From dacc143597e47674093c7f965148b96d61e64643 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: space <space@reversed.dev>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:45:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] first commit

---
 Intent.md | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Intent.md

diff --git a/Intent.md b/Intent.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..35da2be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Intent.md
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# Intent
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill helps an agent evaluate whether a user idea, MVP, product concept, or startup concept is worth pursuing.
+
+The skill should behave like a structured decision engine:
+
+- gather opposing viewpoints,
+- pressure-test the idea,
+- judge market potential,
+- and give the user a clear recommendation.
+
+## What It Should Do
+
+When the user presents an idea, the skill should:
+
+- research and reason through the idea from multiple angles,
+- split the analysis into pro, con, and neutral positions,
+- use subagents to avoid one-sided thinking,
+- identify market signals, risks, and opportunity size,
+- and produce a final score plus a decision summary.
+
+## Core Question
+
+The skill exists to answer:
+
+- Is this a good idea?
+- Is there a market for it?
+- What are the strongest reasons to build it?
+- What are the strongest reasons not to build it?
+- Is it worth planning an MVP?
+
+## Operating Model
+
+The evaluation must happen in 3 stages.
+
+### Stage 1: Broad Scan
+
+Launch 5 subagents.
+
+Assign them different roles so the idea is explored from multiple directions.
+
+Required split:
+
+- 2 subagents against the idea
+- 2 subagents for the idea
+- 1 neutral subagent that gives 1 strong pro and 1 strong con
+
+Stage 1 should feel exploratory and independent. The subagents should not all say the same thing.
+
+### Stage 2: Deep Debate
+
+Launch 2 additional subagents.
+
+Required split:
+
+- 1 fully pro
+- 1 fully against
+
+These subagents should make the strongest possible case for their side using:
+
+- market logic,
+- customer pain,
+- competition,
+- timing,
+- feasibility,
+- and evidence where possible.
+
+Stage 2 should sharpen the argument on both sides, not repeat Stage 1.
+
+### Stage 3: Final Judgment
+
+The main agent reads all subagent output and makes the final call.
+
+The final response must:
+
+- give the idea a score from 1 to 10,
+- summarize the strongest positive arguments,
+- summarize the strongest negative arguments,
+- state a clear verdict,
+- and ask whether the user wants to plan an MVP next.
+
+## Output Format
+
+The final response should be concise and decision-oriented.
+
+It should include:
+
+- score out of 10,
+- short verdict,
+- positives,
+- negatives,
+- and an MVP question.
+
+## Behavioral Rules
+
+- Keep pro and con agents meaningfully different.
+- Treat the neutral agent as a real balancing role, not filler.
+- Prefer evidence and market reasoning over vague enthusiasm.
+- If the market looks weak, crowded, or unproven, say so plainly.
+- If the idea looks strong, explain why it survives criticism.
+- Avoid giving the user a false sense of certainty.
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+The skill is successful if it can:
+
+- expose weak ideas quickly,
+- support strong ideas with real reasoning,
+- surface useful market and execution risks,
+- and help the user decide whether the idea deserves an MVP.
+