{ "schemaVersion": "1.0", "item": { "slug": "solo-validate", "name": "Validate", "source": "tencent", "type": "skill", "category": "开发工具", "sourceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/fortunto2/solo-validate", "canonicalUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/fortunto2/solo-validate", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw" }, "install": { "downloadMode": "redirect", "downloadUrl": "/downloads/solo-validate", "sourceDownloadUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=solo-validate", "sourcePlatform": "tencent", "targetPlatform": "OpenClaw", "installMethod": "Manual import", "extraction": "Extract archive", "prerequisites": [ "OpenClaw" ], "packageFormat": "ZIP package", "includedAssets": [ "SKILL.md", "references/manifest-checklist.md", "references/stream-layers.md" ], "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "quickSetup": [ "Download the package from Yavira.", "Extract the archive and review SKILL.md first.", "Import or place the package into your OpenClaw setup." ], "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "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." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "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." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "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." } ] }, "sourceHealth": { "source": "tencent", "status": "healthy", "reason": "direct_download_ok", "recommendedAction": "download", "checkedAt": "2026-05-07T17:22:31.273Z", "expiresAt": "2026-05-14T17:22:31.273Z", "httpStatus": 200, "finalUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=afrexai-annual-report", "contentType": "application/zip", "probeMethod": "head", "details": { "probeUrl": "https://wry-manatee-359.convex.site/api/v1/download?slug=afrexai-annual-report", "contentDisposition": "attachment; filename=\"afrexai-annual-report-1.0.0.zip\"", "redirectLocation": null, "bodySnippet": null }, "scope": "source", "summary": "Source download looks usable.", "detail": "Yavira can redirect you to the upstream package for this source.", "primaryActionLabel": "Download for OpenClaw", "primaryActionHref": "/downloads/solo-validate" }, "validation": { "installChecklist": [ "Use the Yavira download entry.", "Review SKILL.md after the package is downloaded.", "Confirm the extracted package contains the expected setup assets." ], "postInstallChecks": [ "Confirm the extracted package includes the expected docs or setup files.", "Validate the skill or prompts are available in your target agent workspace.", "Capture any manual follow-up steps the agent could not complete." ] }, "downloadPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/solo-validate", "agentPageUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate/agent.md" }, "agentAssist": { "summary": "Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.", "steps": [ "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." ], "prompts": [ { "label": "New install", "body": "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." }, { "label": "Upgrade existing", "body": "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." } ] }, "documentation": { "source": "clawhub", "primaryDoc": "SKILL.md", "sections": [ { "title": "/validate", "body": "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.\n\nPhilosophy: 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." }, { "title": "MCP Tools (use if available)", "body": "If MCP tools are available, prefer them over CLI:\n\nkb_search(query, n_results) — search knowledge base for related docs\nproject_info() — list active projects with stacks\nweb_search(query) — search for dead startups, competitor failures\n\nIf MCP tools are not available, fall back to Grep/Glob/WebSearch." }, { "title": "Steps", "body": "Parse the idea from $ARGUMENTS. If empty, ask the user what idea they want to validate.\n\n\nSearch for related knowledge:\nIf MCP kb_search tool is available, use it directly:\n\nkb_search(query=\"\", n_results=5)\nOtherwise search locally:\nGrep for idea keywords in .md files across the project and knowledge base\nSummarize any related documents found (existing ideas, frameworks, opportunities).\n\n\n\nDeep research (optional): Check if research.md exists for this idea (look in docs/ or the current working directory).\n\nIf it exists: read it and use findings to inform STREAM analysis and PRD filling (competitors, pain points, market size).\nIf it does not exist: ask the user if they want to run deep research first. If yes, tell them to run /research and come back. If no, continue without it.\n\n\n\nManifest Alignment Check (with teeth):\nConsult 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 — a manifest violation is a soft kill flag.\nFor each principle, assess: comply or violate? If violating — cite the specific principle.\nKey principles (see checklist for details):\n\nPrivacy-first / offline-first\nOne pain -> one feature -> launch\nAI as foundation, not feature\nSpeed over perfection (MVP in days)\nAntifragile architecture\nMoney without overheating\nAgainst exploitation\nSubscription fatigue\nCreators, not robots\n\nScoring: 0 violations = perfect, 1-2 = caution, 3+ = strong KILL signal.\nBe honest. If the idea conflicts with principles, SAY SO. Don't rationalize alignment.\n\n\nS.E.E.D. niche check (quick, before deep analysis):\nScore the idea on four dimensions:\n\nS — Searchability: Can you rank? Forums/Reddit in top-10, few fresh giants, no video blocks?\nE — Evidence: Real pain with real quotes/URLs? Or hypothetical?\nE — Ease: MVP in 1-2 days on existing stack? No heavy dependencies?\nD — Demand: Long-tail keywords exist? Clear monetization path?\n\nKill flags (stop immediately if any):\n\nTop-10 SERP dominated by media giants or encyclopedias\nFresh competing content (<60 days old) already covers it well\nNo evidence of real user pain (only founder's hypothesis)\nMVP needs >1 week even on best-fit stack\n\nIf any kill flag triggers → recommend KILL with explanation. Don't proceed to STREAM.\n\n\nDevil's Advocate (Inversion):\n\n\"Flip the question: how would you guarantee failure?\" — STREAM Layer 3 (Inversion)\n\nThis step is mandatory — before scoring positively, actively try to kill the idea. The goal is to find reasons NOT to build it.\n6a. Inversion — 5 ways this fails:\nList 5 specific, concrete ways this idea could fail. Not generic risks (\"competition\") but specific scenarios with evidence:\n\nWhat specific competitor could crush this? (name, funding, strategy)\nWhat user behavior makes this unviable? (churn data, willingness to pay)\nWhat regulatory/legal event kills this? (specific laws, precedents)\nWhat technical limitation blocks this? (latency, cost, accuracy)\nWhat market dynamic makes the \"opportunity\" a mirage?\n\n6b. Dead startup search:\nSearch for startups that tried something similar and failed or pivoted:\n\nWebSearch: \"\" startup failed OR pivoted OR shut down\nWebSearch: \"\" pivot OR layoffs OR shutdown\nIf any found: what killed them? Does the same risk apply here?\n\n6c. Unit economics stress test (if research.md exists):\nRecalculate unit economics with PESSIMISTIC assumptions:\nMetricOptimisticRealisticPessimisticMonthly churn10%30-40% (industry data)50%+ (first year)Average lifetime10 months2.5-3 months1.5 monthsLTV(price × 10)(price × 2.5)(price × 1.5)CAC<$20$30-50$50-80LTV:CAC>3:1~1:1<1:1 (UNPROFITABLE)\nIf pessimistic LTV:CAC < 1 → flag as critical risk.\n6d. \"Empty market\" test:\nIf the analysis found an \"empty\" market segment or pricing gap, ask:\n\nWhy is it empty? Is it opportunity or graveyard?\nSearch for companies that tried this exact positioning and failed\nIs the segment empty because demand doesn't exist at that price point?\n\n6e. Manifest conflict honesty:\nRe-check findings from step 4. For each manifest violation found, state the conflict clearly: \"This requires X, which violates principle Y because Z.\"\nDo NOT rationalize conflicts away. The user decides whether to proceed — not the skill.\n\n\nSTREAM analysis: Walk the idea through all 6 layers.\nConsult references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill) for the complete 6-layer framework with questions per layer.\nFor EACH layer, provide BOTH positive and negative assessment. Use the actual framework questions:\n\nLayer 1 (Scope): Map!=Territory, Simplicity, Boundaries — what assumptions are unproven?\nLayer 2 (Time): Entropy, Lindy — will this exist in 5 years?\nLayer 3 (Route): Inversion (use Devil's Advocate findings), Second-Order Effects — effects of effects?\nLayer 4 (Stakes): Asymmetry, Antifragility — real risk/reward with pessimistic numbers\nLayer 5 (Audience): Reputation, Network — deposit or withdrawal?\nLayer 6 (Meta): Mortality, Balance — worth finite time? Aligns with mission?\n\nScoring rules:\n\nEach layer scored 1-10\nIf Devil's Advocate found critical issues, the affected layer score MUST be reduced\nIf Manifest alignment has violations, Layer 6 (Meta) score MUST be reduced\nFinal score = weighted average (Meta and Stakes weighted 1.5x)\n\n\n\nStack selection: Auto-detect from research data, then confirm or ask.\nAuto-detection rules (from research.md product_type field or idea keywords):\n\nproduct_type: ios → ios-swift\nproduct_type: android → kotlin-android\nproduct_type: web + mentions AI/ML → nextjs-supabase (or nextjs-ai-agents)\nproduct_type: web + landing/static → astro-static\nproduct_type: web + content site + needs SSR for some pages (CDN data, transcripts, dynamic) → astro-hybrid\nproduct_type: web (default) → nextjs-supabase\nproduct_type: api → python-api\nproduct_type: cli + Python keywords → python-ml\nproduct_type: cli + JS/TS keywords → nextjs-supabase (monorepo)\nEdge/serverless keywords → cloudflare-workers\n\nIf auto-detected with high confidence, state the choice and proceed.\nIf ambiguous (e.g., could be web or mobile), ask via AskUserQuestion with the top 2-3 options.\nIf MCP project_info is available, show user's existing stacks as reference.\n\n\nGenerate PRD: Create a PRD document at docs/prd.md in the current project directory. Use a kebab-case project name derived from the idea.\nPRD must pass Definition of Done:\n\n Problem statement ≥ 30 words (who suffers, when, why now)\n ICP + JTBD — target segment + 2-3 jobs-to-be-done\n 3-5 features, each with measurable acceptance criteria\n 3-5 KPIs with units (daily/weekly) and target values\n Kill/Iterate/Scale thresholds for each KPI\n 3-5 risks with mitigation plans\n Honest Assessment section (from Devil's Advocate step)\n Unit economics: optimistic AND pessimistic (both columns)\n Dead startup precedents (who tried this and failed?)\n Manifest conflicts (explicit list of principle violations)\n Tech stack with key packages\n Architecture principles (SOLID, DRY, KISS, schemas-first)\n Evidence-first — numbers/claims have source URLs (from research.md if available)\n\n\n\nOutput summary:\n\nIdea name and one-liner\nS.E.E.D. score (S/E/E/D each rated low/medium/high)\nManifest alignment (X/9 principles met, list violations)\nTwo scores:\n\nOptimistic score (0-10): best-case assumptions\nRealistic score (0-10): pessimistic unit economics, real churn, funded competitors\n\n\nDevil's Advocate top finding (the single strongest reason NOT to build)\nKey risk and key advantage\nPath to generated PRD\n\"If I'm wrong about...\" — state the single assumption that, if wrong, changes the verdict\nRecommended next action (one of):\n\n/research — if evidence is weak, get data first\n/scaffold — if realistic score ≥ 7, build it\nFake-Door Test — if realistic score 5-7, spend $20 on a landing stub before coding\nKILL — if realistic score < 5 or kill flags triggered\nPIVOT — if the idea has merit but current angle fails (suggest specific pivot)" }, { "title": "Important", "body": "Do NOT skip the Devil's Advocate step (step 6). It is mandatory.\nDo NOT skip reading references/manifest-checklist.md and references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill). They contain the actual checklists.\nQuality and honesty are more important than speed. Take your time on steps 4, 6, and 7.\nA KILL recommendation is a valid and valuable outcome. It saves months of wasted effort." }, { "title": "When to use", "body": "Before building anything non-trivial\nAfter /research or /swarm to score and generate PRD\nWhen deciding between multiple ideas (run on each, compare realistic scores)\nWhen friends ask for feedback on their startup (be honest, not nice)" }, { "title": "S.E.E.D. kill flag triggered", "body": "Cause: Idea fails basic niche viability (SERP dominated, no evidence, MVP too complex).\nFix: This is by design — kill flags save time. Consider pivoting the idea or running /research for deeper evidence." }, { "title": "No research.md found", "body": "Cause: Skipped /research step.\nFix: Skill asks if you want to research first. For stronger PRDs, run /research before /validate." }, { "title": "Stack auto-detection wrong", "body": "Cause: Ambiguous product type (could be web or mobile).\nFix: Skill asks via AskUserQuestion when ambiguous. Specify product type explicitly in the idea description." }, { "title": "Score seems too high", "body": "Cause: Confirmation bias — you found evidence FOR and stopped looking.\nFix: Devil's Advocate step is now mandatory. If you skipped it, the score is invalid. Re-run with full inversion." }, { "title": "Manifest conflicts rationalized away", "body": "Cause: The idea is exciting but conflicts with principles.\nFix: State conflicts explicitly. \"This violates X because Y\" is more useful than silence. The user decides whether to proceed — not the skill." } ], "body": "/validate\n\nValidate 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.\n\nPhilosophy: 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.\n\nMCP Tools (use if available)\n\nIf MCP tools are available, prefer them over CLI:\n\nkb_search(query, n_results) — search knowledge base for related docs\nproject_info() — list active projects with stacks\nweb_search(query) — search for dead startups, competitor failures\n\nIf MCP tools are not available, fall back to Grep/Glob/WebSearch.\n\nSteps\n\nParse the idea from $ARGUMENTS. If empty, ask the user what idea they want to validate.\n\nSearch for related knowledge: If MCP kb_search tool is available, use it directly:\n\nkb_search(query=\"\", n_results=5) Otherwise search locally:\nGrep for idea keywords in .md files across the project and knowledge base Summarize any related documents found (existing ideas, frameworks, opportunities).\n\nDeep research (optional): Check if research.md exists for this idea (look in docs/ or the current working directory).\n\nIf it exists: read it and use findings to inform STREAM analysis and PRD filling (competitors, pain points, market size).\nIf it does not exist: ask the user if they want to run deep research first. If yes, tell them to run /research and come back. If no, continue without it.\n\nManifest Alignment Check (with teeth):\n\nConsult 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 — a manifest violation is a soft kill flag.\n\nFor each principle, assess: comply or violate? If violating — cite the specific principle.\n\nKey principles (see checklist for details):\n\nPrivacy-first / offline-first\nOne pain -> one feature -> launch\nAI as foundation, not feature\nSpeed over perfection (MVP in days)\nAntifragile architecture\nMoney without overheating\nAgainst exploitation\nSubscription fatigue\nCreators, not robots\n\nScoring: 0 violations = perfect, 1-2 = caution, 3+ = strong KILL signal.\n\nBe honest. If the idea conflicts with principles, SAY SO. Don't rationalize alignment.\n\nS.E.E.D. niche check (quick, before deep analysis):\n\nScore the idea on four dimensions:\n\nS — Searchability: Can you rank? Forums/Reddit in top-10, few fresh giants, no video blocks?\nE — Evidence: Real pain with real quotes/URLs? Or hypothetical?\nE — Ease: MVP in 1-2 days on existing stack? No heavy dependencies?\nD — Demand: Long-tail keywords exist? Clear monetization path?\n\nKill flags (stop immediately if any):\n\nTop-10 SERP dominated by media giants or encyclopedias\nFresh competing content (<60 days old) already covers it well\nNo evidence of real user pain (only founder's hypothesis)\nMVP needs >1 week even on best-fit stack\n\nIf any kill flag triggers → recommend KILL with explanation. Don't proceed to STREAM.\n\nDevil's Advocate (Inversion):\n\n\"Flip the question: how would you guarantee failure?\" — STREAM Layer 3 (Inversion)\n\nThis step is mandatory — before scoring positively, actively try to kill the idea. The goal is to find reasons NOT to build it.\n\n6a. Inversion — 5 ways this fails: List 5 specific, concrete ways this idea could fail. Not generic risks (\"competition\") but specific scenarios with evidence:\n\nWhat specific competitor could crush this? (name, funding, strategy)\nWhat user behavior makes this unviable? (churn data, willingness to pay)\nWhat regulatory/legal event kills this? (specific laws, precedents)\nWhat technical limitation blocks this? (latency, cost, accuracy)\nWhat market dynamic makes the \"opportunity\" a mirage?\n\n6b. Dead startup search: Search for startups that tried something similar and failed or pivoted:\n\nWebSearch: \"\" startup failed OR pivoted OR shut down\nWebSearch: \"\" pivot OR layoffs OR shutdown\nIf any found: what killed them? Does the same risk apply here?\n\n6c. Unit economics stress test (if research.md exists): Recalculate unit economics with PESSIMISTIC assumptions:\n\nMetric\tOptimistic\tRealistic\tPessimistic\nMonthly churn\t10%\t30-40% (industry data)\t50%+ (first year)\nAverage lifetime\t10 months\t2.5-3 months\t1.5 months\nLTV\t(price × 10)\t(price × 2.5)\t(price × 1.5)\nCAC\t<$20\t$30-50\t$50-80\nLTV:CAC\t>3:1\t~1:1\t<1:1 (UNPROFITABLE)\n\nIf pessimistic LTV:CAC < 1 → flag as critical risk.\n\n6d. \"Empty market\" test: If the analysis found an \"empty\" market segment or pricing gap, ask:\n\nWhy is it empty? Is it opportunity or graveyard?\nSearch for companies that tried this exact positioning and failed\nIs the segment empty because demand doesn't exist at that price point?\n\n6e. 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 — not the skill.\n\nSTREAM analysis: Walk the idea through all 6 layers.\n\nConsult references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill) for the complete 6-layer framework with questions per layer.\n\nFor EACH layer, provide BOTH positive and negative assessment. Use the actual framework questions:\n\nLayer 1 (Scope): Map!=Territory, Simplicity, Boundaries — what assumptions are unproven?\nLayer 2 (Time): Entropy, Lindy — will this exist in 5 years?\nLayer 3 (Route): Inversion (use Devil's Advocate findings), Second-Order Effects — effects of effects?\nLayer 4 (Stakes): Asymmetry, Antifragility — real risk/reward with pessimistic numbers\nLayer 5 (Audience): Reputation, Network — deposit or withdrawal?\nLayer 6 (Meta): Mortality, Balance — worth finite time? Aligns with mission?\n\nScoring rules:\n\nEach layer scored 1-10\nIf Devil's Advocate found critical issues, the affected layer score MUST be reduced\nIf Manifest alignment has violations, Layer 6 (Meta) score MUST be reduced\nFinal score = weighted average (Meta and Stakes weighted 1.5x)\n\nStack selection: Auto-detect from research data, then confirm or ask.\n\nAuto-detection rules (from research.md product_type field or idea keywords):\n\nproduct_type: ios → ios-swift\nproduct_type: android → kotlin-android\nproduct_type: web + mentions AI/ML → nextjs-supabase (or nextjs-ai-agents)\nproduct_type: web + landing/static → astro-static\nproduct_type: web + content site + needs SSR for some pages (CDN data, transcripts, dynamic) → astro-hybrid\nproduct_type: web (default) → nextjs-supabase\nproduct_type: api → python-api\nproduct_type: cli + Python keywords → python-ml\nproduct_type: cli + JS/TS keywords → nextjs-supabase (monorepo)\nEdge/serverless keywords → cloudflare-workers\n\nIf 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.\n\nGenerate PRD: Create a PRD document at docs/prd.md in the current project directory. Use a kebab-case project name derived from the idea.\n\nPRD must pass Definition of Done:\n\n Problem statement ≥ 30 words (who suffers, when, why now)\n ICP + JTBD — target segment + 2-3 jobs-to-be-done\n 3-5 features, each with measurable acceptance criteria\n 3-5 KPIs with units (daily/weekly) and target values\n Kill/Iterate/Scale thresholds for each KPI\n 3-5 risks with mitigation plans\n Honest Assessment section (from Devil's Advocate step)\n Unit economics: optimistic AND pessimistic (both columns)\n Dead startup precedents (who tried this and failed?)\n Manifest conflicts (explicit list of principle violations)\n Tech stack with key packages\n Architecture principles (SOLID, DRY, KISS, schemas-first)\n Evidence-first — numbers/claims have source URLs (from research.md if available)\n\nOutput summary:\n\nIdea name and one-liner\nS.E.E.D. score (S/E/E/D each rated low/medium/high)\nManifest alignment (X/9 principles met, list violations)\nTwo scores:\nOptimistic score (0-10): best-case assumptions\nRealistic score (0-10): pessimistic unit economics, real churn, funded competitors\nDevil's Advocate top finding (the single strongest reason NOT to build)\nKey risk and key advantage\nPath to generated PRD\n\"If I'm wrong about...\" — state the single assumption that, if wrong, changes the verdict\nRecommended next action (one of):\n/research — if evidence is weak, get data first\n/scaffold — if realistic score ≥ 7, build it\nFake-Door Test — if realistic score 5-7, spend $20 on a landing stub before coding\nKILL — if realistic score < 5 or kill flags triggered\nPIVOT — if the idea has merit but current angle fails (suggest specific pivot)\nImportant\nDo NOT skip the Devil's Advocate step (step 6). It is mandatory.\nDo NOT skip reading references/manifest-checklist.md and references/stream-layers.md (bundled with this skill). They contain the actual checklists.\nQuality and honesty are more important than speed. Take your time on steps 4, 6, and 7.\nA KILL recommendation is a valid and valuable outcome. It saves months of wasted effort.\nWhen to use\nBefore building anything non-trivial\nAfter /research or /swarm to score and generate PRD\nWhen deciding between multiple ideas (run on each, compare realistic scores)\nWhen friends ask for feedback on their startup (be honest, not nice)\nCommon Issues\nS.E.E.D. kill flag triggered\n\nCause: Idea fails basic niche viability (SERP dominated, no evidence, MVP too complex). Fix: This is by design — kill flags save time. Consider pivoting the idea or running /research for deeper evidence.\n\nNo research.md found\n\nCause: Skipped /research step. Fix: Skill asks if you want to research first. For stronger PRDs, run /research before /validate.\n\nStack auto-detection wrong\n\nCause: Ambiguous product type (could be web or mobile). Fix: Skill asks via AskUserQuestion when ambiguous. Specify product type explicitly in the idea description.\n\nScore seems too high\n\nCause: Confirmation bias — 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.\n\nManifest conflicts rationalized away\n\nCause: 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 — not the skill." }, "trust": { "sourceLabel": "tencent", "provenanceUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/fortunto2/solo-validate", "publisherUrl": "https://clawhub.ai/fortunto2/solo-validate", "owner": "fortunto2", "version": "2.1.1", "license": null, "verificationStatus": "Indexed source record" }, "links": { "detailUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate", "downloadUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/downloads/solo-validate", "agentUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate/agent", "manifestUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate/agent.json", "briefUrl": "https://openagent3.xyz/skills/solo-validate/agent.md" } }