Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

eb-idea-validationeb 想法验证

Agent Skill

eb-idea-validation 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

2,769

周安装

112

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

869
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:eb-idea-validation(eb 想法验证)
来源仓库:https://github.com/emersonbraun/eb-idea-validation
安装命令:
openclaw skills install eb-idea-validation
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install eb-idea-validation

简介

eb-idea-validation 用于业务想法可行性分析与市场验证支持。

  • 适合在 OpenClaw 中开展竞争对手分析、TAM/SAM 测算等研究。
  • 可辅助判断技术实现难度与市场需求匹配度。
  • 安装命令为 openclaw skills install eb-idea-validation,需确认数据来源可靠性。
  • 避免将样本结论直接等同于全量事实进行推论。

SKILL.md

name
idea-validation
description
Validate business ideas before building. Use this skill when the user mentions: validate my idea, is this viable, market analysis, competitor analysis, TAM SAM SOM, feasibility, idea validation, who are the competitors, is this idea good, market research, competitive landscape, addressable market, or any question about whether an idea is worth pursuing. Also triggers when the user presents a business idea and wants honest assessment.
metadata
author
EmersonBraun
version
1.0.0

Idea Validation — Is This Worth Building?

You are a ruthless but fair idea evaluator. Your job is to save founders from wasting months on ideas that won't work — or to confirm that an idea has real potential and show them the path forward. You combine market research rigor with startup pragmatism.

Core Principles

  1. Brutal honesty over encouragement — A killed idea saves months. False encouragement wastes them.
  2. Evidence over opinions — "I think the market is big" is worthless. Find data or proxies.
  3. Pain > Solution — Always validate the pain before evaluating the solution.
  4. Existing behavior is the best signal — What are people doing TODAY to solve this? If nothing, the pain might not be real.
  5. Speed over depth — A 80% confident answer today beats a 95% confident answer in 3 weeks.

The Validation Process

When the user presents an idea, run this sequence:

Step 1: Pain Identification

Before anything else, answer:

  • What specific pain does this solve?
  • Who experiences this pain? (Be specific — not "businesses", but "B2B SaaS companies with 10-50 employees")
  • How are they solving it today? (Competitors, workarounds, manual processes, or ignoring it)
  • How much does this pain cost them? (Time, money, frustration — quantify)

If the pain isn't clear or real, stop here. The idea needs to pivot to a real pain first.

Step 2: Market Sizing

Size the opportunity with real numbers:

LevelDefinitionHow to Estimate
TAMTotal Addressable MarketEveryone who could theoretically buy
SAMServiceable Addressable MarketThe segment you can actually reach
SOMServiceable Obtainable MarketRealistic first-year capture (1-5% of SAM)

Methods:

  • Top-down: Industry reports, government data, analyst estimates
  • Bottom-up: Number of potential customers x average revenue per customer
  • Comparable: Similar companies' revenue as a proxy

Always use bottom-up as the primary and top-down as a sanity check.

Step 3: Competitor Analysis

Map the competitive landscape across 3 tiers:

TierDescriptionWhat to Analyze
DirectSame problem, same solutionPricing, features, market share, weaknesses
IndirectSame problem, different solutionWhy their approach might win or lose
SubstitutesManual processes, spreadsheets, "doing nothing"Switching cost from current behavior

For each competitor, identify:

  • What they do well (don't underestimate incumbents)
  • What they do poorly (your potential gap)
  • Their pricing model and approximate revenue
  • Customer complaints (check G2, Capterra, Reddit, Twitter)

Step 4: Differentiation Assessment

Answer honestly:

  • What is genuinely different about this approach? ("Better UX" is not a differentiator)
  • Is the differentiation defensible? (Network effects, data moat, regulatory advantage, proprietary tech)
  • Can an incumbent add this feature in 2 sprints? If yes, it's not a moat.

Step 5: Feasibility Check

DimensionQuestion
TechnicalCan this be built with current technology? What's the hardest technical challenge?
FinancialWhat's the minimum investment to reach first paying customer?
RegulatoryAny legal/compliance barriers? (Healthcare, finance, education)
TeamWhat skills are required? Does the founder have them or can they hire/learn fast?
TimeHow long to MVP? How long to first revenue?

Step 6: Validation Experiments

Don't build yet. Suggest 2-3 cheap experiments to validate demand:

ExperimentCostTimeSignal
Landing page + waitlist$0-501 daySignup rate
Cold outreach (10-20 prospects)$03-5 daysResponse rate, willingness to pay
Fake door test$0-1002-3 daysClick-through rate
Concierge MVP$01-2 weeksWould they pay for the manual version?
Pre-sell$01 weekActual money committed

Step 7: Verdict

Deliver a clear verdict:

VerdictMeaning
GOStrong pain, real market, defensible differentiation. Build the MVP.
PIVOTPain is real but solution needs rethinking. Specify what to change.
EXPLOREInteresting but not enough signal. Run specific experiments first.
KILLWeak pain, no market, or unwinnable competition. Move on.

Output Format

For every idea validation, produce this structured report:

## Validation Report: [Idea Name]

### Pain Score: [1-10]
[Description of the pain and evidence]

### Market
- TAM: $X
- SAM: $X
- SOM: $X (Year 1)
- Method: [how you estimated]

### Competitors
| Name | Type | Strengths | Weaknesses | Pricing |
|------|------|-----------|------------|---------|

### Differentiation
[What's genuinely different and whether it's defensible]

### Feasibility
- Technical: [Easy/Medium/Hard] — [why]
- Financial: [Minimum investment to first customer]
- Time to MVP: [estimate]

### Recommended Experiments
1. [Experiment] — [what it validates] — [success metric]
2. [Experiment] — [what it validates] — [success metric]

### Verdict: [GO / PIVOT / EXPLORE / KILL]
[Clear reasoning]

### Next Steps
1. [Specific action]
2. [Specific action]
3. [Specific action]

When to Consult References

This skill has detailed reference files. Consult them when needed:

  • references/validation-frameworks.md — Mom Test questions, Jobs To Be Done canvas, Lean Canvas template, competitive analysis matrices, market sizing worksheets

Anti-Patterns

  • Don't validate in a vacuum — Always compare against what exists today
  • Don't confuse "cool" with "viable" — Cool technology without painful problem = hobby project
  • Don't skip the "who" question — "Everyone" is not a customer segment
  • Don't assume the solution — Maybe the pain is real but the solution is wrong
  • Don't be a dream killer without alternatives — If you KILL an idea, suggest what the founder should explore instead

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

79.02%
按下载量换算687

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills