@rubytech/create-maxy-code 0.1.169 → 0.1.170

package/payload/platform/plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/earlyvangelist.md

@@ -1,190 +0,0 @@
-# Earlyvangelist Identification
-
-## Purpose
-Find and recruit your ideal early customers—the people who will buy your unfinished product, give honest feedback, and become passionate advocates.
-
-## When to Use
-- Starting customer discovery and need to find who to talk to
-- Have a product idea but don't know who the first customers should be
-- Struggling to get traction with "average" customers
-- Need reference customers before the product is fully ready
-- Want to build a waiting list or beta program
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Understand the Five Characteristics
-
-True earlyvangelists have ALL FIVE characteristics:
-
-1. **Have a problem** - They're actively aware of the pain you're solving
-   - Not theoretical pain—they experience it regularly
-   - It affects their work, life, or business
-
-2. **Know they have a problem** - They're not in denial
-   - They can articulate the problem without prompting
-   - They've thought about why it matters
-
-3. **Have been actively looking for a solution** - Already searched
-   - They've Googled, asked peers, explored options
-   - They know what's available and why it doesn't work
-
-4. **Have cobbled together a solution** - Built workarounds
-   - Spreadsheets, manual processes, duct-tape solutions
-   - Hiring people to do what software could do
-   - Combining multiple tools in awkward ways
-
-5. **Have or can acquire budget** - Willing and able to pay
-   - Discretionary budget they control
-   - Can make purchasing decisions (or influence them strongly)
-   - Motivated enough to find money even if budget is tight
-
-### 2. Disqualify Non-Earlyvangelists
-
-**Missing characteristic 1 or 2:** They don't feel the pain
-- Dangerous because they'll give positive feedback without buying
-- "Sounds cool" ≠ "I'll pay for this"
-
-**Missing characteristic 3:** They haven't looked for solutions
-- If they haven't searched, they won't search for you either
-- Signals the problem isn't important enough to act on
-
-**Missing characteristic 4:** No workarounds means no urgency
-- Workarounds prove they care enough to invest effort
-- No workaround = problem isn't severe enough
-
-**Missing characteristic 5:** No budget = no sale
-- Even the most enthusiastic user isn't an earlyvangelist without budget
-- Verify they can actually spend money, not just that they would
-
-### 3. Find Earlyvangelist Candidates
-
-**Direct signals (strong):**
-- People who have built their own solution to the problem
-- People complaining about the problem on forums, social media, in groups
-- People who have tried and abandoned competitor products
-- People actively posting job listings to hire someone to solve the problem
-
-**Indirect signals (moderate):**
-- People in roles/industries where the problem is common
-- People who have bought adjacent solutions
-- People who follow thought leaders talking about the problem
-- People attending conferences about the problem space
-
-**Where to look:**
-- Industry-specific forums and communities
-- LinkedIn groups and discussions
-- Subreddits where target customers gather
-- Slack/Discord communities for the industry
-- Conference attendee lists
-- Comment sections on relevant blog posts
-- Twitter conversations using problem-related keywords
-
-### 4. Qualifying Questions
-
-When talking to potential earlyvangelists, verify each characteristic:
-
-**Testing for characteristic 1 (Have the problem):**
-- "Walk me through the last time you dealt with [problem]"
-- "How often does this come up?"
-- Listen for: Specificity, recency, emotional weight
-
-**Testing for characteristic 2 (Know they have it):**
-- "What's the impact when this happens?"
-- "How much does this cost you in time/money?"
-- Listen for: Clear articulation, quantification
-
-**Testing for characteristic 3 (Actively looking):**
-- "What have you tried to solve this?"
-- "What did you find when you looked for solutions?"
-- Listen for: Names of competitors tried, research done
-
-**Testing for characteristic 4 (Cobbled together solution):**
-- "How do you handle this today?"
-- "Can you show me your current process/tools?"
-- Listen for: Workarounds, manual steps, multiple tools
-
-**Testing for characteristic 5 (Have budget):**
-- "Who would make the decision to buy something like this?"
-- "What are you currently spending on this problem?"
-- "If something solved this, what would it be worth?"
-- Listen for: Budget authority, current spend, willingness to pay
-
-### 5. Score and Prioritize
-
-Rate each potential earlyvangelist on the five characteristics:
-
-| Candidate | Problem | Aware | Searching | Workaround | Budget | Total |
-|-----------|---------|-------|-----------|------------|--------|-------|
-| Person A  | ✓       | ✓     | ✓         | ✓          | ✓      | 5/5   |
-| Person B  | ✓       | ✓     | ✓         | ✗          | ✓      | 4/5   |
-| Person C  | ✓       | ✗     | ✗         | ✗          | ✓      | 2/5   |
-
-**Focus on 5/5 scores first.** These are true earlyvangelists.
-**4/5 may become earlyvangelists** with education.
-**3/5 or below are unlikely** to buy early.
-
-### 6. Synthesis
-
-- Have you found at least 5-10 true earlyvangelists?
-- What patterns do you see among them? (Job titles, industries, situations)
-- Where do these earlyvangelists gather? (For scaling acquisition)
-- What language do they use to describe the problem?
-- What would make them champion your product internally?
-
-## Example
-
-**Idea**: "AI scheduling assistant for busy executives"
-
-### Earlyvangelist Search
-
-**Where we looked:**
-- Executive assistant communities on LinkedIn
-- Productivity subreddits (r/productivity, r/getdisciplined)
-- Comments on Calendly competitor blog posts
-- Posts complaining about scheduling on Twitter/X
-
-### Candidate Analysis
-
-**Candidate A: VP of Sales, B2B SaaS company**
-1. ✓ Has problem: "I spend 2 hours a day on scheduling"
-2. ✓ Knows it: "It's destroying my selling time"
-3. ✓ Actively looking: "I've tried Calendly, SavvyCal, Reclaim"
-4. ✓ Workaround: "My SDR manages my calendar manually"
-5. ✓ Budget: "I pay the SDR $60K—would gladly pay $500/mo to automate"
-
-**Score: 5/5 - TRUE EARLYVANGELIST**
-
-**Candidate B: Solo consultant**
-1. ✓ Has problem: "Scheduling is annoying"
-2. ✗ Knows it: "It's not that big a deal though"
-3. ✗ Actively looking: Never searched for solutions
-4. ✗ Workaround: "I just email back and forth"
-5. ✓ Budget: Could pay, but price-sensitive
-
-**Score: 2/5 - NOT AN EARLYVANGELIST**
-
-**Candidate C: Executive at enterprise company**
-1. ✓ Has problem: "My EA is overwhelmed"
-2. ✓ Knows it: "We need better tools"
-3. ✓ Actively looking: "We evaluated Clockwise"
-4. ✓ Workaround: "Two EAs coordinate for 8 executives"
-5. ✗ Budget: "IT would need to approve; takes 6 months"
-
-**Score: 4/5 - POTENTIAL, but budget friction**
-
-### Earlyvangelist Profile
-
-**Our ideal earlyvangelist:**
-- VP/Director level at B2B company (50-500 employees)
-- Has already tried at least one scheduling tool
-- Currently has admin support handling scheduling
-- Has budget authority or direct expense approval
-- Values time at $500+/hour
-
-**Where to find more:**
-- LinkedIn: VP titles + "calendar chaos" mentions
-- SaaS sales communities
-- YC founder networks (time-pressed, budget available)
-- Executive coaching program alumni
-
-**Insight:** The best earlyvangelists are executives who already pay for partial solutions (EAs, existing tools). They've validated the problem with their wallet and are frustrated enough to try something new.

package/payload/platform/plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/first-principles.md

@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
-# First Principles Thinking
-
-## Purpose
-Break down complex ideas to fundamental truths and rebuild from scratch, removing assumptions and borrowed thinking.
-
-## When to Use
-- Testing whether you're copying competitors vs. innovating
-- Validating ideas in new or uncertain markets
-- When the idea feels derivative or "me too"
-- Refining business models or GTM strategies
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Identify the core belief**
-   - What fundamental assumption is your idea built on?
-
-2. **Break it down**
-   - What are you assuming must be true for this to work?
-   - List every assumption (market, customer behavior, technology, economics)
-
-3. **Question each assumption**
-   - Is this actually true, or is it industry conventional wisdom?
-   - What evidence supports or contradicts this?
-   - Has this always been true, or did circumstances change?
-
-4. **Identify fundamental truths**
-   - What MUST be true (physics, human nature, economics)?
-   - What is merely true today (technology, regulation, market conditions)?
-
-5. **Rebuild from fundamentals**
-   - Given only the fundamental truths, what solutions are possible?
-   - How does this compare to your original idea?
-
-6. **Synthesis**
-   - Is your idea built on fundamentals or assumptions?
-   - What would change if you rebuilt from first principles?
-
-## Example
-
-**Idea**: "We need to create a subscription model for our product"
-
-**Assumptions identified**:
-- Recurring revenue is better than one-time sales
-- Customers want to rent vs. own
-- Subscription pricing is industry standard
-
-**Fundamental truths**:
-- Customers want to solve their problem efficiently
-- Businesses need predictable cash flow
-- Value exchange must be fair to both parties
-
-**First principles rebuild**: 
-Instead of assuming subscription is best, the fundamental need is *predictable revenue AND customer value alignment*. This could mean:
-- Usage-based pricing (pay for outcomes)
-- Hybrid model (core product + premium services)
-- Annual contracts with monthly value delivery
-
-**Insight**: Don't copy the subscription trend—design a revenue model that aligns with how customers actually derive value.

package/payload/platform/plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/fishbone.md

@@ -1,114 +0,0 @@
-# Fishbone Diagram (Ishikawa)
-
-## Purpose
-Systematically identify all potential causes of a problem or all factors contributing to an outcome, organized by category.
-
-## When to Use
-- Identifying blind spots in complex ideas
-- When the idea addresses a problem (need to understand root causes)
-- Validating that your solution addresses all critical factors
-- Refining GTM or implementation strategies
-
-## Process
-
-1. **Define the "effect"**
-   - What problem are you solving OR what outcome are you creating?
-   - Write this as the "head" of the fish
-
-2. **Identify major categories** (choose relevant categories)
-   - **Standard categories**: People, Process, Technology, Environment, Materials, Measurement
-   - **Business categories**: Market, Product, Distribution, Marketing, Operations, Team
-   - **GTM categories**: Messaging, Channels, Pricing, Positioning, Competition, Timing
-   - Adapt categories to fit your context
-
-3. **Brainstorm causes within each category**
-   - For each major category, list all factors that contribute
-   - Ask "What in this category affects the outcome?"
-   - Push for specific, actionable factors (not vague generalities)
-   - Aim for 3-7 factors per category
-
-4. **Drill deeper with "why?"**
-   - For major factors, ask "Why does this happen?" or "What causes this?"
-   - Create sub-branches for root causes
-
-5. **Identify patterns and priorities**
-   - Which causes appear across multiple categories?
-   - Which causes have the biggest impact?
-   - Which causes are within your control?
-
-6. **Synthesis**
-   - Does your idea address the high-impact causes?
-   - What blind spots were revealed?
-   - What factors need more attention in your strategy?
-
-## Example
-
-**Idea**: "Launch AI-powered sales coaching platform for B2B teams"
-
-**Effect**: "B2B sales teams underperform on quota"
-
-### Categories & Causes
-
-**People**:
-- Reps lack training on discovery questions
-- Managers don't have time to coach
-- High turnover in sales team
-- Inconsistent skill levels across team
-
-**Process**:
-- No standardized sales methodology
-- Poor handoff between SDR and AE
-- Long sales cycles with no milestones
-- Deal reviews happen too late
-
-**Technology**:
-- CRM data is incomplete/inaccurate
-- No call recording or analysis
-- Disconnected tools (CRM, email, calls)
-- Manual reporting wastes time
-
-**Market**:
-- Increased competition for same buyers
-- Buyers are more informed (research online first)
-- Longer buying committees
-- Economic headwinds (tighter budgets)
-
-**Product** (what they're selling):
-- Value proposition unclear to buyers
-- Feature-focused vs. outcome-focused
-- Pricing misaligned with perceived value
-- Poor product-market fit
-
-**Leadership**:
-- Quota set without market input
-- Comp structure doesn't motivate right behaviors
-- No accountability for coaching
-- Focus on activity metrics vs. outcomes
-
-### Analysis
-
-**High-impact causes** (appear multiple times or critical):
-- Lack of coaching capability (People + Leadership)
-- No data/insights for improvement (Technology)
-- Unclear value messaging (Product + Process)
-
-**Within control** (your platform can address):
-- Call analysis and insights (Technology)
-- Standardized coaching framework (Process)
-- Data-driven feedback (Technology)
-
-**Outside control** (need to acknowledge):
-- Market competition
-- Budget constraints
-- Turnover
-
-### Synthesis
-
-**Insight**: The platform should focus on:
-1. **Automated call analysis** (solving Technology gap)
-2. **Coaching frameworks** (solving People + Process gap)
-3. **Manager enablement** (solving Leadership gap)
-
-**Blind spot revealed**: Original idea focused only on rep training. Real problem is manager coaching capability + lack of data. Platform needs to target sales managers, not just reps.
-
-**Refined value prop**: "Give sales managers AI-powered insights and frameworks to coach their team to quota—without adding hours to their day."

package/payload/platform/plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/five-whys.md

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
-# 5 Whys Method
-
-## Purpose
-Identify root causes by repeatedly asking "why" to move beyond symptoms to underlying problems.
-
-## When to Use
-- Identifying blind spots in problem understanding
-- Validating whether you're solving the right problem
-- When the idea seems reactive rather than strategic
-
-## Process
-
-1. **State the idea/problem clearly**
-   - "We want to [idea/solution]"
-
-2. **Ask Why #1**: Why do you want to do this?
-   - Listen for the immediate reason
-
-3. **Ask Why #2**: Why is [previous answer] important?
-   - Dig one level deeper
-
-4. **Ask Why #3**: Why does [previous answer] matter?
-   - Move toward underlying needs
-
-5. **Ask Why #4**: Why is [previous answer] critical?
-   - Approach fundamental drivers
-
-6. **Ask Why #5**: Why does [previous answer] create value?
-   - Reach root cause/opportunity
-
-7. **Synthesis**: Is the original idea still the best solution to address the root cause?
-
-## Example
-
-**Idea**: "We want to build an AI chatbot for customer support"
-
-- **Why #1**: To reduce support ticket volume
-- **Why #2**: Because our team is overwhelmed with repetitive questions
-- **Why #3**: Because customers can't find answers in our documentation
-- **Why #4**: Because our documentation is scattered across multiple platforms
-- **Why #5**: Because we've never had a unified knowledge management strategy
-
-**Insight**: The real opportunity isn't a chatbot—it's knowledge architecture. A chatbot might help, but fixing the root cause (knowledge management) could unlock multiple solutions.

package/payload/platform/plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/ice-scoring.md

@@ -1,237 +0,0 @@
-# ICE Scoring
-
-## Purpose
-Prioritize ideas, features, and experiments using a simple framework that balances potential impact, confidence, and effort required.
-
-## When to Use
-- Prioritizing product backlog or feature list
-- Choosing between multiple experiment ideas
-- Deciding what to build next with limited resources
-- Creating transparency around prioritization decisions
-- Aligning team on what matters most
-
-## Process
-
-### 1. Understand ICE Components
-
-**I - Impact**
-If this works, how much does it move the needle?
-- Scale: 1-10
-- Consider: Revenue, retention, acquisition, or other key metric
-- Question: "What's the maximum potential upside?"
-
-**C - Confidence**
-How sure are we that this will work?
-- Scale: 1-10
-- Consider: Data, past experiments, customer feedback, intuition
-- Question: "What evidence do we have that this will succeed?"
-
-**E - Ease**
-How easy is this to implement and test?
-- Scale: 1-10
-- Consider: Time, resources, complexity, dependencies
-- Question: "How quickly can we learn if this works?"
-
-### 2. Calculate ICE Score
-
-**Formula Options:**
-
-**Simple Average:**
-ICE = (Impact + Confidence + Ease) / 3
-- Range: 1.0 - 10.0
-- Good for: Quick scoring, smaller decisions
-
-**Impact-Weighted:**
-ICE = (Impact × 3) + (10 - Effort)
-- Range: 0 - 40
-- Good for: When impact should dominate decisions
-- Note: Use Effort inverse (10 - Ease) if needed
-
-**Multiplicative:**
-ICE = Impact × Confidence × Ease
-- Range: 1 - 1000
-- Good for: Penalizing low scores more heavily
-
-### 3. Score Your Ideas
-
-For each idea, score each dimension:
-
-**Impact Scoring Guide:**
-- 10: Massive impact - could 2x the key metric
-- 7-9: High impact - significant, measurable improvement
-- 4-6: Medium impact - noticeable improvement
-- 1-3: Low impact - marginal improvement
-
-**Confidence Scoring Guide:**
-- 10: Near certain - strong data, proven elsewhere
-- 7-9: High confidence - good signals, tested assumptions
-- 4-6: Medium confidence - some signals, reasonable guess
-- 1-3: Low confidence - intuition only, untested
-
-**Ease Scoring Guide:**
-- 10: Trivial - hours of work, no dependencies
-- 7-9: Easy - days of work, few dependencies
-- 4-6: Medium - weeks of work, some complexity
-- 1-3: Hard - months of work, major dependencies
-
-### 4. Create Your Prioritized List
-
-Sort by ICE score, highest first:
-
-| Rank | Idea | Impact | Confidence | Ease | ICE Score |
-|------|------|--------|------------|------|-----------|
-| 1 | Simplify signup form | 7 | 8 | 9 | 8.0 |
-| 2 | Add social proof | 6 | 7 | 8 | 7.0 |
-| 3 | New pricing page | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6.7 |
-| 4 | AI feature expansion | 9 | 5 | 3 | 5.7 |
-
-### 5. Apply Judgment
-
-ICE provides ranking, not automatic decisions. Consider:
-
-**Strategic alignment:**
-- Does this support our current focus area?
-- Is this consistent with our roadmap?
-
-**Dependencies:**
-- Does anything else need to happen first?
-- Will this enable other high-value work?
-
-**Learning value:**
-- Even if impact is low, will we learn something valuable?
-- Is this a stepping stone to bigger opportunities?
-
-**Risk distribution:**
-- Are we taking enough big bets?
-- Are we also shipping quick wins?
-
-### 6. Create a Balanced Portfolio
-
-**Aim for a mix:**
-- **Quick wins:** High Ease, decent Impact (keep momentum)
-- **Big bets:** High Impact, lower Ease (move the needle)
-- **Experiments:** Lower Confidence (test assumptions)
-
-**Avoid:**
-- All quick wins (incremental, not transformative)
-- All big bets (slow, risky)
-- All low confidence (wasteful guessing)
-
-### 7. Re-score Regularly
-
-ICE scores change over time:
-- New data increases or decreases Confidence
-- Completed work changes Ease
-- Strategy shifts change Impact weights
-
-**Cadence:**
-- Weekly: Quick review of active list
-- Monthly: Full re-scoring of backlog
-- Quarterly: Reassess scoring criteria
-
-### 8. Common Mistakes
-
-**Inflating Impact scores:**
-- Everything is "high impact" → scores meaningless
-- Fix: Calibrate against past results
-
-**Underestimating Ease:**
-- Dev says "2 days" → actually 2 weeks
-- Fix: Use historical accuracy as calibration
-
-**Ignoring Confidence:**
-- "We're pretty sure" = low confidence
-- Fix: Require evidence for Confidence > 7
-
-**Gaming the system:**
-- Scoring what you want to build high
-- Fix: Score together as a team
-
-### 9. Synthesis
-
-After ICE scoring:
-- What's the top priority by ICE score?
-- Does that feel right given strategy and context?
-- What quick wins can we ship while working on big bets?
-- What low-confidence ideas should we test cheaply first?
-- When will we re-score this list?
-
-## Example
-
-**Product**: SaaS project management tool
-
-**Goal**: Increase trial-to-paid conversion (currently 8%)
-
-### Ideas to Score
-
-**1. Simplify pricing page**
-- Impact: 6 - Could improve clarity and conversion
-- Confidence: 8 - Best practice, heat maps show confusion
-- Ease: 9 - 2 days of work, design ready
-- **ICE: 7.7**
-
-**2. Add comparison table vs. competitors**
-- Impact: 5 - Helps decision-making
-- Confidence: 6 - Some products do this well
-- Ease: 7 - Week of work, need research
-- **ICE: 6.0**
-
-**3. Implement free team trial (vs. individual)**
-- Impact: 9 - Teams convert at 20% vs. individuals at 8%
-- Confidence: 8 - Have data from surveys and competitors
-- Ease: 4 - 4 weeks of work, billing changes
-- **ICE: 7.0**
-
-**4. AI-powered onboarding assistant**
-- Impact: 8 - Could transform first experience
-- Confidence: 4 - Haven't tested, no data
-- Ease: 2 - 3 months of work, new capability
-- **ICE: 4.7**
-
-**5. "Getting Started" email sequence**
-- Impact: 5 - Improve activation
-- Confidence: 7 - Email sequences work for competitors
-- Ease: 8 - 1 week, using existing tools
-- **ICE: 6.7**
-
-### Prioritized List
-
-| Priority | Idea | ICE | Type |
-|----------|------|-----|------|
-| 1 | Simplify pricing page | 7.7 | Quick Win |
-| 2 | Free team trial | 7.0 | Big Bet |
-| 3 | Email sequence | 6.7 | Quick Win |
-| 4 | Comparison table | 6.0 | Medium |
-| 5 | AI assistant | 4.7 | Future |
-
-### Execution Plan
-
-**Sprint 1 (2 weeks):**
-- Ship: Simplify pricing page (Quick Win)
-- Ship: Email sequence (Quick Win)
-- Plan: Free team trial (Big Bet)
-
-**Sprint 2-4 (6 weeks):**
-- Build: Free team trial
-- Measure: Pricing page impact
-- Measure: Email sequence impact
-
-**Sprint 5+:**
-- Evaluate: Did team trial increase conversion?
-- Decide: AI assistant worth pursuing?
-- Re-score: New ideas based on learnings
-
-### Post-Implementation Review
-
-After 8 weeks:
-- Pricing page: +1.2% conversion (confirmed Impact score)
-- Email sequence: +0.5% conversion (lower than expected)
-- Team trial: Launched, measuring
-
-**Re-scoring AI assistant with new data:**
-- Impact: 8 → 7 (email didn't help as much as expected)
-- Confidence: 4 → 5 (learned more about what drives activation)
-- Ease: 2 → 3 (can reuse onboarding learnings)
-- **New ICE: 5.0** (still not a priority)
-
-**Insight:** ICE scoring prevented us from building the "exciting" AI feature first. The mundane pricing page change delivered more impact per hour invested than any other option.