@veyralabs/skills 0.5.0 → 0.5.1

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@veyralabs/skills",
-  "version": "0.5.0",
+  "version": "0.5.1",
   "description": "VeyraSkills — A curated collection of Claude Code skills for founders, developers and AI builders",
   "bin": {
     "veyraskills": "bin/cli.js"

package/skills/venture-suite/venture-analyst/SKILL.md

@@ -5,16 +5,17 @@ description: Startup and SaaS idea validation. Researches market evidence, maps
 
 # Venture Analyst
 
-Research a startup or SaaS idea and determine if it's worth building. No fluff — real evidence from real sources.
+Research a startup or SaaS idea and determine if it's worth building. No fluff - real evidence from real sources, structured reasoning, and a committed decision.
 
 ## What this does
 
-Four phases, each producing structured output:
+Five phases, each producing structured output:
 
-1. **Problem Discovery** - Find evidence the problem actually exists (Reddit, HN, GitHub issues)
+1. **Problem Discovery** - Find evidence the problem actually exists (Reddit, HN, GitHub issues, trends)
 2. **Competitor Intelligence** - Map the landscape, find gaps, extract pricing signals
 3. **Validation Experiments** - Generate 3 prioritized experiments to test demand before building
-4. **Verdict** - Bull/Bear/Judge debate producing a final recommendation with confidence score
+4. **Verdict** - Bull/Bear/Judge debate with Confidence Engine and scored recommendation
+5. **Decision Intelligence** - Contradiction detection, founder trap check, reality check, distribution plan, time-to-first-dollar
 
 ## How to use
 
@@ -23,63 +24,79 @@ Describe your idea. Include:
 - Who it's for (target customer)
 - What problem it solves
 
-Optional: budget for experiments, market type (B2C/B2B), known competitors.
+Optional: budget for experiments, market type (B2C/B2B), known competitors, founder background.
 
-## Phase 1 — Problem Discovery
+## Phase 1 - Problem Discovery
 
 **Goal:** Find evidence the problem is real and people talk about it unprompted.
 
 Use `scripts/sources.py` to collect evidence:
 
 ```python
-from scripts.sources import search_hn, search_hn_comments, search_reddit, search_github_issues, get_trends
+from scripts.sources import search_hn, search_hn_comments, search_reddit, search_github_issues, get_trends, calculate_evidence_score
 
-# HN: find discussions, Show HN, Ask HN about the problem space
-hn_stories = search_hn(query, limit=20)
-hn_comments = search_hn_comments(query, min_points=3, limit=30)
-
-# Reddit: find complaints, questions, "is there a tool for X" posts
+hn_stories   = search_hn(query, limit=20)
+hn_comments  = search_hn_comments(query, min_points=3, limit=30)
 reddit_posts = search_reddit(query, limit=25, timeframe="year")
+gh_issues    = search_github_issues(query, limit=20)
+trend_data   = get_trends(keyword)
+```
 
-# GitHub: find feature requests and pain in related tools
-gh_issues = search_github_issues(query, limit=20)
+**Evidence Quality (not just quantity):**
 
-# Trends: is interest rising or declining?
-trend_data = get_trends(keyword)
-```
+Evaluate source mix and signal strength, not just raw counts.
+
+| Source | Quality signal | Weight |
+|--------|---------------|--------|
+| HN Ask/Show with 50+ points | People actively seeking solutions | High |
+| Reddit complaints with 100+ upvotes | Widespread frustration | High |
+| GitHub issues with many reactions | Developers hitting the same wall | High |
+| HN/Reddit mentions of spending money | Willingness to pay | Very high |
+| Rising trend | Growing problem | High |
+| Trend flat | Established problem | Medium |
+| Trend declining | Dying problem | Negative |
+| Generic blog posts | Low signal noise | Low |
+
+Evidence Quality grades:
+- **A** - Multiple high-quality sources, direct pain quotes, spending signals
+- **B** - Good source mix, clear pain but limited spending signals
+- **C** - Some signal but concentrated in one source
+- **D** - Thin signal, only indirect evidence
+- **F** - Essentially no evidence
 
 **Synthesize findings:**
 
-Look for these signals (strongest first):
-- People spending money on bad solutions (evidence of willingness to pay)
-- Recurring complaints with no good answer
+Strongest pain signals (prioritize):
+- People actively spending money on imperfect solutions
+- Recurring complaints with no satisfying answer
 - "Is there a tool that does X?" posts with many upvotes
-- GitHub issues with many reactions and no resolution
-- Rising trend line
+- GitHub issues with many reactions, still open
 
 Red flags:
-- Zero discussion anywhere — not even a complaint
-- Problem exists but nobody's tried to solve it (often means it's not painful enough)
-- Only a few power users care, not a broad market
+- Zero discussion anywhere (even if search terms varied)
+- Problem exists but everyone's workaround is "good enough"
+- Only a few power users care, no broad market
+- Discussion peaked years ago (dying category)
 
 **Output format:**
 ```
 ## Problem Evidence
 
-**Evidence Score:** [0-100] (use calculate_evidence_score())
-**Trend:** [rising/stable/declining/no_data]
+Evidence Score: [0-100]
+Evidence Quality: [A/B/C/D/F]
 
-### What people say (direct quotes preferred)
-- [Source] "[quote or paraphrase]" — [upvotes/reactions]
+Source breakdown:
+- HN: [n] discussions, strongest: "[quote]"
+- Reddit: [n] posts, strongest: "[quote]"
+- GitHub: [n] issues, strongest reaction count: [n]
+- Trend: [rising/stable/declining], avg interest: [n]
 
-### Pain signals
-- [description of signal + source count]
-
-### Gaps found
-- [what existing solutions miss]
+Quality notes:
+- [what makes this evidence strong]
+- [what's missing]
 ```
 
-## Phase 2 — Competitor Intelligence
+## Phase 2 - Competitor Intelligence
 
 **Goal:** Map who's already solving this. Find pricing, positioning gaps, weak points.
 
@@ -87,57 +104,38 @@ Red flags:
 from scripts.scraper import scrape_competitor
 from scripts.sources import search_github_repos, search_web
 
-# Find competitors via web and GitHub
-repos = search_github_repos(f"{idea} tool", limit=8)
+repos       = search_github_repos(f"{idea} tool", limit=8)
 web_results = search_web(f"{idea} software alternatives", limit=8)
 
-# Scrape each competitor's pricing + positioning
 for url in competitor_urls:
     data = scrape_competitor(url)
-    # data has: title, tagline, description, pricing, features, tech_stack
+    # data: title, tagline, description, pricing, features, tech_stack
 ```
 
-**Competitive map structure:**
+**Competitive map:**
 ```
-| Name | Pricing | Target | Weakness | Stars |
-|------|---------|--------|----------|-------|
-| X    | $49/mo  | SMBs   | No API   | 2.1k  |
+| Name | Pricing | Target | Weakness | Stars/Users |
+|------|---------|--------|----------|-------------|
 ```
 
-**Gaps to look for:**
-- Price ceiling: is there a tier missing?
-- Audience gap: power users vs beginners vs enterprise
-- Feature gap: what do G2/Reddit reviews complain about?
-- Distribution gap: who's not in a specific channel?
+**Gaps to identify:**
+- Price ceiling: tier missing between free and enterprise?
+- Audience gap: power users vs beginners vs enterprise underserved?
+- Feature gap: what do reviews complain about repeatedly?
+- Distribution gap: channel nobody is using?
 
-**G2 reviews (when Playwright available):**
-```python
-from scripts.scraper import scrape_g2_reviews
-reviews = scrape_g2_reviews("https://www.g2.com/products/[product]/reviews")
-# Check for recurring "cons" patterns
-```
-
-**Output format:**
-```
-## Competitor Map
+**Opportunity Score vs Startup Score:**
 
-### Direct competitors
-[table]
+These are two different things. Conflating them is a common mistake.
 
-### Indirect / adjacent
-[list with one-line descriptions]
+- **Opportunity Score** = how good is the market? (demand, size, willingness to pay)
+- **Startup Score** = how viable is this as a startup? (scalability, defensibility, execution path)
 
-### Market gaps
-- Gap 1: [description + evidence]
-- Gap 2: [description + evidence]
+A market can be huge (high opportunity) but impossible to win as a bootstrapped startup (low startup score). Example: "A better Stripe" - huge opportunity, near-zero startup score for most founders.
 
-### Pricing landscape
-- Range: [$X - $Y/month]
-- Free tier pattern: [present/absent]
-- Typical model: [seat/flat/usage]
-```
+Score both separately in the competitor output section.
 
-## Phase 3 — Validation Experiments
+## Phase 3 - Validation Experiments
 
 **Goal:** Before writing code, find out if people will actually pay.
 
@@ -147,24 +145,62 @@ from scripts.experiments import generate_experiments, format_experiment_output
 experiments = generate_experiments(
     idea=idea,
     target_customer=target,
-    market_type="b2b",  # or "b2c"
-    competition_level="medium",  # low/medium/high
-    budget="zero",  # zero / low / medium
+    market_type="b2b",      # or "b2c"
+    competition_level="medium",
+    budget="zero",
 )
-
 print(format_experiment_output(experiments, idea))
 ```
 
-Always present experiments in priority order. Cheapest + highest-signal first.
+Present experiments in priority order. Cheapest + highest-signal first.
 
-**Mom Test enforcement** — when helping design interviews or outreach:
+**Mom Test enforcement** - when helping design interviews or outreach:
 - See `references/mom-test.md` for good vs bad questions
-- Detect and flag future-hypothetical questions ("would you use X?")
+- Flag any future-hypothetical question ("would you use X?")
 - Replace with past-behavior questions ("how do you currently handle X?")
 
-## Phase 4 — Verdict
+**Time-To-First-Dollar estimate:**
+
+For each experiment path, estimate realistic time to first revenue:
+
+| Market type | Typical range | What accelerates it |
+|------------|--------------|---------------------|
+| B2C consumer SaaS | 30-90 days | Viral loop, strong landing page CTR |
+| B2B SMB | 30-60 days | Warm outreach, concierge MVP |
+| B2B mid-market | 60-180 days | Champion inside company, ROI clear |
+| B2B enterprise | 6-18 months | Do not start here without traction |
+| Developer tool (paid) | 14-45 days | Show HN, Product Hunt, X/Twitter post |
+| Marketplace | 90-180+ days | Cold start problem, both sides |
+| Content-led SaaS | 60-120 days | SEO takes time, need existing audience |
 
-**Goal:** Simulate a debate between Bull, Bear, and Judge. Reach a conclusion.
+This is not the time to build - it's the time from starting experiments to first paying customer.
+
+## Phase 4 - Verdict
+
+**Goal:** Simulate a debate between Bull, Bear, and Judge. Reach a committed conclusion.
+
+### Confidence Engine
+
+The confidence score must explain itself. Not "Confidence: High" alone. Show the reasoning.
+
+```
+Confidence: [0-100]
+
+High confidence because:
++ [n] Reddit mentions across [n] subreddits
++ [n] GitHub issues with [n]+ reactions
++ [n] competitors validated with real pricing
++ Rising trend over [period]
++ [specific spending signal found]
+
+Confidence reduced because:
+- [specific gap, e.g. weak monetization signals]
+- [e.g. no willingness-to-pay evidence found]
+- [e.g. fragmented ICP - different pain in different segments]
+- [e.g. limited search volume data]
+```
+
+This matters because users need to see the reasoning is transparent, not magic.
 
 ### Bull case (write this first)
 - Strongest evidence for building it
@@ -173,46 +209,189 @@ Always present experiments in priority order. Cheapest + highest-signal first.
 - Best-case scenario with numbers
 
 ### Bear case (steelman the opposition)
-- Strongest evidence AGAINST
+- Strongest evidence AGAINST building it
 - Why existing solutions might be good enough
 - Market risks, timing risks, competition risks
 - Why it might fail even if the problem is real
 
 ### Judge verdict
-Read both cases. Apply these criteria:
+
+Apply these criteria:
 
 | Signal | Weight |
 |--------|--------|
 | Evidence score > 60 | +2 |
+| Evidence quality A or B | +1 |
 | Trend = rising | +1 |
 | Competitors have clear weakness | +1 |
 | No dominant player (>50% market) | +1 |
 | B2B with willingness-to-pay signals | +1 |
 | Price ceiling exists | +1 |
 | Evidence score < 30 | -3 |
+| Evidence quality D or F | -2 |
 | Trend = declining | -2 |
 | 1+ competitor with >100k users + free tier | -2 |
 | Problem is niche (<10k potential users) | -1 |
+| Founder trap detected (high priority) | -2 |
+| Reality check failed | -2 |
+
+**Verdict:**
+```
+Recommendation: BUILD / VALIDATE FIRST / AVOID
+Confidence: [0-100]
+Score: [+N or -N]
+
+Judge's reasoning:
+[2-3 sentences. Direct. No hedging. Reference the specific evidence that tipped the scale.]
+```
+
+## Phase 5 - Decision Intelligence
+
+Run this after the Verdict. It does not change the verdict score - it adds context that makes the decision actionable.
+
+### Contradiction Detector
+
+Look for contradictions between sources. The most valuable insight is often in the gap between what people say and what the market shows.
+
+Common contradiction patterns:
+
+**Pain high, market growing:**
+```
+Reddit: strong complaints about current solutions
+Competitors: growing, raising funding
+
+Interpretation: users hate existing tools but still pay.
+This is an improvement opportunity, not a replacement play.
+Consider: better UX, better pricing, better ICP focus.
+```
+
+**Pain high, no competitors:**
+```
+Evidence of real pain.
+Zero viable competitors found.
 
-**Verdict output:**
+Two interpretations:
+1. Blue ocean - opportunity exists
+2. Graveyard - others tried and died
+
+Check: search for failed startups in this space. If multiple failed,
+investigate why before treating this as opportunity.
+```
+
+**Trend rising, community silent:**
+```
+Google Trends shows growing interest.
+Reddit/HN have minimal discussion.
+
+Possible: problem is new, community hasn't formed yet (early).
+Risk: trend is noise, not genuine demand.
+```
+
+**Competition dense, pain still high:**
+```
+Multiple established competitors.
+Pain signals still strong and recent.
+
+Interpretation: nobody has actually solved it.
+Look for the structural reason: price, UX, missing feature, wrong ICP.
+```
+
+When a contradiction is found, output:
+```
+Contradiction detected: [name]
+
+[source A] shows: [signal]
+[source B] shows: [signal]
+
+Most likely interpretation: [explanation]
+What to verify: [specific experiment or question that resolves this]
+```
+
+### Founder Trap Detector
+
+Check `references/founder-traps.md` for full criteria.
+
+Evaluate the evidence against each trap pattern. Flag any trap where 3+ signals match.
+
+Output when trap found:
+```
+Founder Trap: [trap name]
+Evidence: [which signals matched]
+Risk level: [high/medium]
+Does not invalidate the opportunity, but changes the execution approach.
 ```
-## Verdict
 
-**Recommendation:** [BUILD / VALIDATE FIRST / AVOID]
-**Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low]
-**Score:** [+N or -N]
+### Reality Check
 
-### Judge's reasoning
-[2-3 sentences. Direct. No hedging.]
+This is not about the market - it's about whether this founder can execute this idea.
 
-### If BUILD: suggested starting point
-[Specific first step. Not generic advice.]
+Gather context:
+- What is the founder's background? (from idea description if mentioned)
+- What does the idea require to work? (regulatory, infrastructure, capital, technical depth)
+
+Questions to answer:
+1. Does this require compliance, licensing, or regulatory approval?
+2. Does this require partnerships before it can function? (e.g. bank partners, data licenses)
+3. Does this require enterprise sales from day one?
+4. Does this require a team of 10+ to build the MVP?
+5. Is the technical complexity beyond a solo founder?
+
+If 2+ of these are true:
+```
+Reality check: Execution path is high-risk for early-stage founders
+
+Requires: [list what it requires]
+
+This does not mean the opportunity is bad.
+It means: do not start building until these constraints are addressed.
+
+Alternative paths:
+- [reduced scope version that avoids the constraint]
+- [validate the demand first, then find the right co-founder/partner]
+```
+
+### Distribution Plan
+
+Based on the research, recommend 3 specific acquisition channels.
+
+Use `references/traction.md` for channel criteria. Apply to this specific market:
+
+```
+Top channels for this idea:
+
+1. [channel] - because [specific evidence from research]
+   Test: [how to run a cheap test in 2 weeks]
+   
+2. [channel] - because [specific evidence]
+   Test: [how to test]
+   
+3. [channel] - because [specific evidence]
+   Test: [how to test]
+
+Avoid:
+- SEO - [reason, e.g. "competitive market, 6+ months to rank"]
+- Paid social - [reason, e.g. "B2B ICP hard to target on Meta"]
+```
+
+Do not recommend generic channels. Base it on where the pain evidence was actually found.
+
+Example: if most Reddit signal came from r/smallbusiness, recommend Reddit community strategy specifically.
+
+### Time-To-First-Dollar
+
+Based on the market type, competition, and experiment plan:
+
+```
+Time-To-First-Dollar estimate: [X-Y weeks/months]
 
-### If VALIDATE FIRST: critical unknown
-[The one thing that must be proven before spending time.]
+Path:
+Week 1-2: [specific action, e.g. "cold outreach to 50 Reddit users who posted about problem"]
+Week 3-4: [specific action]
+Week 5-8: [specific action]
+Target: first paying customer by [date estimate]
 
-### If AVOID: core problem
-[Why specifically this fails. What would have to change.]
+What would accelerate this: [specific factor]
+What would delay this: [specific risk]
 ```
 
 ## Enhancement detection
@@ -225,11 +404,9 @@ from scripts.enhance_detect import detect_level, ensure_searxng, best_search
 env = detect_level()
 # Returns: docker, searxng, veyrascrape_mcp, github_token, exa_key, tavily_key, groq_key
 
-# If Docker available, auto-launch SearXNG for better web search
 if env["docker"] and not env["searxng"]:
     ensure_searxng()  # silent, no user prompt
 
-# Use best available search
 results = best_search(query, env, limit=10)
 ```
 
@@ -258,12 +435,15 @@ From `calculate_evidence_score()` in `sources.py`:
 - `references/mom-test.md` - good vs bad interview questions
 - `references/blue-ocean.md` - Value Curve, ERRC Grid, finding uncontested space
 - `references/traction.md` - 19 acquisition channels, Bullseye framework
+- `references/founder-traps.md` - 8 trap patterns with evidence criteria
 
 ## Output principles
 
 1. Lead with evidence, not opinions
-2. Quote real sources (HN post, Reddit thread, GitHub issue)
-3. Be specific about numbers (upvotes, stars, $prices)
-4. Separate fact from inference clearly
-5. Bull/Bear before Verdict — don't skip the debate
-6. Verdict must commit to a recommendation — no "it depends" without specifics
+2. Quote real sources (HN post, Reddit thread, GitHub issue) with specifics
+3. Separate fact from inference - never present interpretation as data
+4. Show the Confidence Engine reasoning - never just state "High confidence"
+5. Run the contradiction check - the most valuable insight is often in the gaps
+6. Check for founder traps before finalizing verdict
+7. Verdict must commit - no "it depends" without specifics and a path forward
+8. Distinguish Opportunity Score from Startup Score

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/templates/verdict.md

@@ -1,29 +1,32 @@
 # Verdict Template
 
-The final output of venture-analyst. Complete all sections. No section is optional.
+Final output of venture-analyst. Complete all sections. No section is optional.
+The goal is a decision, not a report.
 
 ---
 
-## [Idea Name] — Venture Verdict
+## [Idea Name] - Venture Verdict
 
 **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
-**Evidence Score:** [0-100] (from calculate_evidence_score())
+**Evidence Score:** [0-100]
+**Evidence Quality:** [A/B/C/D/F]
 **Recommendation:** BUILD / VALIDATE FIRST / AVOID
 
 ---
 
 ## Evidence Summary
 
-### Problem signals found
+### Source breakdown
 
-| Source | Count | Strongest signal |
-|--------|-------|-----------------|
-| HN discussions | [n] | "[quote]" |
-| Reddit mentions | [n] | "[quote]" |
-| GitHub issues | [n] | "[repo/issue]" |
-| Market trend | [rising/stable/declining] | [data point] |
+| Source | Count | Quality | Strongest signal |
+|--------|-------|---------|-----------------|
+| HN discussions | [n] | [H/M/L] | "[quote or title]" |
+| Reddit posts | [n] | [H/M/L] | "[quote or title]" |
+| GitHub issues | [n] | [H/M/L] | "[repo - issue title - reactions]" |
+| Market trend | [rising/stable/declining] | - | [avg interest + period] |
 
-**Evidence quality:** [Strong / Moderate / Thin / Weak]
+**Spending signals found:** [Yes - describe / No]
+**Willingness-to-pay evidence:** [Yes - describe / No]
 
 ### Competitor landscape
 
@@ -32,8 +35,30 @@ The final output of venture-analyst. Complete all sections. No section is option
 | [A] | [price] | [n] | [gap] |
 | [B] | [price] | [n] | [gap] |
 
-**Market gap identified:** [Yes/No — describe if yes]
-**Dominant player:** [Yes/No — name if yes]
+**Market gap identified:** [Yes - describe / No]
+**Dominant player (>50% share):** [Yes - name / No]
+
+**Opportunity Score:** [0-100] - [how strong is the market?]
+**Startup Score:** [0-100] - [how viable as a startup to execute?]
+
+---
+
+## Confidence Engine
+
+```
+Confidence: [0-100]
+
+High confidence because:
++ [specific signal - e.g. "312 Reddit mentions across 8 subreddits"]
++ [specific signal - e.g. "84 GitHub issues with 50+ reactions"]
++ [specific signal - e.g. "14 paying competitors validated"]
++ [specific signal - e.g. "trend rising 40% over 12 months"]
+
+Confidence reduced because:
+- [specific gap - e.g. "no direct willingness-to-pay signals found"]
+- [specific gap - e.g. "search volume low, problem may not be searched"]
+- [specific gap - e.g. "fragmented ICP - different pain in different segments"]
+```
 
 ---
 
@@ -42,67 +67,137 @@ The final output of venture-analyst. Complete all sections. No section is option
 *Arguments for building this.*
 
 **Strongest evidence:**
-[2-3 specific data points — quotes, numbers, sources. Not opinions.]
+[2-3 specific data points with sources. Quotes, numbers, URLs.]
 
 **Market timing:**
-[Why now? What changed recently that makes this viable?]
+[Why now? What changed recently?]
 
 **Competitive angle:**
 [What can this do that incumbents can't or won't?]
 
 **Best-case scenario:**
-In 18 months, [specific outcome] if [specific condition] holds. Revenue path: [rough numbers].
+In 18 months: [specific outcome] if [specific condition] holds.
 
 ---
 
 ## Bear Case
 
-*Steel man the opposition. Give it everything.*
+*Steelman the opposition. Give it everything.*
 
 **Strongest evidence against:**
-[2-3 specific counterarguments — facts, not opinions.]
+[2-3 specific counterarguments with data.]
 
 **Why existing solutions might be good enough:**
 [What do incumbents have that would be hard to beat?]
 
-**Risk factors:**
-- Market risk: [specific]
-- Timing risk: [specific]
-- Execution risk: [specific]
-
-**Worst-case scenario:**
-[What happens if the problem isn't as painful as signals suggest? Or if incumbents copy the positioning?]
+**Key risks:**
+- Market: [specific]
+- Timing: [specific]
+- Execution: [specific]
 
 ---
 
 ## Judge Verdict
 
-*Read both cases above before scoring.*
-
 ### Score
 
-| Signal | Present? | Points |
-|--------|----------|--------|
+| Signal | Present | Points |
+|--------|---------|--------|
 | Evidence score > 60 | [Y/N] | +2 / 0 |
-| Trend = rising | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
-| Competitor has clear weakness | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
-| No dominant player >50% share | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
-| B2B with willingness-to-pay signals | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
-| Price ceiling gap exists | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
+| Evidence quality A or B | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
+| Trend rising | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
+| Clear competitor weakness | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
+| No dominant player >50% | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
+| B2B willingness-to-pay signals | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
+| Price ceiling gap | [Y/N] | +1 / 0 |
 | Evidence score < 30 | [Y/N] | 0 / -3 |
-| Trend = declining | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
-| Competitor with >100k users + free tier | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
-| Niche < 10k potential users | [Y/N] | 0 / -1 |
+| Evidence quality D or F | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
+| Trend declining | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
+| Dominant player + free tier | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
+| Niche < 10k users | [Y/N] | 0 / -1 |
+| High-priority founder trap | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
+| Reality check failed | [Y/N] | 0 / -2 |
 | **Total** | | **[sum]** |
 
 ### Recommendation
 
 **[BUILD / VALIDATE FIRST / AVOID]**
+**Confidence:** [0-100]
+
+*Reasoning (2-3 sentences. Direct. Reference specific evidence):*
+[What tipped the scale. What the judge weighed most heavily.]
+
+---
+
+## Decision Intelligence
+
+### Contradictions
+
+[If none: "No significant contradictions detected."]
+
+[If found:]
+```
+Contradiction: [name]
+
+[source A] shows: [signal]
+[source B] shows: [signal]
+
+Interpretation: [explanation]
+What to verify: [specific test that resolves this]
+```
+
+### Founder Traps
+
+[If none detected: "No founder traps detected."]
+
+[If found:]
+```
+Trap: [trap name]
+Evidence: [which signals matched]
+Risk level: [high/medium]
+```
 
-**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
+### Reality Check
 
-*Reasoning (2-3 sentences max. Direct. No hedging):*
-[Judge's reasoning here. Reference specific evidence from both cases. State what tipped the scale.]
+[If execution path is clear: "No significant execution barriers identified."]
+
+[If barriers found:]
+```
+Execution risk: [high/medium]
+
+Requires: [list constraints]
+
+Alternative path: [reduced scope or different entry point]
+```
+
+### Distribution Plan
+
+**Top 3 acquisition channels for this idea:**
+
+1. **[channel]** - [why, based on where the evidence was actually found]
+   - Test: [how to test this in 2 weeks with minimal budget]
+
+2. **[channel]** - [why]
+   - Test: [how to test]
+
+3. **[channel]** - [why]
+   - Test: [how to test]
+
+**Avoid:**
+- [channel] - [specific reason for this market]
+
+### Time-To-First-Dollar
+
+**Estimate:** [X-Y weeks]
+
+| Week | Action |
+|------|--------|
+| 1-2 | [specific action] |
+| 3-4 | [specific action] |
+| 5-8 | [specific action] |
+
+**What would accelerate this:** [factor]
+**What would delay this:** [risk]
 
 ---
 
@@ -110,51 +205,36 @@ In 18 months, [specific outcome] if [specific condition] holds. Revenue path: [r
 
 ### If BUILD
 
-**Start here:**
-[One specific, concrete first action. Not "do customer research." "Post in r/[subreddit] asking about [specific problem] — aim for 10 direct messages this week."]
+**Start here (this week):**
+[One specific action. Not "do customer research." Something like: "Post in r/[subreddit] describing the problem and ask how people handle it - aim for 10 DMs this week."]
 
-**Recommended MVP type:** [Concierge / Wizard of Oz / Fake door / Single feature]
-**First version scope:** [What does v0.1 do? What does it explicitly NOT do?]
-**Target for first 10 customers:** [Where specifically. Who exactly.]
+**MVP type:** [Concierge / Wizard of Oz / Fake door / Single feature]
+**v0.1 scope:** [What it does. What it explicitly does NOT do.]
+**First 10 customers:** [Where exactly. Who exactly.]
 
 ---
 
 ### If VALIDATE FIRST
 
 **Critical unknown:**
-[The one thing that must be true for this to work, that is not yet proven.]
+[The one thing that must be proven before building. One sentence.]
 
-**Experiment to run:**
-[Specific experiment from experiments.py — name, duration, success metric]
+**Run this experiment:**
+[Name from experiments.py] - [duration] - success = [metric >= threshold]
 
 **Decision point:**
-Run [experiment] for [X weeks]. If [metric] >= [threshold], proceed to build. If not, [pivot or kill].
+If [metric] >= [threshold] in [X weeks]: proceed to build.
+If not: [specific pivot or kill condition].
 
 ---
 
 ### If AVOID
 
 **Core problem:**
-[Why specifically this fails. One clear reason, not a list.]
+[One clear reason. Not a list.]
 
 **What would have to change:**
-[What signal would need to appear for this to be worth revisiting? If nothing could change it, say so.]
-
-**Adjacent opportunity (if any):**
-[Sometimes the research reveals a related problem that IS worth pursuing. If found, name it.]
-
----
-
-## Appendix — Raw Data
-
-### Top HN threads
-[list with URLs and point counts]
-
-### Top Reddit posts
-[list with URLs and upvote counts]
-
-### Competitor data
-[scraped pricing, feature lists, tech stack if available]
+[Specific signal that would make this worth revisiting. Or: "nothing changes this - the structural problem is permanent."]
 
-### Trend data
-[keyword, avg interest, trend direction, related queries]
+**Adjacent opportunity (if found):**
+[Related problem the research surfaced that IS worth pursuing.]