action-validator
FreePre-action boundary checking — validates agent tool calls against declared capabilities and task contracts
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
YC-style product strategy assessment with forced questions and CEO scope modes — adapted from gstack /office-hours pattern
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Forces rigorous product thinking by applying YC's 6 mandatory questions before any major feature decision. Prevents "build first, think later" anti-pattern.
/product-strategy "new authentication system"
/product-strategy "API rate limiting redesign"
Before any implementation planning, answer ALL 6 questions. Incomplete answers block Phase 2.
| # | Question | Must Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Who is the user? | Specific persona, not "everyone" |
| 2 | What problem does this solve? | Observable behavior, not assumed need |
| 3 | How do they solve it today? | Current workaround — if none exists, question the need |
| 4 | Why is this solution better? | Measurable improvement, not "it's newer" |
| 5 | What's the smallest version that validates the hypothesis? | MVP scope — ruthlessly cut |
| 6 | How will you know it worked? | Success metric, measurable within 2 weeks |
Categorize the feature into one of 4 modes:
| Mode | Signal | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Expansion | Strong user signal + clear gap | Full implementation, invest aggressively |
| Selective | Mixed signals, some demand | Targeted implementation, measure before expanding |
| Hold | Low signal, maintenance only | Keep working, no new investment |
| Reduction | Negative signal, cost > value | Phase out, redirect resources |
Generate structured assessment:
## Product Strategy: {feature}
### YC Assessment
1. User: {answer}
2. Problem: {answer}
3. Current solution: {answer}
4. Why better: {answer}
5. MVP: {answer}
6. Success metric: {answer}
### Scope Mode: {Expansion|Selective|Hold|Reduction}
Rationale: {why this mode}
### Recommendation
{Go / No-Go / Needs more data}
Next step: {specific action}
| Rule | Interaction |
|---|---|
| R010 | Orchestrator invokes skill; no file writes |
| R015 | Transparent assessment — user sees all reasoning |
Adapted from garrytan/gstack /office-hours + /plan-ceo-review patterns.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Pre-action boundary checking — validates agent tool calls against declared capabilities and task contracts
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Auto-detect project context and optimize harness — deactivate unused agents/skills, suggest missing experts, generate project profile
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Adversarial code review using attacker mindset — trust boundary, attack surface, business logic, and defense evaluation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Apache Airflow best practices for DAG authoring, testing, and production deployment
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Alembic migration patterns for naming conventions, safety checks, expand-contract, env.py configuration, and CI integration
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Pre-routing ambiguity analysis — scores request clarity and asks clarifying questions when needed (inspired by ouroboros)
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.