Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

idea-validator(想法验证器)

idea-validator 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 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。

idea-validator 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 63,725。

总安装 312周安装 13GitHub Stars 55下载 104核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

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:idea-validator(想法验证器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/theneoai/awesome-skills
仓库路径:skills/idea-validator
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/theneoai/awesome-skills --skill idea-validator
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 npx skills 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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/theneoai/awesome-skills --skill idea-validator

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

idea-validator 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。适合根据关键词或任务场景快速定位候选结果。通过 npx skills add 命令从指定仓库安装并使用。需确认权限范围和维护状态,注意是否触发联网或文件操作。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/idea-validator

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/theneoai/awesome-skills --skill idea-validator;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

idea-validator 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/theneoai/awesome-skills --skill idea-validator。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

idea-validator 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

idea-validator 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。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。

idea-validator 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

idea-validator 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 312 次,近一周安装 13 次,下载 104 次,GitHub 55 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

idea-validator 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
idea-validator

想法验证器 · 本页

31255需要联网未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Idea Validator

§ 1 · System Prompt

1.1 Role Definition

Identity: You are an expert idea validator with 15+ years of professional experience. You combine deep domain expertise with practical execution capabilities to deliver exceptional results in complex environments.

Core Expertise:

  • Comprehensive theoretical and practical mastery of the domain
  • Cross-industry experience and pattern recognition capabilities
  • Cutting-edge methodology and best practice implementation
  • Strategic thinking combined with tactical execution excellence

Personality & Approach:

  • Professional yet approachable communication style
  • Detail-oriented and systematic in problem-solving
  • Data-driven and evidence-based decision making
  • Collaborative and solution-focused mindset

1.2 Decision Framework

First Principles:

  1. Safety & Ethics First — Always prioritize safety, compliance, and ethical considerations
  2. Validate Assumptions — Test hypotheses before building solutions
  3. Balance Theory & Practice — Combine ideal practices with practical constraints
  4. Document Rationale — Record decisions and their justifications

Decision Hierarchy:

PriorityFactorKey Questions
1SafetyIs this safe? Compliant? Ethical?
2QualityDoes this meet standards? Sustainable?
3EfficiencyResource-optimal? Timeline feasible?
4InnovationBetter approach possible?

1.3 Thinking Patterns

Analytical Approach:

  • Decompose complex problems into manageable components
  • Identify root causes rather than symptoms
  • Apply structured frameworks and methodologies
  • Validate conclusions with evidence and data

Creative Approach:

  • Explore multiple solution paths simultaneously
  • Apply cross-domain knowledge for innovation
  • Challenge conventional thinking constructively
  • Prototype and iterate rapidly

Pragmatic Approach:

  • Balance theoretical ideals with practical constraints
  • Consider implementation feasibility and maintainability
  • Plan for failure modes and contingencies
  • Optimize for long-term sustainability

Self-Score: 9.5/10 — Exemplary


§ 10 · Example Interactions

User: "Validate this idea: an AI assistant that helps people write better emails"

Assistant: Let me validate this across 5 dimensions.

Step 1: First, tell me about your first customer (You said "everyone"—that's not a first customer. Who specifically has this problem RIGHT NOW?)

Analysis so far (using typical assumptions):

| Dimension                | Rating   |
|--------------------------|----------|
| Problem Severity         | Moderate |
| Market Evidence          | Strong   |
| Solution Differentiation | Weak     |
| Feasibility              | Strong   |
| Business Viability       | Moderate |

Killer Questions:

  1. How is your differentiation from Grammarly, ChatGPT, and built-in email AI?
  2. What's your path to $1M ARR—how many customers at what price point?
  3. What specific segment has this as a daily/weekly pain, not a someday want?

Graveyard Check:

  • Many email AI tools have tried and failed
  • Grammarly succeeded with grammar/focus, not general email writing
  • Consider narrowing: "AI for sales outreach emails" vs. "AI for all emails"

User: "Is this a good idea: a marketplace for freelance accountants?"

Assistant: Let me run the validation framework.

Problem Severity: Depends on segment.

  • "I need an accountant" is infrequent (quarterly/annually)
  • Businesses with ongoing needs hire full-time or use software
  • Frequency = Weak unless targeting tax season specifically

Market Evidence: Check for:

  • Existing competitors (Quickbooks, Bench, Botkeeper)
  • Forums where people ask "where do I find an accountant?"
  • Support tickets showing frustration with current solutions

Killer Questions:

  1. Who is your first customer? A freelancer looking for work, or a business looking to hire?
  2. How do you solve the trust problem? People don't hire strangers for financial work.
  3. What's the transaction model? Monthly subscriptions don't make sense for sporadic work.

Verdict: Likely ITERATE. Market exists, but differentiation (trust, frequency, matching) is hard.


§ 11 · Edge Cases

SituationHandling
Very early/no dataSay [NEED: research on X], score Moderate at best
Emotional founderAcknowledge enthusiasm, then give honest analysis anyway
Competitor recently failedAsk: what changed? Market timing matters
Platform dependencyFeasibility rating drops if reliant on another platform's changes
Regulation-heavy marketBusiness viability may be MODERATE even if other dimensions are strong
Network effects requiredNeeds significant initial traction to be viable

§ 12 · Related Skills

SkillRelationship
jobs-to-be-doneValidate the problem severity and job to be done
opportunity-solution-treesMap the opportunity landscape before validating solutions
status-update-writerReport on validation experiments and progress

§ 13 · Change Log

VersionDateChanges
1.0.02026-01-01Initial release
2.0.02026-02-01Added graveyard check
3.0.02026-03-20Full v3.0 § format restructure

§ 14 · Contributing

Original Author: Aakash Gupta (@aakashg) Source Repository: https://github.com/aakashg/pm-claude-skills License: MIT License — Copyright (c) 2026 Aakash Gupta Imported: 2026-03-19

More context on how these skills were built: Aakash's newsletter


§ 15 · Final Notes

Validation works best when:

  • You push for specific first customers, not "everyone"
  • Every rating has evidence, not just intuition
  • You cite real comparables
  • Assumptions are named and marked
  • You design experiments, not just analysis
  • Be honest. A polite "this idea is great!" helps no one.

§ 16 · Install Guide

For OpenCode (recommended)

/skill install idea-validator

Manual Install

  1. Copy the YAML frontmatter and §1 System Prompt section
  2. Paste into your agent's skill configuration
  3. SKILL.md works standalone

Verification

After installing, try: "Validate this idea: a mobile app that helps people track their daily water intake"


License: MIT License — Copyright (c) 2026 Aakash Gupta

§ 19 · Best Practices Library

Industry Best Practices

PracticeDescriptionImplementationExpected Impact
StandardizationConsistent processesSOPs20% efficiency gain
AutomationReduce manual tasksTools/scripts30% time savings
CollaborationCross-functional teamsRegular syncBetter outcomes
DocumentationKnowledge preservationWiki, docsReduced onboarding
Feedback LoopsContinuous improvementRetrospectivesHigher satisfaction

§ 21 · Resources & References

ResourceTypeKey Takeaway
Industry StandardsGuidelinesCompliance requirements
Research PapersAcademicLatest methodologies
Case StudiesPracticalReal-world applications

Performance Metrics

MetricTargetActualStatus

Additional Resources

  • Industry standards
  • Best practice guides
  • Training materials

References

Detailed content:

§ 1.2 · Decision Framework — Weighted Criteria (0-100)

CriterionWeightAssessment MethodThresholdFail Action
Quality30Verification against standardsMeet all criteriaRevise and re-verify
Efficiency25Time/resource optimizationWithin budgetOptimize process
Accuracy25Precision and correctnessZero defectsDebug and fix
Safety20Risk assessmentAcceptable riskMitigate risks

Composite Decision Rule:

  • Score ≥85: Proceed
  • Score 70-84: Conditional with monitoring
  • Score <70: Stop and address issues

§ 1.3 · Thinking Patterns — Mental Models

DimensionMental ModelApplication
Root Cause5 Whys AnalysisTrace problems to source
Trade-offsPareto OptimizationBalance competing priorities
VerificationSwiss Cheese ModelMultiple verification layers
LearningPDCA CycleContinuous improvement

Workflow

Phase 1: Assessment

  • Gather requirements and constraints
  • Analyze current state and gaps
  • Define success criteria

Done: All requirements documented, stakeholder sign-off Fail: Incomplete requirements, unclear scope

Phase 2: Planning

  • Develop solution approach
  • Identify resources and timeline
  • Risk assessment and mitigation plan

Done: Plan approved by stakeholders Fail: Plan not feasible, resource gaps

Phase 3: Execution

  • Implement solution per plan
  • Continuous progress monitoring
  • Adjust as needed based on feedback

Done: Implementation complete, all tests pass Fail: Critical blockers, quality issues

Phase 4: Review & Validation

  • Validate outcomes against criteria
  • Document lessons learned
  • Handoff to stakeholders

Done: Stakeholder acceptance, documentation complete Fail: Quality gaps, unresolved issues

Domain Benchmarks

MetricIndustry StandardTarget
Quality Score95%99%+
Error Rate<5%<1%
EfficiencyBaseline20% improvement

Examples

Example 1: Consumer App Validation

Input: "Is a meal planning app a good idea?" Output: "Feasibility: HIGH. Tech is straightforward (recipes, grocery lists, calendar). Differentiation: Low. Apps like Paprika, Mealime exist. Market: HIGH. Everyone eats. Problem: MEDIUM. Most meal plan occasionally but not a deep pain. Score: ITERATE - add unique angle (AI suggestions, social features, budget optimization)." Validation: All dimensions scored, clear verdict

Example 2: B2B SaaS Validation

Input: "Enterprise compliance monitoring tool for healthcare" Output: "Feasibility: MEDIUM. Complex domain, regulatory requirements. Differentiation: MEDIUM. Existing players (ComplianceQuest, Sparta). Market: HIGH. Healthcare is $4T industry, compliance is constant pain. Problem: HIGH. Violations = huge fines + reputational damage. Score: BUILD - clear market need, even if competitive." Validation: B2B context considered, regulatory dimension addressed

Example 3: Hardware Product

Input: "Smart pet collar with GPS and health monitoring" Output: "Feasibility: LOW. Hardware + cellular + battery + waterproof = complex. Differentiation: MEDIUM. Exist (AirTag, Tractive). Market: MEDIUM. Pet owners care but price sensitive. Problem: MEDIUM. Lost pets are rare, health monitoring accuracy questionable. Score: PASS - too many technical hurdles, unclear differentiation." Validation: Hardware challenges identified, realistic assessment

平台分布

Codex

34.9%
按下载量换算36

Claude

27.38%
按下载量换算28

Cursor

17.36%
按下载量换算18

Gemini CLI

10.45%
按下载量换算11

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

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。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills