Requirements
- Target platform
- OpenClaw
- Install method
- Manual import
- Extraction
- Extract archive
- Prerequisites
- OpenClaw
- Primary doc
- SKILL.md
Tencent SkillHub ยท Developer Tools
Validate
Score startup idea through S.E.E.D. niche check + STREAM 6-layer analysis + Devil's Advocate inversion, auto-pick stack, and generate PRD with acceptance cri...
skill openclawclawhub Free
Score startup idea through S.E.E.D. niche check + STREAM 6-layer analysis + Devil's Advocate inversion, auto-pick stack, and generate PRD with acceptance cri...
โฌ 0 downloads โ
0 stars Unverified but indexed
Install for OpenClaw
Quick setup
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.
- Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup.
Package facts
- Download mode
- Yavira redirect
- Package format
- ZIP package
- Source platform
- Tencent SkillHub
- What's included
- SKILL.md, references/manifest-checklist.md, references/stream-layers.md
Validation
- Use the Yavira download entry.
- Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.
- Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets.
Install with your agent
Agent handoff
Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.
- Download the package from Yavira.
- Extract it into a folder your agent can access.
- Paste one of the prompts below and point your agent at the extracted folder.
New install
I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete.
Upgrade existing
I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run.
Trust & source
Release facts
- Source
- Tencent SkillHub
- Verification
- Indexed source record
- Version
- 2.1.1
Provenance
- Publisher
- fortunto2
- Source page
- View original listing
- Canonical URL
- Open canonical page
Documentation
/validate
Validate a startup idea end-to-end: search KB, run Manifest alignment, S.E.E.D. niche check, Devil's Advocate inversion, STREAM 6-layer analysis, pick stack, generate PRD. Philosophy: Validation should be honest, not optimistic. Better to kill a bad idea in 5 minutes than waste 3 months building it. The goal is truth, not encouragement.
MCP Tools (use if available)
If MCP tools are available, prefer them over CLI: kb_search(query, n_results) โ search knowledge base for related docs project_info() โ list active projects with stacks web_search(query) โ search for dead startups, competitor failures If MCP tools are not available, fall back to Grep/Glob/WebSearch.
Steps
Parse the idea from $ARGUMENTS. If empty, ask the user what idea they want to validate. Search for related knowledge: If MCP kb_search tool is available, use it directly: kb_search(query="<idea keywords>", n_results=5) Otherwise search locally: Grep for idea keywords in .md files across the project and knowledge base Summarize any related documents found (existing ideas, frameworks, opportunities). Deep research (optional): Check if research.md exists for this idea (look in docs/ or the current working directory). If it exists: read it and use findings to inform STREAM analysis and PRD filling (competitors, pain points, market size). If it does not exist: ask the user if they want to run deep research first. If yes, tell them to run /research <idea> and come back. If no, continue without it. Manifest Alignment Check (with teeth): Consult references/manifest-checklist.md (bundled with this skill) for the full checklist of 9 principles and 6 red flags. Check the idea against EACH one. This is not a formality โ a manifest violation is a soft kill flag. For each principle, assess: comply or violate? If violating โ cite the specific principle. Key principles (see checklist for details): Privacy-first / offline-first One pain -> one feature -> launch AI as foundation, not feature Speed over perfection (MVP in days) Antifragile architecture Money without overheating Against exploitation Subscription fatigue Creators, not robots Scoring: 0 violations = perfect, 1-2 = caution, 3+ = strong KILL signal. Be honest. If the idea conflicts with principles, SAY SO. Don't rationalize alignment. S.E.E.D. niche check (quick, before deep analysis): Score the idea on four dimensions: S โ Searchability: Can you rank? Forums/Reddit in top-10, few fresh giants, no video blocks? E โ Evidence: Real pain with real quotes/URLs? Or hypothetical? E โ Ease: MVP in 1-2 days on existing stack? No heavy dependencies? D โ Demand: Long-tail keywords exist? Clear monetization path? Kill flags (stop immediately if any): Top-10 SERP dominated by media giants or encyclopedias Fresh competing content (<60 days old) already covers it well No evidence of real user pain (only founder's hypothesis) MVP needs >1 week even on best-fit stack If any kill flag triggers โ recommend KILL with explanation. Don't proceed to STREAM. Devil's Advocate (Inversion): "Flip the question: how would you guarantee failure?" โ STREAM Layer 3 (Inversion) This step is mandatory โ before scoring positively, actively try to kill the idea. The goal is to find reasons NOT to build it. 6a. Inversion โ 5 ways this fails: List 5 specific, concrete ways this idea could fail. Not generic risks ("competition") but specific scenarios with evidence: What specific competitor could crush this? (name, funding, strategy) What user behavior makes this unviable? (churn data, willingness to pay) What regulatory/legal event kills this? (specific laws, precedents) What technical limitation blocks this? (latency, cost, accuracy) What market dynamic makes the "opportunity" a mirage? 6b. Dead startup search: Search for startups that tried something similar and failed or pivoted: WebSearch: "<idea category>" startup failed OR pivoted OR shut down WebSearch: "<competitor>" pivot OR layoffs OR shutdown If any found: what killed them? Does the same risk apply here? 6c. Unit economics stress test (if research.md exists): Recalculate unit economics with PESSIMISTIC assumptions: MetricOptimisticRealisticPessimisticMonthly churn10%30-40% (industry data)50%+ (first year)Average lifetime10 months2.5-3 months1.5 monthsLTV(price ร 10)(price ร 2.5)(price ร 1.5)CAC<$20$30-50$50-80LTV:CAC>3:1~1:1<1:1 (UNPROFITABLE) If pessimistic LTV:CAC < 1 โ flag as critical risk. 6d. "Empty market" test: If the analysis found an "empty" market segment or pricing gap, ask: Why is it empty? Is it opportunity or graveyard? Search for companies that tried this exact positioning and failed Is the segment empty because demand doesn't exist at that price point? 6e. Manifest conflict honesty: Re-check findings from step 4. For each manifest violation found, state the conflict clearly: "This requires X, which violates principle Y because Z." Do NOT rationalize conflicts away. The user decides whether to proceed โ not the skill. STREAM analysis: Walk the idea through all 6 layers. Consult references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill) for the complete 6-layer framework with questions per layer. For EACH layer, provide BOTH positive and negative assessment. Use the actual framework questions: Layer 1 (Scope): Map!=Territory, Simplicity, Boundaries โ what assumptions are unproven? Layer 2 (Time): Entropy, Lindy โ will this exist in 5 years? Layer 3 (Route): Inversion (use Devil's Advocate findings), Second-Order Effects โ effects of effects? Layer 4 (Stakes): Asymmetry, Antifragility โ real risk/reward with pessimistic numbers Layer 5 (Audience): Reputation, Network โ deposit or withdrawal? Layer 6 (Meta): Mortality, Balance โ worth finite time? Aligns with mission? Scoring rules: Each layer scored 1-10 If Devil's Advocate found critical issues, the affected layer score MUST be reduced If Manifest alignment has violations, Layer 6 (Meta) score MUST be reduced Final score = weighted average (Meta and Stakes weighted 1.5x) Stack selection: Auto-detect from research data, then confirm or ask. Auto-detection rules (from research.md product_type field or idea keywords): product_type: ios โ ios-swift product_type: android โ kotlin-android product_type: web + mentions AI/ML โ nextjs-supabase (or nextjs-ai-agents) product_type: web + landing/static โ astro-static product_type: web + content site + needs SSR for some pages (CDN data, transcripts, dynamic) โ astro-hybrid product_type: web (default) โ nextjs-supabase product_type: api โ python-api product_type: cli + Python keywords โ python-ml product_type: cli + JS/TS keywords โ nextjs-supabase (monorepo) Edge/serverless keywords โ cloudflare-workers If auto-detected with high confidence, state the choice and proceed. If ambiguous (e.g., could be web or mobile), ask via AskUserQuestion with the top 2-3 options. If MCP project_info is available, show user's existing stacks as reference. Generate PRD: Create a PRD document at docs/prd.md in the current project directory. Use a kebab-case project name derived from the idea. PRD must pass Definition of Done: Problem statement โฅ 30 words (who suffers, when, why now) ICP + JTBD โ target segment + 2-3 jobs-to-be-done 3-5 features, each with measurable acceptance criteria 3-5 KPIs with units (daily/weekly) and target values Kill/Iterate/Scale thresholds for each KPI 3-5 risks with mitigation plans Honest Assessment section (from Devil's Advocate step) Unit economics: optimistic AND pessimistic (both columns) Dead startup precedents (who tried this and failed?) Manifest conflicts (explicit list of principle violations) Tech stack with key packages Architecture principles (SOLID, DRY, KISS, schemas-first) Evidence-first โ numbers/claims have source URLs (from research.md if available) Output summary: Idea name and one-liner S.E.E.D. score (S/E/E/D each rated low/medium/high) Manifest alignment (X/9 principles met, list violations) Two scores: Optimistic score (0-10): best-case assumptions Realistic score (0-10): pessimistic unit economics, real churn, funded competitors Devil's Advocate top finding (the single strongest reason NOT to build) Key risk and key advantage Path to generated PRD "If I'm wrong about..." โ state the single assumption that, if wrong, changes the verdict Recommended next action (one of): /research <idea> โ if evidence is weak, get data first /scaffold <name> <stack> โ if realistic score โฅ 7, build it Fake-Door Test โ if realistic score 5-7, spend $20 on a landing stub before coding KILL โ if realistic score < 5 or kill flags triggered PIVOT โ if the idea has merit but current angle fails (suggest specific pivot)
Important
Do NOT skip the Devil's Advocate step (step 6). It is mandatory. Do NOT skip reading references/manifest-checklist.md and references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill). They contain the actual checklists. Quality and honesty are more important than speed. Take your time on steps 4, 6, and 7. A KILL recommendation is a valid and valuable outcome. It saves months of wasted effort.
When to use
Before building anything non-trivial After /research or /swarm to score and generate PRD When deciding between multiple ideas (run on each, compare realistic scores) When friends ask for feedback on their startup (be honest, not nice)
S.E.E.D. kill flag triggered
Cause: Idea fails basic niche viability (SERP dominated, no evidence, MVP too complex). Fix: This is by design โ kill flags save time. Consider pivoting the idea or running /research for deeper evidence.
No research.md found
Cause: Skipped /research step. Fix: Skill asks if you want to research first. For stronger PRDs, run /research <idea> before /validate.
Stack auto-detection wrong
Cause: Ambiguous product type (could be web or mobile). Fix: Skill asks via AskUserQuestion when ambiguous. Specify product type explicitly in the idea description.
Score seems too high
Cause: Confirmation bias โ you found evidence FOR and stopped looking. Fix: Devil's Advocate step is now mandatory. If you skipped it, the score is invalid. Re-run with full inversion.
Manifest conflicts rationalized away
Cause: The idea is exciting but conflicts with principles. Fix: State conflicts explicitly. "This violates X because Y" is more useful than silence. The user decides whether to proceed โ not the skill.
Category context
Code helpers, APIs, CLIs, browser automation, testing, and developer operations.
Source: Tencent SkillHub
Largest current source with strong distribution and engagement signals.
Package contents
Included in package
3 Docs
- SKILL.md
- references/manifest-checklist.md
- references/stream-layers.md