@veyralabs/skills 0.4.1 → 0.5.1

package/skills/venture-suite/venture-analyst/references/customer-dev.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+# Customer Development Reference
+
+Steve Blank's framework. The complement to Lean Startup.
+Source: "The Four Steps to the Epiphany" (2005) and "The Startup Owner's Manual" (2012).
+
+## Core thesis
+
+Startups are not smaller versions of large companies. They exist to search for a repeatable, scalable business model — not to execute one. This search requires talking to customers before building.
+
+Most founders skip Step 1 and go straight to building. This is why most startups fail.
+
+## The four steps
+
+### Step 1 — Customer Discovery
+
+Validate that the problem exists and that your target customer experiences it.
+
+**What you're testing:**
+- Does the problem actually exist?
+- Is your target customer the right one?
+- Is this painful enough to pay to solve?
+
+**How:**
+- Interview 20-30 potential customers
+- Listen, don't pitch
+- Ask about their current behavior, not hypothetical preferences
+- See `references/mom-test.md` for interview technique
+
+**Pass criteria:**
+- Multiple customers describe the same problem unprompted
+- They have workarounds (evidence they tried to solve it)
+- They can quantify the cost (time, money, frustration)
+
+**Failure mode:** Founders who pitch instead of listen. "Nobody told me it was a bad idea" ≠ validation.
+
+### Step 2 — Customer Validation
+
+Prove the business model. Find repeatable sales. Find a path to revenue.
+
+**What you're testing:**
+- Will they actually pay?
+- Is the sales process repeatable?
+- Can you find customers without your personal network?
+
+**How:**
+- Get 3-5 paying customers (even at a discount or free for design partners)
+- Document the sales process step by step
+- Find what objections come up and how to overcome them
+
+**Pass criteria:**
+- Customers pay without you having to chase them hard
+- Different salespeople can close using the same process
+- Customer acquisition is possible outside warm intros
+
+**Failure mode:** Getting 3 customers who are personal favors. Real validation = strangers pay.
+
+### Step 3 — Customer Creation
+
+Shift from search to execution. Scale what worked in Step 2.
+
+**What you're doing:**
+- Pick one channel and scale it
+- Invest in marketing that repeats the validated sales motion
+- Build demand generation around the validated message
+
+**Only reach this step after Step 2 is solid.** Scaling a broken sales process just burns money.
+
+### Step 4 — Company Building
+
+Transition from startup to company. Build processes, teams, and systems.
+
+**Not relevant for early validation.** Focus on Steps 1 and 2 first.
+
+## Problem vs solution interviews
+
+Two different conversations. Don't mix them.
+
+### Problem interview
+
+Goal: validate the problem exists, understand current behavior.
+
+Structure:
+1. Intro (2 min): "I'm researching how people handle X. No product to sell."
+2. Background (5 min): "Tell me about your role. What does a typical day look like?"
+3. Story (10 min): "Tell me about the last time you dealt with X. Walk me through it."
+4. Pain exploration (10 min): "What's most frustrating about that? How do you handle it now?"
+5. Wrap-up (5 min): "Who else would I talk to about this?"
+
+**Do not:** mention your solution, ask hypotheticals, ask for feature preferences.
+
+### Solution interview
+
+Only run after problem is validated.
+
+Goal: validate your specific solution design.
+
+Structure:
+1. Problem recap (3 min): confirm they have the problem
+2. Demo/mockup (10 min): show the concept, let them react
+3. Reactions (10 min): "What would you do with this? What's confusing?"
+4. Willingness to pay (5 min): not "would you pay?" — "how much do you currently spend on this?"
+
+## Earlyvangelists
+
+The best early customers share all 5 traits:
+
+1. Have the problem
+2. Know they have the problem
+3. Actively searching for a solution
+4. Cobbled together a workaround
+5. Have budget to buy a solution
+
+Finding earlyvangelists is the goal of Steps 1-2. They'll put up with incomplete products, give feedback, and refer others.
+
+**Where to find them:** niche communities (subreddits, Slack groups, LinkedIn groups), people who asked public questions about the problem, power users of adjacent tools.
+
+## Beachhead market
+
+Don't try to reach everyone. Pick the smallest possible market where you can win completely.
+
+Criteria for a good beachhead:
+- Homogeneous needs (all have the same problem in the same way)
+- Word of mouth works within the group
+- Referenceable (customers are willing to be named)
+- Financially attractive enough to sustain the business
+
+**Classic mistake:** TAM is huge, so we'll target everyone. Result: message resonates with nobody.
+
+## Customer segments to validate
+
+For B2B especially, multiple people are involved in a purchase:
+
+- **User** - uses the product daily
+- **Influencer** - recommends or blocks purchase
+- **Recommender** - brings options to the decision maker
+- **Decision maker** - approves budget
+- **Economic buyer** - controls the money
+
+Your ICP might be the User but the Economic Buyer makes the call. Understand all of them before pricing or positioning.
+
+## Signals for pivot
+
+- 10+ interviews and nobody describes the same problem
+- Everyone says "that's interesting" but won't commit to a call with their boss
+- The workaround they use is good enough and they know it
+- Problem only affects extremely niche edge cases
+- The real buyer is different from who you expected

package/skills/venture-suite/venture-analyst/references/founder-traps.md

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+# Founder Trap Patterns
+
+Common patterns where founders convince themselves they have a good idea when the evidence says otherwise. Detect these from the research data - not from what the founder says, but from what the data shows.
+
+## How to detect traps
+
+These are signal patterns, not opinions. Each trap has specific evidence criteria. If the criteria match, flag it. If they don't, don't flag it.
+
+---
+
+## Trap 1: Solution Looking for a Problem
+
+**What it looks like:**
+Founder describes a sophisticated technical solution. When asked about the problem, they describe the solution again in different words.
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- High feature complexity in the idea description
+- Low Reddit/HN pain evidence (people aren't complaining about this)
+- GitHub issues about the problem: near zero
+- Trend data: flat or no data
+- When searching for the problem, results are mostly product announcements, not complaints
+
+**Example:**
+"An AI-powered semantic graph database for distributed knowledge management" - but nobody is searching for this, and no Reddit threads show people struggling with their current knowledge management.
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Solution looking for a problem
+Signal: High technical complexity, low organic pain evidence
+Evidence score on the problem: [X] -- below threshold for this complexity level
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 2: Building for Yourself
+
+**What it looks like:**
+The founder is the only person in the world with this exact problem configuration. The idea solves a very specific workflow that only power users in one niche experience.
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- The subreddits where this pain appears have under 10k subscribers
+- HN discussions exist but are 5+ years old and never got traction
+- GitHub issues exist in one very specific repo from one very specific maintainer
+- No mainstream discussion anywhere
+- Trend data: zero or declining
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Building for yourself
+Signal: Pain exists but only in a very narrow segment
+Estimated addressable users: [small] -- may not support a business
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 3: Vitamin, Not Painkiller
+
+**What it looks like:**
+The problem exists. People acknowledge it. But nobody is urgently trying to solve it right now. It's a "nice to have."
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- Reddit posts about the problem get upvotes but few comments
+- No "is there a tool that does X" posts
+- Competitors exist but have low engagement / slow growth
+- People describe the problem but their current workaround is "good enough"
+- No one is spending money on bad solutions currently
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Vitamin, not painkiller
+Signal: Problem acknowledged, urgency low
+No evidence of active spending on imperfect solutions
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 4: Red Ocean Obsession
+
+**What it looks like:**
+Founder wants to compete directly with a dominant player using the same positioning and features. "We're like X but better."
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- 1+ competitor with over 100k users
+- Competitor has a free tier
+- No clear positioning gap in the competitor map
+- Founder's description relies on feature parity + marginal improvements
+- No ERRC analysis shows a meaningfully different value curve
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Red ocean entry
+Signal: Dominant player exists with free tier and no clear structural weakness
+"Better" is not a strategy
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 5: Market Timing Mismatch
+
+**What it looks like:**
+The idea was good 3-5 years ago (or will be good in 3-5 years) but is poorly timed for now.
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- Trend data: declining
+- Related GitHub repos: abandoned or archived
+- HN discussions: lots of interest 3+ years ago, silence now
+- OR: Trend rising fast but infrastructure/regulation not ready yet (too early)
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Market timing mismatch
+Signal: [declining interest over X period] or [infrastructure gap for early timing]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 6: Complexity Moat Illusion
+
+**What it looks like:**
+Founder believes the product's complexity is the moat. "Nobody else will build this because it's hard." This is almost never true.
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- The problem space has well-funded competitors (they can hire the engineers)
+- The technical complexity doesn't translate to switching costs for users
+- No network effects in the model
+- No proprietary data advantage
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Complexity moat illusion
+Signal: Technical difficulty does not equal defensibility
+Better-resourced competitors can and will replicate
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 7: Proxy Metric Validation
+
+**What it looks like:**
+Founder validated the wrong thing. Got 500 waitlist signups but none converted. Got 50 "great idea" replies to a cold email but nobody booked a call.
+
+**Evidence signals (use when reviewing experiment design):**
+- Success criteria were defined by vanity metrics
+- No willingness-to-pay experiment was ever run
+- Conversion from interest to commitment was never tested
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: Proxy metric validation
+Signal: Interest validated, commitment not validated
+Waitlist signups are not customers
+```
+
+---
+
+## Trap 8: ICP Drift
+
+**What it looks like:**
+Founder started with one customer type, got rejected, and gradually expanded their ICP until "everyone" is the customer.
+
+**Evidence signals:**
+- Target customer description is vague ("any business", "any developer")
+- Multiple contradictory customer types mentioned in the idea description
+- Pain signals come from very different subreddits with no overlap
+
+**Output flag:**
+```
+Founder Trap: ICP drift
+Signal: Expanding ICP is a sign of failed validation, not a bigger market
+Narrow the target before expanding
+```
+
+---
+
+## How to apply in analysis
+
+During Phase 5 (Decision Intelligence):
+
+1. Match evidence patterns against each trap above
+2. Flag any trap where at least 3 of the listed signals are present
+3. Never flag based on one signal alone
+4. If a trap is flagged, it does NOT automatically change the verdict - it goes into Decision Intelligence for the judge to weigh
+5. A BUILD verdict can coexist with a detected trap if the other evidence is strong enough
+
+Priority order (most damaging first):
+1. Solution looking for problem
+2. Red ocean obsession
+3. Vitamin not painkiller
+4. Building for yourself
+5. Market timing mismatch
+6. All others

package/skills/venture-suite/venture-analyst/references/lean-startup.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# Lean Startup Reference
+
+Core methodology for venture-analyst. Eric Ries, 2011. Still the most cited startup framework.
+
+## Build-Measure-Learn loop
+
+Not a sequential process — a loop. Start from Learn and work backwards:
+
+1. **Learn** - What do we need to know? (Define the riskiest assumption)
+2. **Build** - Build the minimum thing to test that assumption
+3. **Measure** - Collect data on whether assumption is true
+
+Speed through the loop beats quality of any single cycle.
+
+**Key insight:** Most startups fail not because they can't build, but because they build something nobody wants. The loop's purpose is to surface that failure cheaply and early.
+
+## Validated learning
+
+Not all learning is equal. Vanity metrics (page views, registered users) feel good and mean nothing.
+
+**Vanity metric examples:**
+- Total signups (meaningless without activation rate)
+- Page views (meaningless without behavior)
+- Press mentions (zero correlation with revenue)
+- Lines of code shipped
+
+**Actionable metrics (validated learning):**
+- Activation rate: % of signups who complete key action
+- Retention cohorts: do users come back week 2, week 4?
+- Willingness to pay: who actually pays vs who says they would
+- NPS with follow-up: would you be disappointed if gone?
+
+**Test:** "If this metric doubled, would we change what we build next?" If no - it's vanity.
+
+## Minimum Viable Product (MVP) types
+
+### Concierge MVP
+Do the service manually for 3-5 users. No automation.
+- When: early problem validation, B2B, high-value customers
+- Cost: time only
+- What you learn: is the outcome valuable? What parts matter?
+- Example: Airbnb founders photographed first listings themselves
+
+### Wizard of Oz MVP
+System looks automated but humans do the work behind the scenes.
+- When: you want to simulate the product without building it
+- Cost: time + some frontend work
+- What you learn: do users engage with the interface? Is the outcome valuable?
+- Example: Zappos CEO manually bought shoes from stores to test demand
+
+### Landing Page / Fake Door
+Page describes product, collects signups or clicks before product exists.
+- When: demand signal, product not built
+- Cost: hours (Carrd.co is free)
+- What you learn: does the message resonate? Will people take action?
+- Caution: doesn't test willingness to pay - only interest
+
+### Piecemeal MVP
+Assemble from existing tools. Don't build infrastructure.
+- When: proving the workflow works before custom tech
+- Cost: subscription fees for tools used
+- Example: use Airtable + Zapier + Stripe before building SaaS
+
+### Single-Feature MVP
+Ship one core feature only. Cut everything else.
+- When: you know the problem, testing one solution
+- Risk: might ship the wrong feature
+- Rule: what is the single thing that makes this valuable? Ship only that.
+
+## Pivot types
+
+When data says current direction is wrong, pivot — don't persevere blindly.
+
+| Pivot type | What changes | Example |
+|-----------|--------------|---------|
+| Zoom-in | Narrow one feature into whole product | Instagram pivoted from Burbn |
+| Zoom-out | Widen — current product becomes one feature | - |
+| Customer segment | Same product, different customer | B2C → B2B |
+| Customer need | Same customer, different problem | - |
+| Platform | App → platform or vice versa | - |
+| Business architecture | High margin/low volume ↔ low margin/high volume | - |
+| Value capture | How you charge (not what you sell) | Per seat → flat rate |
+| Engine of growth | Viral → sticky → paid acquisition | - |
+| Channel | Direct → partner → marketplace | - |
+| Technology | Same problem, completely different tech | - |
+
+**When to pivot vs persevere:**
+- Experiments consistently failing over multiple cycles = pivot signal
+- One experiment failing = not enough data
+- Team excited about pivot because it's easier = wrong reason, investigate
+
+## Innovation accounting
+
+3 milestones before declaring pivot/persevere:
+
+1. Establish baseline (where are we now? honest numbers)
+2. Tune the engine (optimize toward ideal, eliminate waste)
+3. Decide pivot or persevere (did tuning move numbers? if no, pivot)
+
+## Engines of growth
+
+**Sticky engine:** Retention is the driver. Churn rate < growth rate.
+- Metric: customer lifetime value vs churn rate
+- Strategy: improve activation and retention before acquisition
+
+**Viral engine:** Users recruit users.
+- Metric: viral coefficient (K-factor). K > 1 = exponential growth
+- K = (invites sent per user) × (conversion rate of invites)
+- Strategy: build referral loop into core product
+
+**Paid engine:** Buy customers profitably.
+- Metric: LTV > CAC (lifetime value > customer acquisition cost)
+- Rule of thumb: LTV should be 3x CAC minimum
+- Strategy: find one channel that scales before optimizing others
+
+## Signals this framework applies
+
+Use lean startup when:
+- Building a new product in uncertain market
+- Validating a problem before heavy investment
+- Deciding between multiple possible solutions
+
+Don't use it to justify shipping forever-incomplete products. "Lean" = eliminate waste, not "don't finish things."

package/skills/venture-suite/venture-analyst/references/mom-test.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+# Mom Test Reference
+
+Rob Fitzpatrick, "The Mom Test" (2013).
+Core rule: your mom loves you and will lie to make you feel good. Most customers will too.
+The test: would your mom give you honest answers to these questions? If yes, they're good questions.
+
+## The problem with bad interviews
+
+Founders ask questions that make customers feel good but reveal nothing:
+
+- "Do you think this is a good idea?" — Everyone says yes. Means nothing.
+- "Would you use a product that does X?" — Hypothetical. People overestimate future behavior.
+- "How much would you pay for this?" — Hypothetical. Actual payments are the only data.
+
+**The lie:** "That's a great idea, you should build that." Customers say this to be kind. It's not validation.
+
+**Real validation:** someone pays, or gives up time, or says something unprompted that matches your hypothesis.
+
+## The three rules
+
+### Rule 1 — Talk about their life, not your idea
+
+Ask about what they already do. Not what they would do.
+
+Good: "How do you currently handle invoicing?"
+Bad: "Would you use an AI invoicing tool?"
+
+### Rule 2 — Ask about specifics in the past, not generics or opinions
+
+Past behavior predicts future behavior. Opinions don't.
+
+Good: "Walk me through the last time you dealt with that."
+Bad: "Do you often have trouble with that?"
+
+### Rule 3 — Listen, don't pitch
+
+If you're explaining your idea, you're not learning. You're convincing.
+The moment you pitch, all their answers become validation attempts, not honest signals.
+
+## Good vs bad questions
+
+### Good questions
+
+- "How do you currently handle [problem]? Walk me through your last time."
+- "What's the most frustrating part of that process?"
+- "How long does that take you per week?"
+- "Have you tried other solutions? What happened?"
+- "How much are you currently spending on this? Time + money."
+- "What would you do if this problem disappeared tomorrow?"
+- "Who else in your team deals with this?"
+- "How do you find out about tools like this?"
+- "What would make you switch away from your current solution?"
+
+### Bad questions
+
+- "Would you use X if it existed?"
+- "Do you think this is a good idea?"
+- "What features would you want?"
+- "How much would you pay for this?"
+- "Would you pay $X/month for this?"
+- "Don't you think [problem] is really bad?"
+- "If we built X, would that solve your problem?"
+
+## Detecting false positives
+
+Customers say things that sound like validation but aren't.
+
+**Compliments (ignore these):**
+- "That's really interesting."
+- "I could see that being useful."
+- "You should definitely build that."
+- "I know people who would use that."
+
+**Weak signals (not enough alone):**
+- "I would use it if it had X feature."
+- "I might sign up when it's live."
+- "Send me info when you launch."
+
+**Strong signals (real validation):**
+- They ask when it will be available and push for a date
+- They offer to pay now, even before it's built
+- They ask for a demo with their boss on the call
+- They describe a specific workflow where they'd use it
+- They give you a referral without being asked
+
+**The commitment test:**
+"Would you be willing to [try the beta / join a pilot / pay a deposit / introduce me to your VP]?"
+
+Their reaction tells you more than anything they said before.
+
+## Extracting signal from praise
+
+When they say "I love it" — push:
+
+- "What specifically would you use it for?"
+- "How often would that come up?"
+- "How much time/money is that costing you now?"
+- "What would you stop doing if you had this?"
+
+Turn abstract enthusiasm into concrete use cases and quantified pain.
+
+## Signs you found a real customer
+
+1. They describe the problem in detail without being asked
+2. They have a workaround they're not happy with
+3. They ask questions about your solution (not just compliment it)
+4. They connect you to other people with the same problem
+5. They put time/money on the line (small commitment = real interest)
+
+## Signs this is the wrong customer
+
+1. They can't remember a specific recent example of the problem
+2. Their "solution" is to just not deal with it
+3. They're enthusiastic but can't make a buying decision
+4. Every answer is "it depends" without specifics
+5. The problem you're describing is news to them
+
+## Interview format that works
+
+**Setup (2 min):** "I'm researching how [people like you] handle [domain]. Not selling anything. Want honest feedback."
+
+**Warm-up (3 min):** Ask about their role, day-to-day. Build context.
+
+**Core (15 min):** Story-based questions about past behavior.
+- "Tell me about the last time..."
+- "Walk me through what you did..."
+- "What happened after that?"
+
+**Quantify (5 min):** Pin down real numbers.
+- "How often does this happen?"
+- "How long does it take?"
+- "What does it cost you?"
+
+**Wrap-up (3 min):** "Who else would you suggest I talk to about this?"
+
+Total: 25-30 minutes. Don't go over — respect their time.
+
+## Pattern recognition across interviews
+
+After 10+ interviews:
+- Which problems do they all mention? (signal)
+- Which problems do only 1-2 mention? (noise or niche)
+- Which solutions do they all currently use? (incumbent to beat)
+- What do they all want but nobody builds? (gap)
+
+Don't average opinions. Look for patterns in specific behaviors.