSKILLS_CONFIG:-$HOME/.config/makerskills}/business-brainstorm/archive/ (create the directory if missing). Never write archives inside the skill's own folder — skill installs and upgrades re-sync from source and wipe anything saved there. Migration: if this skill's folder contains an old references/ideas-archive/ with user entries, move those files into the archive directory first.

Write to <archive dir>/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md. Append to <archive dir>/INDEX.md (create if missing):

- 2026-06-16 — [<idea>](./<filename>.md) — **<verdict>** — <one-line rationale>

Step 8 — Surface

Show the brief in chat. Tell the user the archive path. Offer:

  • "Want to push to Notion as a positioning canvas?"
  • "Want me to scaffold a project repo / landing page?" (if verdict = Build)
  • "Want me to revisit in 30 days?" (if verdict = Sleep on it)

Composes with

  • deep-research — for market validation when dimensions are ❓
  • /domain — for .com availability and naming brainstorm
  • /last30days — for audience/market recency signal (via deep-research)
  • Memory (project_*.md) — for portfolio context (don't pitch an idea that already exists)

Notes on quality

  • Nine dimensions, not one hero metric. Ideas fail because one dimension quietly rots even when the rest score high. Force each dimension to be scored — no "we'll figure that out later" cop-outs.
  • Verdict discipline: Ship / Sleep on it / Kill. Not "maybe." Ambiguity in the verdict compounds into ambiguity in the commit; the brief exists to prevent that.
  • Portfolio-context check is non-negotiable. Before writing, grep memory + wiki for existing property overlap. If the new idea is 80% one of your existing properties, propose extending the existing property instead of forking a new one — 4x cheaper to compound.
  • Archive every brief, even Kills. Killed ideas resurface — the brief with rationale prevents re-litigating. The archive dir + INDEX.md makes revisit trivial.
  • "Angle to steal" section forces value from Kills. Even ideas you won't build often have an angle that improves an existing property. Don't skip this section — it's the highest-leverage output of a Kill verdict.
  • 30-day revisit for "Sleep on it." Set the calendar reminder. Sleep-on-it ideas that never get revisited become dead weight in the archive; ideas that get revisited resurface with better context.
Files (makerskills)
  • references
    • framework.md 5 KB 
      # Business brainstorm framework

the user's serial-founder filter. Run an idea through each dimension. Verdict per dimension: ✅ strong / 🟡 OK / ❌ weak / ❓ unknown — needs research.

---

## 1. Problem

Is the pain real, frequent, and acute?

- **✅ Strong:** People are already paying for half-solutions, building workarounds, or complaining publicly. Quantifiable cost (time / money / risk).
- **🟡 OK:** Real pain, but mild or rare.
- **❌ Weak:** "It would be nice if…" — vitamin, not painkiller.

---

## 2. Audience

Who has this problem, and can the user reach them?

- **✅ Strong:** Audience the user already talks to (SaaS founders, technical marketers, agency owners) OR a tight niche they can break into cheaply.
- **🟡 OK:** Adjacent audience — would take work but feasible.
- **❌ Weak:** Cold audience with no existing access (e.g., enterprise CIOs).

Check: is this audience already in one of your existing property reaches? If yes, distribution is half-solved.

---

## 3. Wedge

How do you get the first 100 customers?

- **✅ Strong:** Clear, concrete first-customer playbook. "I'd email 50 founders I know," "I'd post on r/SaaS," "I'd add this to my newsletter thank-you page."
- **🟡 OK:** Plausible path but needs a few experiments.
- **❌ Weak:** "We'll do paid ads" / "We'll do SEO" — too vague, too long-tail.

---

## 4. Monetization

Who pays, how much, how often?

- **✅ Strong:** Clear price band ($20 / $50 / $200 / $2k MRR), known willingness to pay (proven by competitors charging similar), recurring or repeated revenue.
- **🟡 OK:** Reasonable price assumption but unproven.
- **❌ Weak:** Free-with-ads, or "we'll figure out monetization later."

---

## 5. Moat

Why is this hard to copy? Why won't bigger players crush it?

- **✅ Strong:** Distribution advantage (the user's audience), brand-as-moat (their name), or compounding asset (data, network effect, content corpus).
- **🟡 OK:** Some defensibility (speed, focus, design taste).
- **❌ Weak:** Pure execution play any well-funded team could replicate in 6 months.

Note: the user's moats are usually *audience + voice + speed*, not tech. Honest scoring.

---

## 6. Portfolio fit

Does this complement or cannibalize the existing 6 properties?

- **✅ Complements:** Audience overlap that boosts existing properties (e.g., a tool for one of your existing audiences that drives newsletter subs).
- **🟡 Neutral:** Different audience, no interference.
- **❌ Cannibalizes:** Competes with an existing property for attention, splits the audience, or muddies positioning. Or it's so similar to an existing property it should be a feature, not a standalone.

Check memory's `project_*.md` files — does this idea overlap with any in-flight projects? If yes, ask: should this be a feature of one of those?

---

## 7. Distribution

Which of the user's audience assets can launch this?

- **✅ Strong:** Direct fit with your existing newsletter, blog, podcast, product users, or social following.
- **🟡 OK:** Adjacent audience — could launch with partner collabs or paid push.
- **❌ Weak:** Requires building a new audience from zero. (Possible but slow — usually means it should wait until an existing property reaches it.)

---

## 8. Energy fit

Does the user actually want to build and run this for 2+ years?

- **✅ Strong:** Genuinely interested, plays to strengths (writing, marketing, design taste, audience), and isn't already burned out on the space.
- **🟡 OK:** Interesting but not exciting. Probably needs a co-founder or strong operator.
- **❌ Weak:** Interesting on paper, dread in the gut. Pass.

INTJ honesty: if it requires constant context-switching, heavy sales motion, or babysitting customers — flag the energy cost.

---

## 9. Opportunity cost

What does the user NOT do if they do this?

- **✅ Strong:** Marginal capacity used (e.g., 4 hrs/week of the user + Claude). Doesn't crowd out existing businesses or in-flight builds.
- **🟡 OK:** Real time investment but bounded.
- **❌ Weak:** Would require pulling focus from an existing business, slowing a live property, or pausing other in-flight projects.

The honest test: would adding this make the user *less* effective on the things that are already working? If yes, the bar is much higher.

---

## Scoring rubric → Verdict

Sum the verdicts:

- **5+ ✅ and no ❌ on Problem / Audience / Distribution / Energy** → **Build** (those four are non-negotiable)
- **3–4 ✅ with 1–2 ❌** → **Sleep on it** (revisit in 30 days; sometimes ideas mature)
- **❌ on Problem OR Energy** → **Pass** (no point fighting these)
- **❌ on Portfolio fit (cannibalizes)** → **Steal an angle for the existing property** instead of building new
- **3+ ❓ (unknowns)** → run `/deep-research` first, then re-score

## Iterate me

This filter is a starting point. Refine the weights and add dimensions as the user learns what actually predicted their own wins/losses. Especially: revisit after the next 2–3 brainstorms to see if any dimension was a load-bearing miss.
  • SKILL.md 6.9 KB 
    ---
name: business-brainstorm
description: "When you want to pressure-test a potential new business, product, or side project against the serial-founder filter. Not \"marketing ideas for a product\" (that's marketing-skills:marketing-ideas) — this is \"should this business exist + can you win it.\" Runs the idea through a structured framework (problem, audience, wedge, monetization, moat, portfolio fit, distribution, energy fit, opportunity cost), checks domain availability via /domain, optionally triggers /deep-research for market validation, and outputs a viability brief: build / sleep on it / pass. Archives every idea to ~/.config/makerskills/business-brainstorm/archive/ so past work is searchable. Triggers on \"/business-brainstorm,\" \"/brainstorm,\" \"new business idea,\" \"should I build X,\" \"pressure test this idea,\" \"validate this idea,\" \"is X a good business,\" \"what about a [type] for [audience].\""
metadata:
  version: 0.2.0
---

# /business-brainstorm — Pressure-test a business idea

Takes a vague idea, runs it through the user's filter, and outputs a structured viability brief. Composes with `deep-research` (for market) and `/domain` (for naming).

## Step 1 — Capture the idea

Get from the user:
- The idea in 1–2 sentences (the *what*)
- The reason it's on their mind (the *why now*)
- Any starting context (a chat where this came up, a tweet that inspired it, a problem they've hit)

If they point at a past chat / doc, load it first. Memory has `project_*.md` files for in-flight projects — check there before assuming the idea is brand-new.

If the idea is too vague to score, ask 1–2 clarifying questions and stop. Don't pad the brief with assumptions.

## Step 2 — Load the framework + personal overlay

Read `references/framework.md` — the user's filter. Apply each dimension in order.

Also try to load `${MAKERSKILLS_CONFIG:-$HOME/.config/makerskills}/business-brainstorm/portfolio.local.md` if it exists — this is where the user lists their real in-flight businesses, properties, audiences, and partners. When present, use it for the "portfolio fit," "distribution," and "opportunity cost" dimensions instead of asking the user to name each one.

## Step 3 — Score each dimension

For each of the 9 dimensions in `framework.md`, give a 1-line take + a verdict (✅ strong / 🟡 OK / ❌ weak / ❓ unknown — needs research).

Don't BS the unknowns. Mark them ❓ and route to deep-research in Step 4.

## Step 4 — Trigger research where needed (optional)

If 2+ dimensions are ❓ unknown, offer the user: *"Want me to run `/deep-research` on [topic] before scoring?"*

Useful research targets:
- Market size / who pays signal → `/last30days <space>` + `WebSearch`
- Competitive landscape → search for "alternatives to X", "X vs Y" pages
- ICP signal → forums / Reddit / X where the audience hangs out
- Pricing benchmarks → look at competitor pricing pages

If the user says yes, run `Skill({skill: "deep-research", args: "<topic>"})` and incorporate the brief.

## Step 5 — Check the .com

Always run `/domain` on the working name(s). A perfect idea with a $50k domain is a worse idea than a B+ idea with a free .com.

If naming is wide open, brainstorm 5–10 candidate names through `/domain` and report which are available.

## Step 6 — Output the brief

Use this template:

```markdown
# Business brainstorm: <name or idea slug>

**Date:** <YYYY-MM-DD>
**Idea:** <1–2 sentences>
**Why now:** <1 sentence>

## Verdict
**Build** / **Sleep on it** / **Pass** / **Steal an angle for [existing property]**

<2–3 sentence rationale>

## Score

| Dimension | Take | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Problem | … | ✅ |
| 2. Audience | … | 🟡 |
| 3. Wedge | … | ❓ |
| 4. Monetization | … | ✅ |
| 5. Moat | … | ❌ |
| 6. Portfolio fit | … | ✅ |
| 7. Distribution | … | ✅ |
| 8. Energy fit | … | 🟡 |
| 9. Opportunity cost | … | ❌ |

## Domain
- <name>.com — available / taken / aftermarket $<price>
- (other candidates if relevant)

## Research applied
- <link to deep-research brief in ~/.config/makerskills/deep-research/archive/, if run>

## Open questions
- <what would change the verdict>

## If you build it (sketch)
- **First 100 customers:** <how>
- **Wedge offer:** <what>
- **Price:** <range>
- **MVP scope:** <1–3 features>

## If you don't build it
- **Angle to steal for existing properties:**
  - Property A: …
  - Property B: …
  - Property C: …
  - (etc., only where relevant)
```

## Step 7 — Archive

Archives live in `${MAKERSKILLS_CONFIG:-$HOME/.config/makerskills}/business-brainstorm/archive/` (create the directory if missing). Never write archives inside the skill's own folder — skill installs and upgrades re-sync from source and wipe anything saved there. **Migration:** if this skill's folder contains an old `references/ideas-archive/` with user entries, move those files into the archive directory first.

Write to `<archive dir>/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<slug>.md`. Append to `<archive dir>/INDEX.md` (create if missing):

```markdown
- 2026-06-16 — [<idea>](./<filename>.md) — **<verdict>** — <one-line rationale>
```

## Step 8 — Surface

Show the brief in chat. Tell the user the archive path. Offer:
- *"Want to push to Notion as a positioning canvas?"*
- *"Want me to scaffold a project repo / landing page?"* (if verdict = Build)
- *"Want me to revisit in 30 days?"* (if verdict = Sleep on it)

## Composes with

- `deep-research` — for market validation when dimensions are ❓
- `/domain` — for .com availability and naming brainstorm
- `/last30days` — for audience/market recency signal (via deep-research)
- Memory (`project_*.md`) — for portfolio context (don't pitch an idea that already exists)

## Notes on quality

- **Nine dimensions, not one hero metric.** Ideas fail because one dimension quietly rots even when the rest score high. Force each dimension to be scored — no "we'll figure that out later" cop-outs.
- **Verdict discipline: Ship / Sleep on it / Kill.** Not "maybe." Ambiguity in the verdict compounds into ambiguity in the commit; the brief exists to prevent that.
- **Portfolio-context check is non-negotiable.** Before writing, grep memory + wiki for existing property overlap. If the new idea is 80% one of your existing properties, propose extending the existing property instead of forking a new one — 4x cheaper to compound.
- **Archive every brief, even Kills.** Killed ideas resurface — the brief with rationale prevents re-litigating. The archive dir + INDEX.md makes revisit trivial.
- **"Angle to steal" section forces value from Kills.** Even ideas you won't build often have an angle that improves an existing property. Don't skip this section — it's the highest-leverage output of a Kill verdict.
- **30-day revisit for "Sleep on it."** Set the calendar reminder. Sleep-on-it ideas that never get revisited become dead weight in the archive; ideas that get revisited resurface with better context.

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related

Claude Prompt
Tighten-my-prose editing prompt
Claude Skill
Adversarial code-review skill for Claude
Claude Workflow
Deep-research workflow (fan-out + verify)
Claude Skill
Conventional-commit writer for Claude