tweakidea 0.1.0

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/behavior-change-required.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Behavior Change Required
+
+**Weight:** 4%
+**Core Question:** How hard is it to get people to adopt?
+
+**NOTE: This dimension is INVERTED. Score 5 = minimal behavior change (best for adoption). Score 1 = massive behavior change (worst for adoption).**
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### BJ Fogg's Behavior Model
+Behavior = Motivation x Ability x Trigger
+
+| Factor | Low Friction | High Friction |
+|--------|--------------|---------------|
+| Motivation | Problem is already urgent | Need to create urgency |
+| Ability | Minimal learning curve | Requires training/change |
+| Trigger | Natural workflow moment | Need to create new habit |
+
+### Adoption Complexity
+| Type | Description | Difficulty |
+|------|-------------|------------|
+| Substitute | Replace existing tool | Low-Medium |
+| Complement | Add to existing workflow | Medium |
+| Transform | Change how work is done | High |
+| Create | New behavior from scratch | Very High |
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Minimal Change -- Drop-in Replacement)
+- [ ] Solution substitutes an existing tool or process with minimal learning curve
+- [ ] A natural workflow trigger already exists (the user already does something that leads them to this solution)
+- [ ] Adoption requires no training, habit formation, or process redesign
+
+### Score 4 (Low Change -- Easy Complement)
+- [ ] Solution complements an existing workflow without disrupting it
+- [ ] Learning curve is brief (under 1 hour to basic proficiency)
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Change)
+- [ ] Solution requires some workflow adjustment but the core user behavior stays the same
+- [ ] Evidence that the motivation (pain intensity) is high enough to justify the required change
+- [ ] Onboarding or training is needed but can be completed in a single session
+
+### Score 2 (Significant Change)
+- [ ] Solution requires meaningful changes to how work is done (new process, new team roles, or new habits)
+- [ ] Evidence of high adoption friction -- extended onboarding, organizational buy-in, or cultural shift needed
+
+### Score 1 (Massive Change -- New Behavior from Scratch)
+- [ ] Solution requires creating an entirely new behavior or habit with no existing trigger
+- [ ] Evidence of very high training requirements, organizational transformation, or multi-stakeholder change management
+- [ ] No natural workflow moment triggers adoption -- the user must remember to use it independently
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Look for integration with existing tools (API, SSO, existing data formats) as friction reducers. Organizational change management (multiple stakeholders, IT approval, security review) increases adoption friction significantly even for individually simple products.
+For B2C: Look for existing app/platform habits that the solution can piggyback on. Consumer habit formation depends on trigger frequency -- daily triggers build habits faster. Products requiring users to "remember to open the app" face higher adoption friction than those embedded in existing routines.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/clarity-of-target-customer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Clarity of Target Customer
+
+**Weight:** 4%
+**Core Question:** Do you know exactly who you're building for?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) Checklist
+- [ ] Can you describe them in one sentence?
+- [ ] Can you find 100 of them this week?
+- [ ] Do they have budget and authority to buy?
+- [ ] Are they accessible through specific channels?
+- [ ] Will they talk to you for customer development?
+
+### Warning Signs
+- "Everyone could use this"
+- "Both consumers and enterprises"
+- "Anyone who uses the internet"
+- Can't name 10 specific target companies/people
+
+### YC Advice
+> "At early-stage, clarity trumps exhaustivity. You need to have a strong angle that speaks to your core target."
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Crystal Clear ICP)
+- [ ] Ideal customer profile can be described in one sentence with specific, identifying characteristics
+- [ ] Evidence the founder can find 100 target customers this week through identified channels
+- [ ] Target customers have budget, authority to buy, and are accessible for customer development conversations
+
+### Score 4 (Well-Defined ICP)
+- [ ] Target customer segment is specific enough to build a targeted go-to-market strategy
+- [ ] Evidence that the founder can name at least 10 specific target companies or individuals
+
+### Score 3 (Reasonably Defined ICP)
+- [ ] Target customer is described with enough specificity to distinguish from adjacent segments
+- [ ] At least one concrete channel to reach the target customer has been identified
+
+### Score 2 (Vague ICP)
+- [ ] Target customer description is broad ("small businesses", "millennials", "enterprise companies")
+- [ ] Founder struggles to name specific target companies or individuals
+
+### Score 1 (No Clear ICP)
+- [ ] "Everyone could use this" or similarly unfocused customer description
+- [ ] No evidence that the founder can identify, locate, or reach the target customer
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: ICP should include industry, company size, role/title of buyer, and specific pain trigger. Look for evidence the founder can get meetings with the right person at target companies. Named accounts and warm introductions are strong signals.
+For B2C: ICP should include demographic, psychographic, and behavioral characteristics. Look for evidence the founder knows where these users already congregate (online communities, platforms, physical locations). Ability to run a targeted ad campaign is a proxy for ICP clarity.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/defensibility.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Defensibility
+
+**Weight:** 8%
+**Core Question:** Can you protect this business once you build it?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### Types of Moats
+| Moat Type | Description | Strength |
+|-----------|-------------|----------|
+| Network effects | Each user makes product better for others | Very strong |
+| Switching costs | Painful/expensive to leave | Strong |
+| Data advantages | Proprietary data that improves product | Strong |
+| Brand | Trust/recognition that's hard to replicate | Medium-strong |
+| Economies of scale | Cost advantages at volume | Medium |
+| IP/Patents | Legal protection | Medium (often weaker than expected) |
+| Regulatory capture | Compliance barriers | Medium |
+| Speed/Execution | First-mover advantage | Weak (temporary) |
+
+### The Incumbent Test
+> "If Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI all copied your product tomorrow — with unlimited resources — would your users stay?"
+
+If no → low defensibility. Focus on building moats before you get noticed.
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Strong Moat)
+- [ ] Evidence of a compounding retention mechanism -- a moat that grows stronger as more users adopt or data accumulates (e.g., network effects, high switching costs, proprietary data advantage)
+- [ ] Evidence of a proprietary data advantage that improves the product and is difficult to replicate
+- [ ] Product survives the Incumbent Test (users would stay even if Google/Microsoft/OpenAI cloned it)
+
+### Score 4 (Good Defensibility)
+- [ ] Evidence of a durable competitive barrier that would meaningfully slow a well-resourced competitor from capturing the user base (e.g., network effects, switching costs, proprietary data, or established brand trust)
+- [ ] Evidence that the moat strengthens over time rather than eroding
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Defensibility)
+- [ ] Evidence of at least one moat-building mechanism, even if not yet fully established
+- [ ] Path to defensibility is identified and plausible (e.g., data flywheel planned, community building underway)
+
+### Score 2 (Weak Defensibility)
+- [ ] Primary advantage is execution speed or first-mover position (temporary moats)
+- [ ] Product could be replicated by a well-resourced competitor without significant barriers
+
+### Score 1 (No Defensibility)
+- [ ] No identified moat or path to building one
+- [ ] Product fails the Incumbent Test -- users would switch to a big-tech clone immediately
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Switching costs and data lock-in are the strongest enterprise moats. Look for workflow integration depth, data migration difficulty, and compliance certification barriers. Enterprise brand trust accumulates slowly but is durable.
+For B2C: Network effects and brand loyalty are the strongest consumer moats. Look for social graph integration, content lock-in, and identity/status attachment. Consumer switching costs are typically lower than B2B -- defensibility must come from engagement, not lock-in.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/founder-market-fit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Founder-Market Fit
+
+**Weight:** 12%
+**Core Question:** Are YOU the right person to solve this?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### Assessment Criteria
+- [ ] **Domain expertise**: Deep understanding of the industry/problem
+- [ ] **Personal experience**: Have you felt this pain yourself?
+- [ ] **Network access**: Can you reach early customers easily?
+- [ ] **Technical capability**: Can your team actually build this?
+- [ ] **Credibility**: Will customers trust you to solve this?
+- [ ] **Passion**: Will you persist through years of difficulty?
+- [ ] **Unfair advantages**: What do you know that others don't?
+
+### YC's Formulation
+> "The very best startup ideas have three things in common: they're something the founders themselves want, that they themselves can build, and that few others realize are worth doing."
+
+### Key Insight
+A great problem for someone else is not a great problem for you if you lack the fit. Conversely, a "smaller" problem where you have unique insight may be better than a "bigger" problem where you're an outsider.
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Exceptional Fit)
+- [ ] Evidence of deep domain expertise in the problem space (years of experience, professional background, or academic specialization)
+- [ ] Evidence of personal pain experience -- the founder has encountered this problem firsthand
+- [ ] Evidence of network access to early customers and ability to reach them directly
+- [ ] Evidence of an articulated unfair advantage (unique insight, proprietary access, or capability others lack)
+
+### Score 4 (Strong Fit)
+- [ ] Evidence of meaningful domain knowledge (professional experience or demonstrated deep research)
+- [ ] Evidence that the founding team has the technical capability to build the solution
+- [ ] Evidence of at least one credible channel to reach early customers
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Fit)
+- [ ] Evidence of genuine passion or commitment to the problem space (not just a market opportunity)
+- [ ] Evidence that the founder has engaged with potential customers (interviews, surveys, or observation)
+- [ ] Founding team can build an MVP (even if not the ideal long-term team)
+
+### Score 2 (Weak Fit)
+- [ ] Founder interest appears market-opportunity-driven rather than problem-driven
+- [ ] Limited evidence of domain knowledge, customer access, or relevant network
+
+### Score 1 (Poor Fit)
+- [ ] No evidence of domain knowledge, relevant experience, or customer network
+- [ ] No credible path to developing the expertise or access needed to succeed in this space
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Industry credibility and professional network are critical. Look for evidence the founder can get meetings with decision makers and understands enterprise procurement. Domain-specific jargon fluency and industry relationships are strong signals.
+For B2C: Personal experience with the problem and empathy for the user are more important than professional credentials. Look for evidence the founder deeply understands the target user's daily life, motivations, and frustrations. Consumer taste and design sensibility matter.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/frequency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Frequency
+
+**Weight:** 8%
+**Core Question:** How often do people encounter this problem?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+| Frequency | Examples | Implications |
+|-----------|----------|--------------|
+| Multiple times/day | Communication (Slack), search, navigation | Strong habit formation, top-of-mind |
+| Daily | Email, task management, meals | Good retention potential |
+| Weekly | Grocery shopping, expense reports | Moderate engagement |
+| Monthly | Bills, subscriptions, reports | Need strong value per interaction |
+| Annually | Taxes, insurance renewal, major purchases | High willingness to pay per transaction |
+| Once in lifetime | Wedding, home buying, major surgery | Very high transaction value needed |
+
+**Key Insight:** High frequency + high pain = strongest combination. But low-frequency problems can work if willingness to pay is proportionally high (tax software, wedding planning).
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Very High Frequency)
+- [ ] Evidence that the target customer encounters this problem multiple times per day
+- [ ] Evidence of strong habit formation potential or top-of-mind awareness around the problem
+- [ ] Problem is embedded in a daily workflow or routine that cannot be avoided
+
+### Score 4 (High Frequency)
+- [ ] Evidence the problem occurs at least daily for the target customer
+- [ ] Evidence of good retention potential due to regular engagement with the problem space
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Frequency)
+- [ ] Evidence the problem occurs at least weekly for the target customer
+- [ ] Problem recurrence is predictable and tied to a regular activity or cycle
+
+### Score 2 (Low Frequency)
+- [ ] Problem occurs monthly or less frequently
+- [ ] Evidence that the per-interaction value is high enough to justify low frequency (e.g., high transaction value)
+
+### Score 1 (Very Low Frequency)
+- [ ] Problem is encountered rarely (annually or once-in-lifetime)
+- [ ] No evidence of proportionally high transaction value to compensate for low frequency
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Weight process-embedded frequency (how often the workflow triggers the problem) and cost-per-occurrence. Infrequent but high-cost problems (quarterly audits, annual compliance) can still score well if willingness to pay is proportional.
+For B2C: Weight daily-life integration and habit formation potential. High-frequency consumer problems build retention through routine. Low-frequency consumer problems need extremely high emotional or financial stakes per occurrence.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/incumbent-indifference.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Incumbent Indifference
+
+**Weight:** 2%
+**Core Question:** Will big players try to crush you?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### Attention Matrix
+
+|  | Low Defensibility | High Defensibility |
+|--|-------------------|-------------------|
+| **High Attention** | Kill Zone ☠️ | Battlefield ⚔️ |
+| **Low Attention** | Waiting Room ⏳ | Sweet Spot ✓ |
+
+### Attention Indicators
+- Market size large enough to matter to big tech
+- Problem adjacent to incumbent core business
+- Clear, measurable revenue opportunity
+- Low technical complexity to replicate
+
+### Sweet Spot Strategy
+Build in a niche too small for incumbents to prioritize, accumulate moats, then expand once defensible.
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Safe from Incumbents)
+- [ ] Target niche is too small for big tech to prioritize (below their revenue relevance threshold)
+- [ ] Problem is not adjacent to any incumbent's core business or strategic priorities
+- [ ] Evidence of low attention indicators (no big tech blog posts, acquisitions, or feature launches in this space)
+
+### Score 4 (Likely Safe)
+- [ ] Market size is moderate -- large enough for a startup but not enough to attract big tech investment
+- [ ] Problem requires domain-specific expertise or go-to-market that incumbents lack motivation to develop
+
+### Score 3 (Uncertain)
+- [ ] Market is growing into a size range where incumbent attention is plausible but not yet evident
+- [ ] Problem is somewhat adjacent to incumbent interests but not core to their strategy
+
+### Score 2 (At Risk)
+- [ ] Market is large and visible enough to attract incumbent attention
+- [ ] Problem is adjacent to an incumbent's core business, increasing the likelihood of a competitive response
+
+### Score 1 (Kill Zone)
+- [ ] Large, obvious market directly adjacent to big tech core business
+- [ ] Evidence that incumbents could easily replicate the solution (low technical complexity, existing infrastructure)
+- [ ] Evidence of incumbent activity in the space (acquisitions, feature launches, public statements)
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Vertical-specific niches (healthcare, legal, construction) are more likely to escape incumbent attention than horizontal tools. Look for regulatory or domain complexity that makes the space unattractive to generalist tech companies.
+For B2C: Consumer attention is a primary resource for big tech. Any consumer product with viral potential or broad appeal is more likely to attract incumbent response. Look for distribution advantages (app store, social graph) that incumbents already control.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/mandatory-nature.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Mandatory Nature
+
+**Weight:** 2%
+**Core Question:** Are people forced to solve this?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+| Driver | Examples |
+|--------|----------|
+| Regulatory | GDPR compliance, SOC2, HIPAA, tax filing |
+| Contractual | SLA requirements, audit obligations |
+| Operational | Payroll, invoicing, legal filings |
+| Physical | Safety equipment, infrastructure maintenance |
+| Social | Professional credentials, certifications |
+
+**Strength:** Mandatory problems have built-in demand and often higher willingness to pay. Downside: often competitive, commoditized.
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Fully Mandatory)
+- [ ] Evidence of a regulatory or legal mandate requiring the problem to be solved (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, tax filing)
+- [ ] Evidence of deadlines and penalties for non-compliance
+- [ ] Mandate applies broadly to the target customer segment (not just edge cases)
+
+### Score 4 (Strongly Obligatory)
+- [ ] Evidence of contractual, operational, or professional obligation driving the need (SLA, audit, certification)
+- [ ] Non-compliance carries meaningful consequences (lost contracts, failed audits, professional sanctions)
+
+### Score 3 (Moderately Obligatory)
+- [ ] Evidence that the problem is tied to a standard business or personal obligation (payroll, invoicing, reporting)
+- [ ] Failure to address it would cause operational disruption, though not legal or regulatory consequences
+
+### Score 2 (Weakly Obligatory)
+- [ ] Problem is related to a social or professional norm but carries no formal enforcement mechanism
+- [ ] Customers could ignore it indefinitely without concrete penalties
+
+### Score 1 (Purely Optional)
+- [ ] No external forcing function -- solving the problem is entirely discretionary
+- [ ] No evidence of regulatory, contractual, or operational mandate
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Regulatory and contractual mandates are the strongest signals. Look for specific regulation names, compliance deadlines, and audit requirements. Industry-specific mandates (healthcare HIPAA, finance SOX) carry more weight than general best practices.
+For B2C: Legal obligations (tax filing, insurance requirements) and life-stage mandates (school enrollment, visa applications) are the primary mandatory signals. Social expectations are weaker than legal requirements.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/market-growth.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Market Growth
+
+**Weight:** 4%
+**Core Question:** Is the problem getting bigger or smaller?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+| Growth Signal | Implication |
+|---------------|-------------|
+| >20% CAGR | Ideal — rising tide lifts all boats |
+| 10-20% CAGR | Acceptable — room for new entrants |
+| 0-10% CAGR | Challenging — must take share |
+| Negative | Avoid unless transforming the category |
+
+### Growth Drivers to Look For
+- Technology shifts creating new problems
+- Regulatory changes mandating solutions
+- Demographic shifts (aging, urbanization)
+- Behavioral changes (remote work, mobile-first)
+- Economic pressures forcing efficiency
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Rapidly Growing Market)
+- [ ] Evidence of >20% CAGR supported by credible data sources
+- [ ] Evidence of multiple independent growth drivers (technology shifts, regulatory changes, demographic shifts, or behavioral changes)
+- [ ] Growth is structural (not a temporary spike) with multi-year trajectory evidence
+
+### Score 4 (Strong Growth)
+- [ ] Evidence of 10-20% CAGR with at least one identified growth driver
+- [ ] Evidence that the growth trend is sustained (not a one-year anomaly)
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Growth)
+- [ ] Evidence of positive growth (>0% CAGR) in the relevant market
+- [ ] At least one credible source supports the growth claim (industry report, market data, or comparable company trajectories)
+
+### Score 2 (Flat or Slow Growth)
+- [ ] Market growth is flat (0-5% CAGR) with no clear catalyst for acceleration
+- [ ] Evidence suggests the startup would need to take market share from incumbents rather than ride growth
+
+### Score 1 (Declining or Stagnant Market)
+- [ ] Evidence of negative growth or market contraction
+- [ ] No identified transformation catalyst that could reverse the decline
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Look for industry-specific growth drivers (digital transformation, regulatory expansion, new compliance requirements). Enterprise budget shifts toward the problem category are strong signals.
+For B2C: Look for demographic and behavioral shifts (generational adoption, mobile penetration, urbanization). Consumer spending trends in the category matter more than broad market CAGR.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/market-size.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Market Size
+
+**Weight:** 8%
+**Core Question:** How big is the opportunity?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### TAM/SAM/SOM Framework
+- **TAM** (Total Addressable Market): Everyone who could theoretically buy
+- **SAM** (Serviceable Addressable Market): Segment you can realistically reach
+- **SOM** (Serviceable Obtainable Market): What you can capture in 2-3 years
+
+### Size Guidelines
+| Stage | Typical Expectation |
+|-------|---------------------|
+| Pre-seed | TAM > $100M acceptable |
+| Seed | TAM > $500M preferred |
+| Series A+ | TAM > $1B typically required |
+
+### Paul Graham's Nuance
+> "It's better to make a small number of people love your product than a large number simply like it."
+
+**Key:** Start with a small market you can dominate, but ensure there's a "fast path out" to larger markets (Facebook: Harvard → colleges → everyone).
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Large, Accessible Market)
+- [ ] Evidence that TAM exceeds $1B with a clear SAM/SOM breakdown showing realistic path to capture
+- [ ] Evidence of an accessible initial segment that can be dominated before expanding (beachhead market identified)
+- [ ] Market size claims are grounded in bottom-up analysis or credible third-party data (not just top-down assumptions)
+
+### Score 4 (Substantial Market)
+- [ ] Evidence that TAM exceeds $500M with a plausible serviceable market identified
+- [ ] Evidence that the initial target segment is large enough to build a sustainable business ($10M+ revenue potential)
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Market)
+- [ ] Evidence that TAM exceeds $100M
+- [ ] At least one credible data point supporting market size (industry report, comparable company revenue, or customer count estimate)
+
+### Score 2 (Small Market)
+- [ ] Market exists but evidence suggests TAM is below $100M
+- [ ] A clear expansion path to adjacent markets has been identified (even if unproven)
+
+### Score 1 (Niche or Unclear Market)
+- [ ] Market is too small to sustain a venture-scale business without a clear expansion path
+- [ ] No credible evidence supporting market size claims (purely speculative)
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Bottom-up sizing (number of target companies x ACV) is more credible than top-down. Look for industry concentration -- a few large customers vs. long tail of small ones -- which affects go-to-market strategy and risk.
+For B2C: User count x ARPU is the primary sizing method. Look for evidence of total addressable users in the target demographic. Network effects or viral mechanics can justify a smaller initial market if expansion dynamics are credible.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/pain-intensity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Pain Intensity
+
+**Weight:** 12%
+**Core Question:** How much does this problem hurt?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+| Signal | Strong | Weak |
+|--------|--------|------|
+| Pain type | Financial loss, regulatory risk, existential threat | Minor inconvenience, "nice to have" |
+| Emotional weight | Frustration, anxiety, desperation | Mild annoyance |
+| Current workarounds | Painful, expensive, time-consuming hacks | Acceptable alternatives exist |
+| Language used | "I hate...", "I can't stand...", "This is killing us..." | "It would be nice if..." |
+
+**Framework: Painkiller vs. Vitamin vs. Candy**
+- **Painkiller**: Solves acute, urgent pain → easiest go-to-market
+- **Vitamin**: Provides benefit but not urgent → harder to sell
+- **Candy**: Pure entertainment/pleasure → needs massive scale
+
+**Key Insight:** Problems that are real but not urgent rarely build valuable businesses.
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Extreme Pain -- Painkiller)
+- [ ] Evidence of direct financial loss, regulatory risk, or existential threat to the customer
+- [ ] Customers actively use painful, expensive, or time-consuming workarounds
+- [ ] Evidence of desperation-level urgency in language or behavior (not just frustration)
+
+### Score 4 (Significant Pain)
+- [ ] Evidence of meaningful negative impact on customer operations, revenue, or efficiency
+- [ ] Current alternatives are demonstrably inadequate (workarounds exist but cause real friction)
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Pain)
+- [ ] Problem is real and affects regular operations (daily, weekly, or monthly recurrence)
+- [ ] At least one source beyond the founder confirms the pain exists
+
+### Score 2 (Mild Pain -- Vitamin)
+- [ ] Problem exists but acceptable solutions are currently available
+- [ ] Impact is a convenience improvement, not a necessity
+
+### Score 1 (Minimal or Theoretical Pain)
+- [ ] Problem is speculative, theoretical, or affects very few people
+- [ ] No evidence of active workarounds, complaints, or demand signals
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Weight financial and operational impact evidence more heavily. Look for quantifiable cost of the problem (hours lost, revenue leaked, compliance risk).
+For B2C: Weight emotional investment and behavior frequency more heavily. Look for intensity of frustration, frequency of encounter, and willingness to adopt workarounds.
+Evaluator reasoning narrative should explicitly state which startup type applies and adjust evidence weighting accordingly.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/scalability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Scalability
+
+**Weight:** 4%
+**Core Question:** Can this grow without proportional cost increase?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### Scalability Signals
+| Scalable | Not Scalable |
+|----------|--------------|
+| Software margins (70-90%) | Service margins (30-50%) |
+| Self-serve onboarding | High-touch sales required |
+| Automated delivery | Manual fulfillment |
+| Digital distribution | Physical logistics |
+| Network effects | Linear growth only |
+
+### Unit Economics Check
+- Does CAC decrease over time?
+- Does LTV increase with scale?
+- Do costs grow slower than revenue?
+- Can you serve 10x users with <10x headcount?
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Highly Scalable)
+- [ ] Evidence of software-like margins (70-90%+ gross margin) or a clear path to achieving them
+- [ ] Self-serve onboarding and automated delivery are feasible for the core product
+- [ ] Evidence of a self-reinforcing acquisition mechanism that reduces marginal CAC as the user base grows (e.g., viral referral loops, network effects, organic content compounding)
+
+### Score 4 (Good Scalability)
+- [ ] Evidence that revenue can grow significantly faster than headcount (operational leverage)
+- [ ] Product delivery is mostly automated with limited manual intervention per customer
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Scalability)
+- [ ] Evidence that the business model can achieve moderate margins (50%+ gross margin)
+- [ ] Some manual processes exist but are automatable with investment
+
+### Score 2 (Limited Scalability)
+- [ ] Revenue growth requires roughly proportional cost growth (linear scaling)
+- [ ] High-touch sales or manual fulfillment is core to the delivery model
+
+### Score 1 (Not Scalable)
+- [ ] Costs grow proportionally with or faster than revenue
+- [ ] Business model requires per-customer manual effort with no clear automation path
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Look for self-serve vs. enterprise sales motion. Products requiring custom implementation, dedicated CSMs, or professional services per customer have inherent scalability limits. API-first and platform-based models scale better than consulting-like delivery.
+For B2C: Look for digital distribution, zero marginal cost per user, and viral acquisition mechanics. Physical goods, local services, and high-CAC paid acquisition channels limit consumer scalability. Network effects are the strongest consumer scalability signal.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/solution-gap.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Solution Gap
+
+**Weight:** 12%
+**Core Question:** Why hasn't this been solved already?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+### Good Reasons a Gap Exists
+- Technology only recently became viable
+- Market only recently became large enough
+- Regulation recently changed
+- Incumbent is asleep/complacent
+- Problem requires unique insight/access
+- Coordination problem nobody solved
+
+### Bad Reasons (Red Flags)
+- "Nobody thought of it" (unlikely)
+- Smarter people tried and failed
+- Economics don't work
+- Customers don't actually want it solved
+
+### Competitive Landscape
+| Situation | Interpretation |
+|-----------|----------------|
+| No competitors | Either too early, too small, or problem isn't real |
+| Few weak competitors | Often ideal — validates market, beatable |
+| Many competitors | Crowded, need strong differentiation |
+| One dominant player | Need 10x better or different GTM |
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Clear, Justified Gap)
+- [ ] Evidence of a structural reason the gap exists (technology newly viable, regulation recently changed, market recently reached critical mass)
+- [ ] Few or weak competitors in the space, with no dominant incumbent addressing this specific problem
+- [ ] No credible evidence that well-funded teams have attempted and failed at this specific solution
+
+### Score 4 (Strong Gap)
+- [ ] Evidence of a defensible reason the gap has not been closed (incumbent complacency, unique insight required, coordination problem)
+- [ ] Existing alternatives are demonstrably inadequate for the target customer's needs
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Gap)
+- [ ] Evidence that existing solutions leave meaningful unmet needs for the target customer
+- [ ] The competitive landscape is navigable (not too crowded, not dominated by a single strong player)
+
+### Score 2 (Weak Gap)
+- [ ] Existing solutions address most of the problem, leaving only incremental improvement opportunities
+- [ ] Multiple competitors are actively investing in this space
+
+### Score 1 (No Credible Gap)
+- [ ] Evidence that capable teams have tried and failed to solve this problem (market signals it may not be solvable/desirable)
+- [ ] "Nobody thought of it" is the primary justification for the gap (red flag)
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Look for enterprise-specific gap reasons (legacy system lock-in creating openings, compliance changes creating new needs, vertical-specific requirements ignored by horizontal players). Failed enterprise attempts are more informative than in consumer markets.
+For B2C: Look for UX/distribution gap reasons (mobile-first experience missing, demographic underserved, new platform creating distribution opportunity). Consumer markets move faster -- a gap from 2 years ago may already be closing.

package/skills/ti-scoring/dimensions/urgency.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Urgency
+
+**Weight:** 8%
+**Core Question:** Does this need to be solved NOW?
+
+## Signal Table
+
+| High Urgency | Low Urgency |
+|--------------|-------------|
+| Regulatory deadline approaching | "Someday" improvement |
+| Revenue actively being lost | Theoretical future benefit |
+| System is broken/failing | Current system works "okay" |
+| Competitive threat imminent | No immediate pressure |
+| Time-sensitive opportunity | Evergreen problem |
+
+**Test Questions:**
+- Can the customer delay solving this by 6 months? 12 months?
+- What happens if they do nothing?
+- Is there a forcing function (deadline, event, regulation)?
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Score 5 (Critical -- Must Solve Now)
+- [ ] Evidence of a forcing function with a concrete deadline (regulatory, contractual, or operational)
+- [ ] Evidence of active, ongoing revenue loss or operational failure tied to the problem
+- [ ] Delay of 6 months would result in measurable, serious consequences
+
+### Score 4 (High Urgency)
+- [ ] Evidence of a time-sensitive trigger driving action (competitive threat, approaching deadline, or system degradation)
+- [ ] Evidence that customers are actively seeking solutions now, not "someday"
+
+### Score 3 (Moderate Urgency)
+- [ ] Evidence the problem is currently active and worsening (not static or improving on its own)
+- [ ] Customer could delay solving it 6 months but would incur noticeable cost or risk by doing so
+
+### Score 2 (Low Urgency)
+- [ ] Problem exists but customers can delay solving it 12+ months without serious consequences
+- [ ] No external forcing function or deadline pressuring a decision
+
+### Score 1 (No Urgency)
+- [ ] Problem is a "someday" improvement with no time pressure
+- [ ] Evidence suggests customers would not prioritize solving this over other pressing issues
+
+### B2B/B2C Nuance
+For B2B: Look for regulatory deadlines, SLA obligations, fiscal year budget cycles, and competitive pressure as urgency drivers. Revenue-at-risk quantification strengthens urgency evidence.
+For B2C: Look for life events (moving, new baby, tax season), seasonal triggers, and social pressure as urgency drivers. Emotional urgency ("I need this now") carries more weight than in B2B.