Skald-Circle/commands/ideagen/COMMAND.md

/ideagen — structured money-making idea research

Research and validate a business idea. The topic/niche is: {{args}}

The goal is to take a vague topic and produce, in a single working directory, a structured evaluation: candidate ideas → market validation → business plan → stress-test → final recommendation. You are the coordinator: you do not write the research artifacts yourself — you dispatch sub-agents and assemble their output. The only file you write yourself is the final synthesis (Phase 7).

Conventions

• Create one working directory data/ideagen-YYYYMMDD-HHMM/ (use the current date/time) and use it for every artifact in this run.
• Pass this directory as the output location to every sub-agent you dispatch.
• Track state with update_scratchpad after each phase (at minimum: phase, temp_dir, topic, and the path returned by each sub-agent).
• Track progress with write_todos: one task in_progress at a time, re-send the whole list on each update.
• All sub-agent dispatches are mode=sync — wait for each to finish before deciding the next step.
• Work only from the summaries sub-agents return in their tool-result string. Never read files from {temp_dir}/ directly — that is the executor's job, not yours.

Phase 1 — Setup

1. Create the working directory data/ideagen-YYYYMMDD-HHMM/.
2. update_scratchpad with { phase: "discovery", temp_dir, topic: "{{args}}" }.
3. write_todos with the phases ahead (one item per phase).

Phase 2 — Discovery + light validation

Dispatch a sync task to researcher. Prompt:

Research money-making ideas in this niche: {{args}}.

Find 4-6 concrete ideas. For each, give:

• What is being sold and to whom
• Evidence of demand (who pays, roughly how much)
• Existing solutions and their gaps
• Estimated barrier to entry (low / medium / high)
• Rough time-to-first-revenue (weeks / months)

Output a comparative table at the top, then one short section per idea.

Write the report to {temp_dir}/01-ideas.md.

Save the returned path + summary to scratchpad as phase2_ideas.

Phase 3 — Checkpoint: pick idea(s)

Ask the user via ask_user_clarification:

Title: Which idea for {{args}}?

Question: I found these candidates (details in {temp_dir}/01-ideas.md): (one line per idea — name + one-sentence why + barrier / time)

Which one(s) should I validate in depth?

Suggested answers:

• One option per idea ("Validate idea #N")
• "Validate ideas #N and #M" (multi)
• "Research a different topic: "

On "different topic" → restart from Phase 1 with the new topic. Otherwise save the chosen idea(s) to scratchpad as chosen.

Phase 4 — Market validation (deep)

Dispatch a sync task to researcher. Prompt:

Do deep market validation for this idea: <chosen idea from Phase 3>.

Find:

• Direct and indirect competitors (with pricing)
• Market size: TAM / SAM / SOM with the reasoning, not just numbers
• Trends: growing, stagnating, shrinking? By how much?
• Competitive moats that exist (or do not)
• Regulatory / legal constraints

Write the report to {temp_dir}/02-market.md.

Save the returned path + summary to scratchpad as phase4_market.

Phase 5 — Business plan (informed)

Dispatch a sync task to generalist. Prompt:

Write a business plan draft for this idea: .

The plan MUST be informed by this market validation: <paste the Phase 4 summary>

Cover:

1. Value proposition — what problem, for whom
2. Product / service — what exactly, how delivered
3. Revenue model & pricing — grounded in competitor pricing above
4. Target customer — who pays, B2B / B2C / niche
5. Go-to-market — how you reach them, realistically
6. Timeline — MVP, first paying customer, break-even
7. Resources — skills, tools, upfront cost

Write the result to {temp_dir}/03-plan.md.

Save the returned path + summary to scratchpad as phase5_plan.

Phase 6 — Stress test (critique)

Dispatch a sync task to business-analyst. Prompt:

Stress-test this business idea and plan against the market evidence.

Idea:

Business plan summary: <paste the Phase 5 summary>

Market validation summary: <paste the Phase 4 summary>

Run your full critique framework. Write the report to {temp_dir}/04-critique.md.

Save the returned path + verdict + confidence to scratchpad as phase6_critique.

Phase 7 — Final synthesis (you write it)

Assemble {temp_dir}/05-final.md yourself from the summaries in your scratchpad. Do not dispatch a sub-agent for this — you already have everything you need. Structure:

# Final report: <chosen idea>

_Date: YYYY-MM-DD_

## Recommendation: GO / NEEDS-MORE-RESEARCH / PIVOT / NO-GO

**Confidence: X/10** — <one line>

## The refined idea

<2-4 sentences incorporating the fixes the critique proposed>

## Key risks (top 3)

1. …
2. …
3. …

## Break-even estimate

- Time to first paying customer: …
- Time to break-even: …
- Upfront capital: …

## Next 3 concrete steps (if GO)

1. …
2. …
3. …

## Artifacts

- `01-ideas.md` — candidate ideas
- `02-market.md` — market validation
- `03-plan.md` — business plan
- `04-critique.md` — stress test

Phase 8 — Checkpoint: what next

Ask the user via ask_user_clarification:

Title: Results for {{args}}

Question: Recommendation: (confidence X/10). Key risks: <top 3, one line each>.

Full reports in {temp_dir}/. What now?

Suggested answers:

• "Looks good, I'll take it from here" → done.
• "Iterate — refine the plan with: " → back to Phase 5 with the changes, then 6 → 7 → 8 again.
• "Iterate — re-check the market with: " → back to Phase 4, then 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 again.
• "Scrap and research a different topic: " → restart Phase 1.
• "Save to memory" → append a one-paragraph summary to data/memory/ideagen-ideas.md, then done.

If the user wants to iterate again after one loop, recommend stopping: further iteration has diminishing returns — present the best version so far and let them decide.

Rules

• Never read files from {temp_dir}/ — work from the summaries sub-agents return.
• Always pass {temp_dir} as the output location to every sub-agent you dispatch.
• Use ask_user_clarification at every checkpoint; never make silent assumptions.
• If a sub-agent fails or returns empty results, ask the user whether to retry or pivot.
• Stay in the user's language.