[Documentation] Use when generating, smart-merging or refactoring the root AI context (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md) and its Claude/Codex projections. Config file only: project-config.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
[Content] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for business viability: Business Model Canvas, financials, risks and go-to-market recommendation.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->[BLOCKING] Execute declared steps in order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step/sub-skill call, update todo tracking: set
in_progressat start,completedat end. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools unavailable, maintain equivalent step tracker with same status transitions.
Goal: Evaluate business idea viability; deliver evidence-backed viability verdict—score, confidence, Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass recommendation—grounded in complete 9-block BMC, 3-year financials + assumptions, 5+ risks with mitigation + residual risk, phased execution + GTM plan, so go/no-go rests on traced evidence, never optimism.
Summary:
MARKET_ANALYSIS_PATH ({plan-dir}/research/market-analysis.md only copy fallback); standalone, use supplied path. If absent, state /market-analysis did not run, mark TAM/SAM/SOM, share, and segment size N/A, cap verdict confidence at 60%; NEVER re-derive sizing.docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{descriptive-slug}.md via enforced .claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md, then ask user question tool for next route (domain-analysis recommended); NEVER auto-decide, favor skepticism.Workflow:
Before evaluation — detect + reason: classify supplied idea, scope, and market evidence as present, missing, or ambiguous; for each step run focused Think: evidence / economics / execution / decision passes. Derive concerns from idea + evidence; required blocks/categories guide coverage, not checklist recitation.
Precondition — load market analysis: In workflow-research business-eval mode, read exact parent-provided MARKET_ANALYSIS_PATH ({plan-dir}/research/market-analysis.md only copy fallback); in another workflow, read the exact path market-analysis returned in this run (or its {plan-dir}/research/market-analysis.md copy); standalone, use explicitly supplied path.
Absent → do NOT re-derive: state /market-analysis did not run; mark every market-sizing figure (TAM/SAM/SOM, share, segment size) N/A with that reason; cap verdict confidence at 60%.
Key Rules:
workflow-research, whose knowledge-review gate covers this), when the verdict feeds a go/no-go, run knowledge-review's core rows (citation, calibration, cross-validation) on the business case before presenting the decision; see OutputBe skeptical; apply critical/sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof + confidence percentage (Idea should be more than 80%).
Extract from user input:
Require all 9 blocks:
| Block | Key Question | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Customer Segments | Who are we serving? | Market research |
| Value Propositions | What value do we deliver? | Customer pain points |
| Channels | How do we reach customers? | Channel analysis |
| Customer Relationships | How do we maintain relationships? | Retention strategy |
| Revenue Streams | How do we make money? | Pricing research |
| Key Resources | What do we need? | Resource assessment |
| Key Activities | What must we do? | Operational analysis |
| Key Partnerships | Who helps us? | Partner landscape |
| Cost Structure | What does it cost? | Cost analysis |
| Year | Users/Customers | ARPU | Revenue | Growth |
|---|
| Category | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 |
|---|
Every number lists its assumption + source.
Require ≥5 risks:
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Residual Risk |
|---|
Consider market, execution, financial, competitive, regulatory, technical.
| Phase | Timeline | Focus | Key Milestones |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validation | 0-3 months | Customer discovery, MVP | N interviews, prototype |
| Build | 3-6 months | Core product, early users | Beta launch, first revenue |
| Growth | 6-12 months | Scale, optimize | Revenue target, team size |
Write to docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{descriptive-slug}.md using enforced template from .claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md.
Business-case check before a go/no-go: when this skill runs inside a delivery or product workflow (for example workflow-big-feature or workflow-greenfield-init) and the verdict feeds that workflow's go/no-go, run the core rows of .claude/skills/knowledge-review/SKILL.md on the written business case before presenting the decision: checklist 2 Citation Audit, 3 Confidence Accuracy and 6 Cross-Validation. Run one read-only pass, fix each failed row in the artifact (or lower the confidence it overstates), then present the verdict with the check result. Inside workflow-research its knowledge-review gate reviews the artifact instead; standalone runs skip this check.
Inside a workflow: when this skill runs as a step of an active workflow, skip the prompts in this section and return the result — the workflow's next step decides what runs (
/start-workflow→ Step Execution Protocol, Workflow-step mode).
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS After completion, use ask user question tool to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious"—the user decides:
[IMPORTANT] Use
TaskCreateto split ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.
External Memory: For complex/lengthy research, analysis, scans, or reviews, write intermediate findings + final results to
tmp/reports/—preserves context and serves as deliverable.
<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION—every claim, finding, and recommendation requires
file:lineproof or traced evidence + confidence percentage (>80% act; <80% verify first).
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval; inside a workflow run, /start-workflow → Workflow-step mode bounds this
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Evaluate business idea viability; deliver evidence-backed viability verdict—score, confidence, Pursue/Pivot/Pause/Pass recommendation—grounded in complete 9-block BMC, 3-year financials + assumptions, 5+ risks with mitigation + residual risk, phased execution + GTM plan, so go/no-go rests on traced evidence, never optimism.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every claim, financial number, BMC block, and verdict carries evidence + confidence % (95/80/60/<60) — NEVER present a guess as fact — why: an unbacked number turns the go/no-go into optimism dressed as analysis.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bias toward skepticism on the verdict — NEVER round optimism up; surface the single key condition that must hold and the residual risk if it fails — why: a falsely-rosy Pursue burns capital that an honest Pause would save.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate the next route with user via ask user question tool — NEVER auto-decide domain-analysis/plan — why: this skill judges viability, the human owns the go/no-go.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting; keep one in_progress, mark completed with evidence; add a final review todo — why: untracked multi-step work loses state on compaction.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION consume market data FROM market-analysis as evidence — NEVER re-derive market sizing here; if that producer did not run, mark the market figures N/A with the reason and cap verdict confidence at 60% rather than inventing them — why: this skill judges viability, it does not research the market; duplicated sizing diverges from the source.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION all 9 BMC blocks present, each citing proof; every financial number lists its assumption + source in the assumptions table — why: a missing block or bare number is a silent gap the verdict then rests on.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION minimum 5 risks, each with mitigation AND a residual-risk entry across market/execution/financial/competitive/regulatory/technical — why: a risk without residual pretends mitigation is total.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect idea/scope/evidence completeness; load exact market-analysis evidence first (parent MARKET_ANALYSIS_PATH; {plan-dir}/research/market-analysis.md copy fallback; supplied standalone path; absent → market figures N/A + confidence cap 60%); then run ALL 7 steps in order: idea → 9-block BMC → 3-year financials → 5+ risks → 3-phase execution → GTM → verdict; output via template; ask user question tool for next route. NEVER re-derive sizing, skip/reorder/merge steps, drop financials/execution/GTM, or auto-decide — why: verdict quality follows the weakest step/evidence.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION before writing any figure or claim, search market-analysis output + prior evaluations for 3+ comparable patterns and cite them — why: a number with no comparable anchor is a fabrication.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION inside a delivery or product workflow whose go/no-go rests on this verdict, run knowledge-review checklists 2, 3 and 6 (citation, calibration, cross-validation) on the written business case and fix failed rows before presenting the decision — why: those workflows run no knowledge-review gate on the artifact the build decision rests on.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION write the result to docs/knowledge/strategy/business/{descriptive-slug}.md via the enforced .claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md — NEVER hand-roll the structure — why: the template is the contract downstream skills (domain-analysis/plan) read.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION persist intermediate findings to tmp/reports/ for lengthy evaluations — why: external memory survives context loss and serves as the deliverable.
Anti-Rationalization:
| Evasion | Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| "Idea is obviously viable, skip rigor" | Optimism is not evidence. Run all 9 blocks + financials + risks anyway. |
| "Skip a BMC block — not relevant" | Every block cites proof or states why N/A explicitly; silent omission fails the gate. |
| "Estimate the number, source it later" | No assumption + source = no number. Fill the assumptions table before the verdict. |
| "5 risks is a lot, 2 covers it" | Minimum 5, each with residual risk. Thin risk lists hide the real downside. |
| "Recommendation is clear, skip the ask" | Still ask user question tool for the next route — the human owns go/no-go. |
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION evidence + confidence % on every number — NEVER present a guess as fact. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bias toward skepticism — NEVER round optimism up. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION ask user question tool for the next route — NEVER auto-decide.
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
[Documentation] Use when generating, smart-merging or refactoring the root AI context (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md) and its Claude/Codex projections. Config file only: project-config.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
[Code Quality] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for AI code or plan review: LLM calls, prompts, agents, RAG, evals and guardrails. --mode={code|plan}; --report-only is read-only.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
[Architecture] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for architecture design, compliance review, scalability grading or whole-project audit via --mode={design|review|scalability|full}.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
[Content] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for product/feature ideation with ranked opportunities and validation tests. --mode={roadmap|scope}.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
[Code Quality] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for a focused code-change review: staged, unstaged, branch diff or simple pull request. --fix-loop fixes and re-reviews. Complex pull request: workflow-review-changes; rationale: why-review.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
[Code Quality] Use when evaluating received review feedback, reviewing named code on request, or verifying a completion claim. Current diffs: changes-review; rationale: why-review.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.