@rubytech/create-sitedesk-code 0.1.340

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

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+# 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/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/first-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# 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/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/fishbone.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# 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/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/five-whys.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# 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/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/ice-scoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+# 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.