A structured idea testing framework that runs every concept through a reality checklist before you invest time, money, or energy. Combines lean validation, customer discovery, and risk analysis into a single process for solopreneurs, creators, and innovators.
npx skills add https://github.com/cosmicstack-labs/mercury-agent-skills --skill idea-validator
Turns raw ideas into testable hypotheses. Instead of falling in love with an idea and building it in a vacuum, this skill runs it through a validation gauntlet — surfacing assumptions, identifying risks, and designing the smallest possible test to learn whether the idea has legs before you commit significant resources.
┌─────────────┐
│ RAW IDEA │
└──────┬──────┘
│
┌──────▼──────┐
│ CANVAS IT │ ← Problem, Solution, Audience, Channel
└──────┬──────┘
│
┌──────▼──────┐
│ CHECKLIST │ ← 20-point viability screen
└──────┬──────┘
│
┌──────▼──────┐
│ RISK MAP │ ← What could kill this?
└──────┬──────┘
│
┌──────▼──────┐
│ TEST DESIGN │ ← Smallest experiment that teaches most
└──────┬──────┘
│
┌──────▼──────┐
│ GO / PIVOT │
│ / KILL │
└─────────────┘
Rate each factor as ✅ Strong / ⚠️ Moderate / ❌ Weak
Score interpretation:
| Score | Action |
|-------|--------|
| 18-20 ✅ | Strong signal — proceed to test design |
| 12-17 ⚠️ | Mixed — address weak areas before investing |
| < 12 ❌ | High risk — kill or radically pivot |
| Risk | Description | Mitigation |
|------|-------------|------------|
| Solution Risk | You build the wrong thing | Talk to 10 customers before writing code |
| Market Risk | Nobody wants it | Get pre-orders or sign-ups before building |
| Execution Risk | You can't deliver | Audit your skills, time, and resources |
| Timing Risk | Too early or too late | Check search trends, competitor launches, industry shifts |
| Business Risk | Can't make money | Validate willingness to pay early — don't assume |
| Experiment | What It Tests | How To Run | Success Signal |
|-----------|---------------|------------|----------------|
| The Fake Door | Interest | Landing page with "Coming Soon" + email signup | 5-10% conversion from visitors → email |
| The $5 Interview | Problem | Talk to 10 target customers about their pain | 7/10 confirm it's a real problem |
| Social Post | Demand | Post about the problem on LinkedIn/Reddit/Twitter | Engagement, DMs, "I need this" comments |
| Google Trends | Market trajectory | Check trend direction for related keywords | Upward or stable curve |
| Experiment | What It Tests | How To Run | Success Signal |
|-----------|---------------|------------|----------------|
| Pre-sell / Landing Page | Willingness to pay | Landing page with "Buy Now" (actually collect payment or just gauge intent) | 1-3% conversion rate or 10+ pre-orders |
| Concierge MVP | Solution validity | Manually deliver the service for 3-5 beta customers | Customers get value and would pay |
| Waitlist | Demand volume | Collect email signups with a specific promise | 100+ signups from targeted outreach |
| Content Test | Content-driven demand | Write 3 articles about the problem. Track SEO/social traction | Organic traffic, subscribers, inquiries |
| Experiment | What It Tests | How To Run | Success Signal |
|-----------|---------------|------------|----------------|
| Prototype MVP | Product usability | Build the smallest functional version for 10 beta users | NPS > 30, weekly active usage > 3× |
| Paid Pilot | Willingness to pay at full price | Sell to 1-3 customers at full price | Customers pay and don't churn |
| Crowdfunding / Pre-order | Market validation at scale | Kickstarter, Indiegogo, or direct pre-orders | Hits 30% of funding target in first week |
| Phrase | Action |
|--------|--------|
| "Validate this idea..." | Full validation funnel: canvas → checklist → risk map → test |
| "Is this worth pursuing?" | Runs the 20-point checklist |
| "Test this idea..." | Designs the smallest meaningful experiment |
| "What could kill this idea?" | Risk map — identifies top 3 failure modes |
| "Should I build this?" | Pre-validation reality check |
| "Talk me out of this idea" | Devil's advocate — surfaces weakest assumptions |
| "How do I validate [X]?" | Specific experiment design for a specific risk |
| "Is this a good idea?" | Combined checklist + risk map + recommendation |
Get it into a single sentence:
> "I want to build [solution] for [audience] who struggle with [problem], so they can [outcome]."
If you can't complete this sentence, the idea isn't clear enough yet.
List everything you're assuming to be true. Group into:
| Assumption Type | Examples |
|-----------------|----------|
| Problem | "People actually have this problem." "They know they have it." |
| Solution | "My solution solves it." "They'll use it." |
| Market | "There are enough people." "I can reach them." |
| Business | "They'll pay." "The economics work." |
| You | "I can build this." "I'll stay motivated." |
Key insight: The assumption that would hurt most if wrong is your riskiest assumption. Test that one first.
Score all 20 items. Identify which areas score lowest — those are your focus areas for testing.
Follow the experiment tier table above. Rules:
| Result | Decision |
|--------|----------|
| Strong positive signal | Proceed to next tier of testing |
| Mixed / unclear | Revise assumption, test again with a different method |
| Clear negative signal | Kill or pivot. Do not ignore. Sunk cost is not a reason to continue |
Even for ideas you kill, document what you learned. Future you will benefit from knowing:
> Idea: "A paid newsletter teaching designers how to use AI tools"
>
> Clarified: "I want to build a paid weekly newsletter for mid-career designers who struggle with keeping up with AI tools, so they can stay relevant without spending hours researching."
>
> Riskiest Assumptions: 1) Designers are willing to pay for this. 2) I can consistently find valuable content.
>
> Experiment (Tier 1):
> 1. Post on LinkedIn/X: "Designers — what's your #1 question about AI tools?" (tests problem)
> 2. If engagement is strong → create a free 5-email mini-series with a "Subscribe for full version" CTA (tests willingness to pay)
> 3. Success signal: 1,000 free subscribers within 2 weeks
>
> If < 100 signups: Problem not urgent enough or audience not reachable. Kill or narrow niche further.
> If 100-500: Interesting but weak. Try paid ads to test willingness to pay more directly.
> If 500+: Proceed. Build the paid tier.
> Idea: "A tool that auto-generates social media posts from blog content"
>
> Risk Map:
> - Solution Risk (HIGH): Will the output be good enough to use without heavy editing?
> - Market Risk (MEDIUM): Do content creators feel this pain enough to pay?
> - Execution Risk (LOW): Buildable with existing AI APIs
>
> Experiment (Tier 1):
> 1. Build a manual concierge: Offer to take 5 bloggers' posts and manually create their social content for free
> 2. Ask: "If this were automated, what would you pay?"
> 3. Success signal: 3/5 say "I'd pay $20+/month"
>
> Learning: If users love the output but won't pay, pivot to free + ads. If they won't use the output even for free, solution risk is confirmed — kill or redesign.
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
Prepares and structurally reviews readiness evidence for ISO management-system and laboratory-competence standards - ISO 13485 medical device QMS, ISO 14971 device risk management, ISO/IEC 17025 testing and calibration laboratories, and ISO 15189 medical laboratories. Use when organizing declared scope, controlled documents, risk-management files, scope of accreditation, traceability, CAPA, external-provider controls, or bounded local evidence manifests, and when separating ISO certification from laboratory accreditation, FDA QMSR inspection, CLIA certification, MDSAP, and EU MDR/IVDR evidence boundaries. Not for legal applicability, compliance, certification, or accreditation decisions; contains no clause text.
Sample-size and statistical power calculations for planning studies. Use whenever someone asks "how many subjects/samples/replicates do I need", wants an a priori power analysis, a minimum detectable effect (MDE), a power curve, or needs to justify a sample size for a grant, IRB protocol, or pre-registration. Covers closed-form power for t-tests, ANOVA, proportions, correlations, chi-square, and regression, plus simulation-based (Monte Carlo) power for designs with no formula — logistic/Poisson regression, mixed models, cluster-randomized trials, survival, and interactions. Use this skill even when the request only mentions an effect size, alpha, or "80% power" without saying "power analysis" explicitly. For laying out the study (randomization, blocking, factorial/DOE, crossover, sequential designs) use experimental-design; for analyzing data already collected and reporting it use statistical-analysis.
Universal QA checklist for generated scientific plots: overlapping labels, clipped text, missing axes/legends, overcrowded data, and cross-journal resolution/format guidance.
Senior Elite Software Engineer (15+) and Senior Product Designer. Full workflow with planning, architecture, TDD, clean code, and pixel-perfect UX validation.
Run PinchBench benchmarks to evaluate OpenClaw agent performance across real-world tasks. Use when testing model capabilities, comparing models, submitting benchmark results to the leaderboard, or checking how well your OpenClaw setup handles calendar, email, research, coding, and multi-step workflows.
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
Verify PowerToys behavior end-to-end with the winapp CLI across two scenarios: (A) a module's release checklist against the installed build; (B) PR validation — derive each PR's checklist from its description + diff, then drive it against the installed build (a merged/shipped PR, or a whole release/hotfix set) or by building + sideloading the module when the PR isn't in the build yet (unmerged or not-yet-released). Drive each item via UIA invoke / Named Events / settings.json edits / clipboard / GPO / SendInput, and emit a structured PASS / FAIL / BLOCKED verdict per item with evidence (FAIL distinguishes product defects from stale/ambiguous checklist items). Use when asked to verify a module checklist, validate a PR, sign off a release/hotfix's PRs, or QA installed/sideloaded PowerToys bits. Combines generic winapp ui mechanics (references/winapp-ui-testing.md) with PT-specific recipes, per-scenario playbooks (references/scenarios/), and the helper .ps1 files shipped with this skill.
Take cosmicstack-labs/idea-validator from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.