@veyralabs/venture-suite 0.1.0 → 0.3.0

package/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 +67,204 @@ 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]
+```
+
+### Reality Check
+
+[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]
 
-**Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
+**Avoid:**
+- [channel] - [specific reason for this market]
 
-*Reasoning (2-3 sentences max. Direct. No hedging):*
-[Judge's reasoning here. Reference specific evidence from both cases. State what tipped the scale.]
+### 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]
+
+---
+
+## Phase 6 - Execution & Moat
+
+### Moat Intelligence
+
+| Moat type | Score (1-10) | Reason |
+|-----------|-------------|--------|
+| Distribution | [n] | [one line] |
+| Data | [n] | [one line] |
+| Community | [n] | [one line] |
+| Switching cost | [n] | [one line] |
+| Execution | [n] | [one line] |
+
+**Overall Moat Score:** [weighted avg of top 2]
+**Most realistic moat:** [type]
+**How to build it:** [specific action, not generic advice]
+
+### PMF Simulation
+
+**Persona A:** [job title / situation]
+- Current workflow: [specific]
+- Main pain: [from research quotes]
+- Adoption trigger: [what makes them switch]
+- Adoption blocker: [what stops them]
+- Simulated arc: discovers (Week 1) -> [Week 2] -> [Week 3: converts/churns] -> [Week 4]
+
+**Persona B:** [job title / situation]
+- [same structure]
+
+**Persona C:** [job title / situation]
+- [same structure]
+
+**PMF friction report:**
+- Main blockers: [list, note how many personas affected]
+- Easiest persona to convert first: [A/B/C] - because [reason]
+
+### Market Timing
+
+```
+Timing: [Too Early / Good Window / Late / Saturated]
+
+Signals:
++ [positive]
+- [negative]
+
+Window: [closes in X months / open for X years / unclear]
+Verdict: [one sentence]
+```
+
+### Execution Roadmap
+
+**Path:** [BUILD / VALIDATE FIRST / AVOID]
+**Critical constraint:** [the one thing that must be true]
+
+| Week | Actions | Decision gate |
+|------|---------|--------------|
+| 1 | [specific tasks] | [pass/fail condition] |
+| 2 | [specific tasks] | [pass/fail condition] |
+| 3 | [specific tasks] | [pass/fail condition] |
+| 4 | [goal] | [commit or reassess] |
+
+**Do NOT build yet:**
+- [feature/system] - [reason]
+
+**Reassess if:** [specific trigger condition]
 
 ---
 
@@ -110,51 +272,36 @@ 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.]