Startup Pitch

Startup Pitch

Build investor-ready pitch content in multiple formats. Uses a structured 7-element framework combined with a problem-solution-insight foundation to produce pitch narratives that are clear, compelling, and fundable.

How It Works

INTAKE → RESEARCH (2 sequential waves) → PITCH CONSTRUCTION → REVIEW & PRACTICE

The process: understand the company deeply, research the investor audience and competitive framing, then construct the pitch. Typical runtime: 15-20 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 30-40 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential).

Core Philosophy

Three principles govern every output this skill produces:

1. Clarity over sophistication. "80% accurate and 100% clear beats the reverse." If a grandmother can't understand what you do, investors won't either. Eliminate jargon, acronyms, and marketing language. 2. Lead with what's impressive. You earn each additional minute of investor attention. Don't bury traction after 5 sections of problem setup — put the strongest signal right after "what you do." 3. Make investors talk. A pitch isn't a monologue. The more investors talk, the more they convince themselves. Structure the narrative to invite conversation, not shut it down.

Language

Default output language is English. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead.

---

Phase 0: Resume Check

Before anything else, check if a PROGRESS.md created by this skill exists in the working directory or a project subdirectory (the skill name field says startup-pitch). If it does, read it and resume from the last incomplete phase. Tell the user: "I found progress from a previous session. You completed [phases]. Picking up from [next phase]."

If no progress file exists — or the one found belongs to a different skill — start from Phase 1.

---

Phase 1: Intake

Short and focused — 1-2 rounds of questions. The goal is enough context to build a compelling pitch.

Recommended Prior Work

A pitch built on validated data is significantly stronger than one built on self-reported answers. If you haven't already, consider running startup-design first — it provides market research, competitive analysis, business model, financial projections, and a validation scorecard that become the foundation of a much more credible pitch.

Not required. startup-pitch works standalone. But the quality difference is noticeable.

Check for Prior Work

Before asking questions, check if prior sessions have been completed. Look for these files in the working directory or subdirectories:

From startup-design:

• 00-intake/brief.md — product description and context
• 01-discovery/market-analysis.md — market size, TAM/SAM/SOM
• 01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md — competitor profiles
• 01-discovery/target-audience.md — customer personas, pain points
• 02-strategy/lean-canvas.md — business model summary
• 02-strategy/positioning.md — positioning framework
• 05-financial/revenue-model.md — revenue projections
• 06-validation/scorecard.md — idea scorecard

From startup-competitors:

• competitors-report.md — competitive landscape
• battle-cards/ — per-competitor profiles
• pricing-landscape.md — pricing analysis

From startup-positioning:

• positioning-doc.md — positioning document
• positioning-statement.md — positioning statements, elevator pitch
• competitive-alternatives.md — alternatives map
• messaging-implications.md — messaging hierarchy

If these files exist, read them and extract the pitch building blocks: product description, problem/solution, traction, team, market size, business model, positioning, competitive landscape. Tell the user: "I found data from a previous session. I'll use it to build your pitch."

Skip redundant intake questions. Go straight to pitch-specific questions if prior data is sufficient.

What to Ask (if no prior data exists)

Round 1 — The essentials (all required for a pitch):

• What does your company do? (2 sentences max — this becomes the opening)
• What problem are you solving and for whom?
• What's your unique insight? (What do you know that others don't?)
• What traction do you have? (users, revenue, growth rate — with timeframes). If none: say so honestly, we'll build the pitch around insight and team instead.
• What's your business model? (one sentence — how do you make money?)
• Who's on the team? (names, roles, key accomplishments — not titles)
• How much are you raising and what will you do with it?

Round 2 — Sharpening (only if needed):

• What's your market size? (or enough data to calculate it)
• Who are your main competitors? What's your advantage?
• What milestones will you hit in 18-24 months with this funding?

Pitch-specific questions:

• Who is the audience? (VCs, angels, accelerator, demo day, specific fund?)
• What formats do you need? (10-min narrative, 2-min verbal, email pitch, all of them?)

Don't over-interview. A founder with clear answers to Round 1 has enough to build a strong pitch.

The 2-Sentence Test

Before moving to research, crystallize the company description into exactly 2 sentences + one specific example. This is the foundation of the entire pitch.

Test: send it to a smart friend — could they paraphrase it back correctly? If not, simplify further.

Anti-pattern: "We leverage AI-powered machine learning to optimize cross-functional synergies in the B2B SaaS vertical."

Better: "We help sales teams find which leads will actually buy. Our tool analyzes email replies and tells reps exactly who to call next — last month one customer closed 40% more deals."

Output

Save to {project-name}/intake.md — consolidated context for pitch construction. Project name: kebab-case (e.g., ai-sales-assistant).

Create {project-name}/PROGRESS.md with: project name, skill name (startup-pitch), start date, language, requested formats, target audience, research mode (Live / Knowledge-Based), and a phase checklist. Update it after each phase completes.

---

Phase 1.5: Research Depth Assessment

After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user.

Reference: Read references/research-scaling.md for the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template.

Process

1. Score three factors from the intake: market breadth (1-3), known competitors (1-3), geographic scope (1-3) 2. Sum the scores (range 3-9) and map to a tier: Light (3-4), Standard (5-7), Deep (8-9) 3. Present the Research Depth table to the user (see research-scaling.md for the exact template) 4. Wait for user response: light, deep, or ok to accept the recommendation 5. Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md

The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See research-scaling.md for exact wave configurations per tier.

---

Phase 2: Research

Two sequential research waves exploring investor audience and competitive/market framing — agents within a wave run in parallel, and Wave 2 builds on Wave 1's findings. Together they provide the raw material for a pitch that resonates with the target audience.

Environment Detection

Check if the Agent tool is available:

• Agent tool available (Claude Code): Spawn all agents within each wave in parallel. This is faster.
• Agent tool NOT available (Claude.ai, web): Execute research sequentially, following the same templates. Same depth, just slower.

Web Search

If WebSearch is unavailable, fall back to Knowledge-Based Mode: use training data, mark findings with [Knowledge-Based — verify independently], and reduce confidence ratings by one level. Note the mode in PROGRESS.md.

Reference: Read references/research-principles.md before starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross-referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps.

Wave 1: Audience & Narrative Intelligence

Reference: Read references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md for agent templates.

Two agents (or two sequential blocks):

A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence — Research the target audience (VC firms, angels, accelerators). What are they investing in? What thesis do they follow? What metrics matter at this stage? What are red flags for them? What's the current fundraising climate in this space? Build an audience profile that shapes how the pitch is framed.

A2: Comparable & Narrative Research — Find comparable companies that pitched successfully in this space. What story did they tell? What analogies worked? What "X for Y" framing resonated? What market trends can the pitch ride? Find the narrative hooks — the facts, trends, or insights that make investors lean forward.

Complete Wave 1 before starting Wave 2. Pass key findings (audience expectations, comparable narratives) as context.

Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now

Reference: Read references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md for agent templates.

Two agents (or two sequential blocks):

B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch — How competitors position themselves to investors. What narratives have worked for funded competitors? Where are the gaps in their stories that this pitch can exploit? What objections will investors raise based on the competitive landscape? Build a "pitch-aware" competitive frame.

B2: Why Now & Market Timing — Research the timing thesis. What technology shift, behavioral change, or regulatory move makes this the right moment? Find data to support the "why now" — trend charts, adoption curves, policy changes. Assess whether the timing narrative is genuinely strong or forced.

---

Post-Research Checkpoint

After both waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: the investor audience profile, the strongest narrative hooks, the competitive framing angle, and the "why now" thesis. Ask: "Does this align with your pitch vision? Anything to adjust before I build the pitch?"

Keep it to one message — this is a quick alignment check, not a full report.

---

Phase 3: Pitch Construction

Reference: Read references/pitch-frameworks.md for the complete framework, including the integration matrix.

Reference: Read references/research-synthesis.md for synthesis protocol and output templates.

Build the pitch using the integrated framework. The construction combines a problem-solution-insight foundation with a structured 7-element approach — see the integration matrix in pitch-frameworks.md for how they connect.

A pitch is an argument with a story arc, not a list of facts in a fixed order. The hard part is judgment: which element leads, what the one non-obvious insight is, and how the pieces build tension toward the ask. Before drafting, think hard about what's genuinely most impressive about this company and what an investor needs to believe at each step to reach "yes." If the model supports extended thinking, spend it here — the ordering and the insight are what separate a memorable pitch from a competent one.

The Foundation: Problem → Solution → Insight

Every pitch must communicate three things clearly: 1. Problem — The initial conditions. What's broken? Who suffers? 2. Solution — The experiment. What are you building to fix it? 3. Insight — Why this will work. What non-obvious truth powers this?

The insight is what separates a pitch from a product description. Without it, you're just another company doing X.

The 8 Elements (Pitch Order)

The pitch is constructed using these elements, but the ORDER depends on what's most impressive about the company:

1. What You Do — 2 sentences + specific example. Impossible to misunderstand. 2. [Lead with strength] — Whatever is most impressive goes here: traction, team, insight, or market. 3. Traction — Metrics WITH timeframes. "0 to 1,000 users in 8 weeks" not "1,000 users." 4. Unique Insight — What do you know that others don't? 5. Business Model — One clear model. Not a menu of options. 6. Market Size — Bottom-up math. "50,000 customers × $50K ACV = $2.5B" not "$50B TAM." 7. Team — Specific accomplishments, not titles. 8. The Ask — Amount + milestones + timeframe.

Pitch Ordering Logic

Determine the lead element based on founder strengths:

• Strong traction? → Lead with traction right after "What You Do"
• Impressive team? → Lead with team credentials
• Breakthrough insight? → Lead with the insight that creates an "aha" moment
• Huge market? → Lead with market opportunity

The default order for pre-traction companies: What You Do → Insight → Problem → Solution → Market → Business Model → Team → Ask.

Construction Rules

• No jargon. If the user's pitch contains industry jargon, flag it and provide plain-language alternatives.
• Specific > generic. Replace every vague claim with a specific fact, number, or example.
• Show, don't tell. For the Solution section: describe what a user SEES and DOES — the concrete experience, not abstract features. "The rep opens the dashboard, sees 3 leads highlighted in green with a confidence score. They click one, see the email thread summary, and call. 30 seconds from login to action." This is far more powerful than "Our AI-powered platform surfaces high-intent leads."
• Test the 2-sentence description. If someone hearing it for the first time couldn't explain it back, simplify.

⏸ PAUSE — User Review

Present the pitch narrative structure to the user before generating final deliverables. Show: the opening (2 sentences + example), the ordering rationale, and the key narrative arc. Ask: "Does this story feel right? Is the ordering correct? Anything that's missing or should change?"

Output Files

Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: # {Title}: {product} followed by *Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*. Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections.

Generate all requested formats. If the user didn't specify, generate all of them.

`{project-name}/pitch-full.md` — Full pitch narrative (~10 minutes):

• Opening (2 sentences + example)
• Complete narrative following the ordered elements
• Speaker notes for each section (what to emphasize, where to pause, where to invite conversation)
• Transition sentences between sections
• Closing and ask

`{project-name}/pitch-5min.md` — Compressed narrative (~5 minutes):

• All 8 elements, trimmed to core claim + one supporting proof point
• Speaker notes focused on pacing

`{project-name}/pitch-2min.md` — Verbal pitch (~2 minutes, ~300 words):

• Word-for-word script
• The 2-sentence opener + strongest proof point + insight + ask
• Delivery notes (pace, emphasis, pauses)

`{project-name}/pitch-1min.md` — Elevator pitch (~1 minute, ~150 words):

• Two versions: formal (investor event) and casual (networking)
• What You Do + Insight + Ask only

`{project-name}/pitch-email.md` — Investor cold email (~500 words):

• Subject line candidates (3 options)
• Email body: hook → what you do → traction/insight → why now → ask → close
• Follow-up email template
• Personalization notes per investor type

`{project-name}/pitch-appendix.md` — Q&A preparation:

• Top 10 likely investor questions with prepared answers
• Objection handling (competitive threats, market risks, team gaps)
• Known weaknesses with honest answers and mitigation plans
• Financial and competitive backup (if available from prior sessions)

`{project-name}/pitch-deck-outline.md` — Slide-by-slide deck structure (10-12 slides):

• Derived from pitch-full.md: same narrative order, translated into slides — don't invent new content here
• For each slide: a headline that states the takeaway ("A $47B market growing 23% annually", never a label like "Market Size"), 3-5 body bullets under 30 words total, a visual suggestion (chart, diagram, screenshot), and speaker notes drawn from the corresponding narrative section
• One idea per slide; the headlines alone, read in sequence, must pitch the company
• The final slide carries the ask

Raw Data

Each agent saves its raw output to {project-name}/raw/. Agents must NOT write directly to deliverable paths — raw and synthesized output are separate.

Raw research files:

• investor-audience.md
• comparable-narratives.md
• competitive-framing.md
• why-now-timing.md

---

Phase 3.5: Pitch Verification

After all pitch deliverables are written, before scoring and review, run a verification pass.

Reference: Read references/verification-agent.md for the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks.

Process

1. Spawn agent V1: Verification — it reads all deliverable files and checks for: unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, missing data gaps, missing flags, stale data, and duplicate-source false corroboration 2. V1 also runs startup-pitch-specific checks: pitch claims vs. source data, cross-format consistency, pitch vs. appendix alignment, honesty checks (traction without timeframes, top-down TAM, titles without accomplishments) 3. V1 produces {project-name}/verification-report.md 4. If Critical issues found: Pause and present issues to the user. Ask: fix first, or proceed as-is? 5. If only Warnings/Info: Show one-line summary and continue to review phase

In Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol.

---

Phase 4: Review & Practice

After generating the pitch deliverables, review quality and optionally practice with investor roleplay.

Step 1: Pitch Scoring Rubric

Review the completed pitch against each dimension. Score honestly — a high score on a weak pitch is useless in front of real investors.

Save to {project-name}/pitch-scorecard.md:

Verdict:

• 65-80: Investor-ready. Go pitch.
• 50-64: Investor-ready with caveats. Address the weak dimensions first.
• 35-49: Needs work. Iterate on the weakest areas before pitching.
• Below 35: Major gaps. Consider running startup-design first to strengthen the foundation.

For each dimension scoring below 7: explain what's weak and suggest a specific fix.

Step 2: Iteration Loop

Present the scorecard to the user. For each dimension that scored below 7: 1. Explain the weakness 2. Ask: "How do we fix this? Do you have more data, or should we reframe?" 3. Iterate on the relevant pitch sections 4. Re-score after changes

Step 3: Investor Roleplay (Optional)

After the scorecard review, offer practice: "Would you like to practice the pitch? I can play an investor and give you feedback."

If the user accepts:

Choose an investor persona:

• Angel Investor — Technical, focused on founders + idea. Asks "why you?" and probes domain expertise. Friendly but direct.
• Seed VC — Traction-obsessed, looking for product-market fit signals. Asks about metrics, retention, growth rate. Wants to see momentum.
• Series A VC — Scalability + market size obsessed. Asks about unit economics, competitive moats, expansion path. Thinking about the next round already.
• Accelerator Partner — Looking for coachability + speed of execution. Asks about what you've learned, how fast you ship, what you'd do with mentorship.

Roleplay flow: 1. The user delivers their pitch (any format) 2. Stay in character as the chosen investor persona 3. Ask 3-5 questions that this type of investor would ask — drawn from the appendix but adapted to the persona 4. Push back on weak points — investors do this, and the founder needs practice handling it 5. After the Q&A, break character and provide feedback:

• What landed well
• Where the investor would have tuned out
• Which answers were strong vs. unconvincing
• Specific suggestions for improvement

Multiple rounds: The user can practice multiple times with different personas. Each round surfaces different weaknesses.

Step 4: Delivery Tips

Include practical delivery advice in the scorecard file:

• The 60-second rule: You earn each additional minute. If the first 60 seconds aren't compelling, the rest doesn't matter.
• Invite conversation. Pause after the insight. If an investor starts talking, let them — they're selling themselves.
• Own the numbers. If asked about a metric, know the exact figure and how you calculated it.
• Handle "I don't know" well. "I don't know, but here's how I'd find out" beats a fabricated answer.
• Practice the 2-sentence opener until it's effortless. This is the single most important part of the pitch.

Update PROGRESS.md — mark all phases complete.

---

Honesty Protocol

Reference: Read references/honesty-protocol.md for full protocol and anti-pattern details.

A pitch that overpromises destroys founder credibility. Core rules apply (label claims, quantify, declare gaps), plus pitch-specific additions:

1. No inflated metrics. If traction is weak, the pitch should acknowledge it and pivot to insight, team, or speed of execution. Fabricated traction will surface in due diligence and kill the deal. 2. Honest market sizing. Bottom-up math only. Top-down TAM without justification is a red flag to investors — they've seen it thousands of times. 3. Real team credentials. Specific, verifiable accomplishments. "Built X that did Y" — not vague titles or puffed-up bios. 4. Flag pitch weaknesses. Every pitch has gaps. Identifying them proactively (and having a plan to address them) is stronger than pretending they don't exist. 5. Label claims. Use [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], [Opinion] tags in supporting materials.

---

Reference Files

Read only what you need for the current phase.

Radical Honesty Protocol

This skill exists to help founders build pitches that survive investor scrutiny — not to craft beautiful fiction. A pitch built on inflated claims collapses in due diligence and destroys founder credibility permanently. These principles are non-negotiable.

Tell the truth, even when it weakens the pitch

• If traction is weak, say so. Don't dress up vanity metrics as real traction. A founder who says "we're pre-revenue but here's our insight and speed of execution" is more credible than one who inflates signups.
• If the market is small, own it. "Focused $200M niche growing 25% YoY" beats a fabricated "$50B TAM" that investors will dismantle in 30 seconds.
• If the team has gaps, acknowledge them. "We need a CTO — here's our plan to recruit one" shows self-awareness. Pretending doesn't.
• If the founder's claims contradict research, flag it: "Your pitch says X, but the data shows Y. Let's address this before an investor does."

Separate facts from opinions

• Label every major claim with its basis:
• [Data] — sourced finding with citation
• [Estimate] — calculated projection with stated assumptions
• [Assumption] — unverified belief that needs testing
• [Opinion] — your analytical judgment
• In the pitch itself, claims should be presented confidently — but in the appendix and speaker notes, every number should trace to its source.
• Never present estimates as facts in the pitch appendix.

Surface flags proactively

In every output file, include a Flags section at the end:

• Red Flags — Issues that could derail the pitch or due diligence.
• Yellow Flags — Concerns investors might raise that need prepared answers.

If there are no flags, write "No flags identified" — don't skip the section.

Pitch-Specific Honesty Rules

1. No inflated metrics. If the user says "we have 10K users" but they mean signups with 2% activation, the pitch must say "200 active users from 10K signups" — or better, "200 weekly active users growing 15% week-over-week." Investors know the difference.

2. Honest market sizing. Only bottom-up math. "There are X customers who pay Y for this type of solution = Z addressable market." Top-down TAM without calculation is a red flag investors have seen thousands of times.

3. Real team credentials. Specific, verifiable accomplishments. "Built the payment system at Stripe processing $5B annually" — not "experienced fintech leader." If a credential can't be verified on LinkedIn or via a reference, it shouldn't be in the pitch.

4. Flag pitch weaknesses. Every company has them. Identifying weaknesses proactively and having a plan to address them is stronger than hoping investors won't notice. Include a "known weaknesses" section in the appendix.

5. No fabricated social proof. Don't write placeholder testimonials or fake logos. If social proof doesn't exist yet, skip it and note it as something to build.

6. Challenge "we have no competition." Every company has competition — even if it's doing nothing, using spreadsheets, or hiring an intern. The pitch should address alternatives honestly.

Pitch Anti-Patterns

Ground rules

• Ground in evidence. Every pitch claim should trace to real data or honest estimates.
• Make it investable. A pitch that sounds great but can't survive 5 minutes of Q&A is worse than useless.
• No fabrication. Missing data? Say so and explain how you'll find it.
• Respect the founder's credibility. Their reputation lasts longer than any single fundraise.

Pitch Frameworks

The complete framework combining a structured pitch approach with idea communication principles.

---

Foundation: Idea Communication

A startup idea is a hypothesis for why your company is going to grow really quickly. That hypothesis has three parts:

1. The Problem (Initial Conditions)

What is the setting that allows this company to grow? The problem defines the environment. A great problem section:

• Describes a real, specific pain that real people have today
• Shows the consequences of the problem (cost, time, frustration, risk)
• Makes the audience think "yes, I've seen that" or "wow, I didn't realize that"
• Avoids abstract, vague problem statements

2. The Solution (The Experiment)

What are you building to fix it? The solution is the experiment you're running within those conditions. A great solution:

• Directly addresses the problem (no logical leaps)
• Is describable in one sentence
• Feels inevitable once you understand the problem
• Shows, doesn't just tell (describe the concrete user experience)

3. The Insight (Why This Will Work)

Your explanation for why the thing you're trying is going to succeed. This is what separates a pitch from a product description. A great insight:

• Is non-obvious — something most people don't realize
• Comes from deep domain expertise, customer discovery, or technical breakthrough
• Creates an "aha moment" for the listener
• Is specific, not generic ("AI will change everything" is not an insight)

Communication Principles

Legibility: Can someone who knows nothing about your business understand the idea? Half of startup applications fail because the idea isn't communicated clearly.

Simplicity: One idea, clearly stated. Remove everything that doesn't directly support understanding.

Obviousness: After hearing the pitch, the listener should think "of course — why didn't someone do this before?" If they're confused, the pitch needs work.

The "X for Y" Format

When appropriate, frame the idea as "X for Y" where:

• X is a well-known company or concept
• Y is the target market or context

When it works: "Airbnb for office space" — instantly clear, the analogy does the heavy lifting. When it fails: "Uber for dog walking" — if the analogy creates wrong expectations or doesn't clarify.

Rules:

• Only use if X is widely known to YOUR specific audience
• The analogy should clarify, not confuse
• It should open doors to understanding, not close them by boxing you in
• Have the full pitch ready — "X for Y" is a hook, not a replacement for substance

---

Integration Matrix

The problem-solution-insight foundation and the 7-element structure are complementary, not competing. The foundation defines the SOUL (what makes an idea communicable), the structure defines the SKELETON (how to order the pitch for maximum impact). Here's how they map:

FOUNDATION                     STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS            WHERE IT GOES
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Problem (initial conditions)  → What You Do (2-sentence intro)   Always first
                              → Problem (explicit element)       After intro or after lead

Solution (the experiment)     → Solution (explicit element)      Paired with problem
                              → [Demo moment — show, not tell]   Inside solution section

Insight (why this will work)  → Unique Insight (element 4)       Movable — can lead
                              → [Threads through entire pitch]   Implicit everywhere
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
STRUCTURE-ONLY ELEMENTS:      → Traction                         Lead if strong
                              → Business Model                   After solution
                              → Market Size                      After business model
                              → Why Now (optional)               Before team, if strong
                              → Team                             Near the end
                              → The Ask                          Always last

Key principle: Problem-Solution-Insight is the SOUL of the pitch. The 7 elements are the SKELETON. The soul must be present in every bone. The insight doesn't just appear in element 4 — it should thread through the entire narrative: why the problem matters (insight about the market), why the solution works (insight about the approach), why the team is right (insight about what's needed).

---

The 8 Elements

Element 1: What You Do

The foundation. Two sentences that anyone could understand.

The Test: Could someone who's never heard of your company, after hearing these two sentences, explain what you do to someone else?

Structure:

• Sentence 1: What the company does
• Sentence 2: How it works or who it's for
• + One specific example that makes it concrete and impossible to misunderstand

Example: "We let people rent out their homes to travelers. During the inauguration, a waiter in DC rented his apartment for $700 a night."

Rules:

• No jargon. No acronyms. No marketing language.
• Make it sound dumber than you think it should.
• If you need more than 2 sentences, you don't understand your own product well enough.

Element 2: Lead With Strength

You earn each additional minute of investor attention. After explaining what you do, put the most impressive thing NEXT.

Decision tree:

• Significant traction (revenue, users, growth rate)? → Lead with traction
• Famous/accomplished team? → Lead with team
• Breakthrough insight or technology? → Lead with insight
• Massive, growing market? → Lead with market
• None of the above? → Lead with the problem severity + insight

Element 3: Traction

Investors fund momentum, not absolute numbers. The key is timeframes.

Bad: "We have 1,000 users" Good: "We went from 0 to 1,000 users in 8 weeks, growing 15% week-over-week"

What counts as traction by stage:

• Pre-launch: customer interviews, waitlist, LOIs, pilot agreements
• Early: active users, retention, engagement metrics
• Growing: revenue, growth rate, unit economics
• Scaling: MRR/ARR, NRR, CAC/LTV ratios

Critical: Omit this section entirely rather than include weak metrics that damage credibility. "We haven't launched yet — here's our plan" is better than "we have 50 signups and 3% activation."

Element 4: Unique Insight

The non-obvious knowledge that powers this company. Sources:

• Domain expertise: "After 10 years in logistics, I discovered that..."
• Customer discovery: "We interviewed 200 SMBs and found that..."
• Technical breakthrough: "We figured out how to do X at 1/10th the cost because..."
• Market observation: "Everyone assumes X, but actually Y because..."

Test: Would a smart person who's never worked in this space be surprised to learn this? If yes, it's an insight. If they'd say "obviously," it's not.

Element 5: Business Model

One clear model. Not a menu.

Bad: "We'll monetize through subscriptions, advertising, data licensing, and marketplace fees" Good: "SaaS subscription at $49/seat/month, targeting teams of 10-50"

Keep it to one sentence. Investors know that business models evolve — they want to see clarity of thinking, not comprehensiveness.

Element 6: Market Size

Bottom-up math, not top-down claims.

Bad: "The global CRM market is $50 billion" (so what?) Good: "There are 500,000 real estate agencies in the US. At $500/month per agency, that's a $3B addressable market. We're targeting the 50,000 agencies with 5-20 agents first — a $300M initial market."

Structure:

• Number of potential customers (with source)
• × Price they'd pay (with justification)
• = Addressable market
• Initial target segment (the beachhead)
• Expansion path (how you grow from there)

Element 7: Team

Specific accomplishments, not titles or years of experience.

Bad: "VP Engineering at a Fortune 500 company for 8 years" Good: "Built the payment infrastructure at Stripe that processes $5B annually"

What to include:

• Names and roles
• Most impressive specific accomplishment per person
• Relevant domain expertise (why YOU for this problem)
• How long founders have worked together
• Commitment level (full-time? equity split?)

If the team has gaps: Acknowledge them. "We're looking for a CTO with ML expertise. We've started recruiting through [specific channels]."

Element 8: Why Now (Optional but Recommended)

The timing thesis. What technology shift, behavioral change, or regulatory move makes this the right moment?

When to include: If the timing narrative is genuinely strong — a real trend or inflection point that makes the solution more viable NOW than 2 years ago.

When to skip: If there's no compelling timing story. A forced "why now" is worse than none — investors see through it. In that case, fold any timing context into the Problem or Insight sections.

Structure:

• What changed (technology, regulation, behavior)
• When it changed (specific timeframe)
• Why it matters for this company

Bad: "AI is changing everything" (generic, not specific to your company) Good: "GPT-4 made it possible to analyze legal documents at 1/100th the cost. Before March 2023, this product couldn't exist at our price point."

Element 9: The Ask

Direct and specific. Three pieces of information:

1. Amount: "We're raising $1.5M" 2. Milestones: "To reach $100K MRR and 500 enterprise customers" 3. Timeframe: "In 18 months"

Why directness matters: Investors fall into three groups: those who'll never fund you (no), those who'll definitely fund you (yes), and those who MIGHT fund you if directly asked. Category 3 is your biggest opportunity.

---

Pitch Structure Templates

Pre-Traction Pitch (default order)

1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) 2. Problem (severity + consequences) 3. Unique Insight (the "aha") 4. Solution (how it works) 5. Market Size (bottom-up math) 6. Business Model (one sentence) 7. Why Now (if strong — otherwise fold into Problem or skip) 8. Team (accomplishments) 9. The Ask (amount + milestones + timeframe)

Traction-Led Pitch

1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) 2. Traction (metrics + timeframes) 3. Problem (what you discovered) 4. Solution + Insight (how it works + why) 5. Market Size 6. Business Model 7. Why Now (if strong) 8. Team 9. The Ask

Team-Led Pitch

1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) 2. Team (why we're uniquely qualified) 3. Unique Insight (what we discovered) 4. Problem + Solution 5. Traction (if any) 6. Market Size 7. Business Model 8. Why Now (if strong) 9. The Ask

Insight-Led Pitch

1. What You Do (2 sentences + example) 2. Unique Insight (the "aha moment") 3. Problem (reframed through the insight) 4. Solution (the inevitable response) 5. Traction (validation of the insight) 6. Market Size 7. Business Model + Team 8. Why Now (if strong) 9. The Ask

---

Delivery Principles

The 60-Second Rule

You earn each additional two minutes of investor attention. Lead with whatever is most impressive. Don't save the best for last — the meeting might end before you get there.

Make Investors Talk

The more the investor talks, the more likely they are to invest. Investors convince themselves through their own thoughts and connections. Practical approach:

• Start with the most compelling points
• Watch for reactions
• When genuine interest emerges, pause and let them ask
• Aim for the investor to talk at least 50% of the time

Practice the Opener

The 2-sentence description is the single most important part of the pitch. Practice it until it's effortless and natural — not rehearsed-sounding.

Research Principles

These principles apply to ALL research agents. Every agent must follow them.

Iterative Deep Research

Each agent performs 5-8 web searches minimum, organized in sequential rounds that drill deeper:

• Round 1: Broad overview queries
• Round 2: Drill-down into specific findings from Round 1
• Round 3: Cross-reference and validate
• Round 4: Reality check and edge cases

Do NOT stop after a single query. The first search gives you the surface — the follow-ups give you the insight.

Source Quality Tiers

Rank every finding by source reliability:

For pitch research, Tier 2 and Tier 3 sources are especially valuable — investor blog posts, demo day recaps, and founder stories reveal what narratives resonate and what language investors respond to.

Pitch-Specific Search Strategies

When researching investor preferences:

• Search for "{investor/fund name} portfolio", "{fund} thesis", "{investor} blog pitch advice"
• Look for demo day recaps and pitch competition results in the relevant space

When researching comparable narratives:

• Search for "{competitor} pitch deck", "{similar company} fundraise", "{space} demo day"
• Look for "X for Y" analogies that have worked for similar companies

Cross-Referencing

Never trust a single source for important claims. For every key finding:

• Look for 2-3 independent sources
• If sources agree: note convergence and cite all
• If sources disagree: note both, explain the discrepancy, and state which you trust more and why

Quantification

Vague claims are worthless — and investors see through them instantly:

• Bad: "They raised a big round"
• Good: "$15M Series A led by a16z in March 2025, $3M seed in 2023"
• Bad: "The market is growing"
• Good: "$4.2B in 2025, projected to reach $8.1B by 2028 at 12.3% CAGR (source: Grand View Research)"

Dating

Always note when data was published. Flag anything older than 12 months as potentially outdated. Fundraising landscapes shift fast — a market correction or new competitor can change everything in weeks.

Handling Research Failures

Sometimes WebSearch won't find what you need:

1. Try alternative queries. Rephrase, use synonyms, try different angles. At least 3 variations before declaring a gap. 2. Use proxy data. If you can't find a company's exact metrics, estimate from team size, funding, pricing × estimated customers. Show your math. 3. Declare the gap explicitly. Write: "DATA GAP: Could not find reliable data on [X]. Closest proxy: [Y]. Confidence: Low." 4. Never fabricate. An honest "unknown" is infinitely more valuable than a made-up number. 5. Suggest how to fill the gap. Recommend specific research the founder can do to fill the gap before the pitch.

Research Scaling Protocol

Dynamic scaling adjusts research depth based on market complexity and user preference. Evaluated after intake, before research begins.

Complexity Score

Assess three factors from the intake data:

Complexity score = sum of the three factors (range: 3-9)

Research Depth Tiers

Manual override always wins. If the user requests "light" on a score-9 market, use Light. If they request "deep" on a score-3 market, use Deep.

User Communication

After calculating the score, show this to the user:

## Research Depth

Based on your intake, I've assessed the research complexity:

| Factor           | Assessment          | Score |
|------------------|---------------------|-------|
| Market breadth   | {description}       | {1-3} |
| Known competitors| {N} identified      | {1-3} |
| Geographic scope | {description}       | {1-3} |

**Complexity score: {X}/9 — recommended depth: {Light/Standard/Deep}**

You can override this. Here's what each depth means:

| Depth        | Agents | Searches per agent | Best for                                      |
|--------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| **Light**    | {N}    | 2-3 rounds         | Quick scan, niche markets, time-sensitive decisions |
| **Standard** | {N}    | 3-4 rounds         | Most cases, balanced depth vs. speed           |
| **Deep**     | {N}    | 5-6 rounds         | Crowded markets, high-stakes decisions, thorough due diligence |

→ Type **light**, **deep**, or **ok** to accept the recommendation.

The agent counts shown should reflect the actual numbers for this skill (see Wave Configuration below).

Wave Configuration: startup-pitch

Light (3-4 score or user override)

Wave 1 (1 wave, 2 agents)

• A1: Audience, Narrative & Competitive Framing (merge A1+A2+B1 into one agent)
• A2: Why Now & Timing (B2, unchanged scope)

Merge both waves into a single wave since there's no dependency between them at this scale.

Total: 2 agents (vs. 4 Standard), 2-3 search rounds per agent

Standard (5-7 score, default)

No changes to current wave structure:

• Wave 1: 2 agents (A1, A2)
• Wave 2: 2 agents (B1, B2)

Total: 4 agents, 3-4 search rounds per agent

Deep (8-9 score or user override)

Wave 1: Audience & Narrative (3 agents)

• A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence (unchanged)
• A2: Comparable & Narrative Research (unchanged)
• A3: Pitch Benchmark Analysis (NEW: research how similar startups in this space pitched, what decks worked, what narratives raised money, typical round sizes and valuations)

Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now (2 agents)

• B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch (unchanged)
• B2: Why Now & Market Timing (unchanged)

Total: 5 agents, 5-6 search rounds per agent

PROGRESS.md

Record the selected tier in PROGRESS.md:

- **Research Depth:** {Light/Standard/Deep} (score: {X}/9, {override: user request / auto})

Pitch Research Synthesis Protocol

Contents: Before Writing · Cross-Source Connections to Look For · Confidence Rating · Pitch Construction Process · Output File Templates (pitch-full, pitch-5min, pitch-2min, pitch-1min, pitch-email, pitch-appendix, pitch-deck-outline, pitch-scorecard) · Post-Synthesis Verification

Before Writing

1. Read ALL raw files in {project-name}/raw/ before writing anything 2. Read ALL prior session files (from startup-design, startup-competitors, startup-positioning) if they exist 3. Identify the strongest pitch elements — what's most impressive about this company? 4. Determine the optimal pitch order based on strengths 5. Check if the pitch was built with or without validated research data — this affects the scorecard

Cross-Source Connections to Look For

These are pitch-specific patterns that emerge when you combine research with founder data:

• Strong traction + weak insight = lead with traction — the numbers speak for themselves
• Weak traction + strong insight = lead with insight — reframe the conversation around the thesis
• Strong team + emerging market = lead with team — investors bet on people in uncertain markets
• Large market + clear model = lead with opportunity — the math is compelling
• Comparable success story + similar approach = use the analogy — investors love pattern-matching
• Investor fatigue in space + unique angle = differentiate the narrative — show you're different
• Strong "why now" + weak traction = lead with timing — the wave is more impressive than the surfer
• Competitive gaps + unique attributes = frame against competitors — show the opening

Confidence Rating

Apply to every major claim in the pitch materials:

• High: Multiple sources agree, data is recent, verifiable
• Medium: Some evidence but gaps, or data partially disagree
• Low: Limited data, mostly inferred, or data older than 12 months

In the pitch itself, only use High and Medium confidence claims. Low confidence items go in the appendix as "areas to strengthen."

---

Pitch Construction Process

Step 1: Identify Pitch DNA

Before writing anything, answer these questions:

1. What's the single most impressive thing about this company? (This determines pitch order) 2. What's the 2-sentence description? (This is non-negotiable — must be crystal clear) 3. What's the unique insight? (This separates a pitch from a product description) 4. What's the "why now"? (Timing thesis — what makes this moment right) 5. What's the biggest weakness? (Must have a prepared answer)

Step 2: Assemble the Building Blocks

Map available data to the 8 pitch elements:

Strength ratings: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing

Data Foundation Check: Note whether each element is backed by validated research (from prior startup skills) or self-reported data (from intake only). This affects the scorecard in Phase 4.

Step 3: Determine Pitch Order

Based on element strengths, select the template from pitch-frameworks.md:

• Strongest element is Traction → Traction-Led
• Strongest element is Team → Team-Led
• Strongest element is Insight → Insight-Led
• No clear standout → Pre-Traction (default)

Step 4: Write the Narrative

Construct the pitch as a continuous story, not a collection of sections. Each element should flow naturally into the next. The narrative should feel like:

"Here's what we do. [Here's why it's working / Here's what we know / Here's who we are.] Here's the problem we're solving. Here's our solution. Here's how big this can get. Here's how we make money. Here's why we're the team to do it. Here's what we need."

Step 5: Generate All Requested Formats

From the full narrative, derive each format by compression — not by rewriting from scratch. Each shorter format is a subset of the full pitch.

---

Output File Templates

pitch-full.md

# Full Pitch Narrative: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## Pitch DNA
- **Lead element:** {traction/team/insight/market}
- **2-sentence opener:** {the opener}
- **Unique insight:** {one sentence}
- **Why now:** {timing thesis}
- **The ask:** {amount + milestones}
- **Data foundation:** {Validated (prior startup skills) / Self-reported (intake only)}

## Full Narrative (~10 minutes)

### Opening — What We Do
{2 sentences + specific example}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance — pace, emphasis, pauses}
> **Timing:** 0:00 - 0:45

### {Lead Element — varies by pitch type}
{Content}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 0:45 - 2:00

### Problem
{Problem description — severity, consequences, who suffers}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 2:00 - 3:00

### Solution
{How it works — describe the concrete user experience. What does the user SEE and DO? Not abstract features — the specific interaction that solves the problem. If the product exists, describe it as if showing a demo. If pre-launch, describe the intended experience vividly enough that the investor can picture it.}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 3:00 - 4:00

### Traction
{Metrics with timeframes — growth story. If no traction: skip this section, don't fake it.}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 4:00 - 5:00

### Market Size
{Bottom-up calculation — show the math: number of customers × price = addressable market. Beachhead + expansion path.}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 5:00 - 6:00

### Business Model
{One clear model — pricing, unit economics if available}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 6:00 - 6:30

### Why Now
{Timing thesis from Wave 2 research. Technology shift, behavioral change, regulatory move. If timing isn't strong, keep this brief or fold into another section.}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 6:30 - 7:00

### Team
{Accomplishments, not titles. For each person: name, role, most impressive specific result.}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 7:00 - 7:30

### The Ask
{Amount + milestones + timeframe. Be direct and confident.}

> **Speaker notes:** {delivery guidance}
> **Timing:** 7:30 - 8:00

### Close
{Final sentence — memorable, forward-looking. Leave them wanting to talk more.}

## Transition Sentences
{How each section flows into the next — so the pitch feels like a story, not a checklist}

## Red Flags
- {issues investors might raise}

## Yellow Flags
- {concerns to prepare for}

## Sources
- {key data sources used in the pitch}

pitch-5min.md

# Five-Minute Pitch: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## The Narrative (~5 minutes)

{Each element trimmed to its core claim + one supporting proof point. No secondary arguments — just the strongest version of each element.}

### Opening — What We Do (0:00 - 0:30)
{2 sentences + example}

### {Lead Element} (0:30 - 1:15)
{Core claim + proof}

### Problem + Solution (1:15 - 2:30)
{Problem in 2 sentences → solution as concrete experience}

### Market + Business Model (2:30 - 3:30)
{Bottom-up math + one-sentence model}

### Why Now + Team (3:30 - 4:30)
{Timing thesis + team accomplishments}

### The Ask (4:30 - 5:00)
{Amount + milestones + timeframe}

## Speaker Notes
{Pacing guidance — where to breathe, where to let silence work}

## Red Flags
- {concerns}

## Sources
- {key sources}

pitch-2min.md

# Two-Minute Pitch: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## The Script (~300 words)

{Word-for-word script, broken into natural paragraphs. Each paragraph = one element.}

## Delivery Notes
- **Opener pace:** Slow and clear — this is where understanding happens
- **Emphasis points:** {words/phrases to stress}
- **Natural pauses:** {where to breathe and let it sink in}
- **Energy peak:** {which sentence should have the most energy}
- **Close:** Confident, direct, unhurried

## Structure Breakdown
- **0:00 - 0:20:** What we do (2 sentences + example)
- **0:20 - 0:40:** Strongest signal (traction/insight/team)
- **0:40 - 1:00:** Problem + solution
- **1:00 - 1:20:** Market + business model
- **1:20 - 1:40:** Why us + why now
- **1:40 - 2:00:** The ask

## The Email Test
{Paraphrase of the pitch in one paragraph — what someone should be able to repeat after hearing it once}

## Red Flags
- {concerns}

## Sources
- {key sources}

pitch-1min.md

# Elevator Pitch: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## Formal Version (~150 words)
{For investor events, demo days, formal introductions. Structured: What We Do → Insight → Ask.}

## Casual Version (~100 words)
{For networking, dinner parties, hallway conversations. Conversational tone, no pitch structure visible. Sounds like you're telling a friend about your company.}

## When Someone Asks "So What Do You Do?"
{The 2-sentence answer + example that leads to "tell me more"}

## Delivery Notes
- Don't rush. 1 minute is longer than it feels.
- End with a question, not a statement — "Would that be useful for [your company]?" invites conversation.
- Match energy to context. Formal events: crisp, confident. Casual: relaxed, curious.

## Red Flags
- {concerns}

pitch-email.md

# Investor Email Pitch: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## Subject Line Candidates
| Subject Line | Angle | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| "{subject 1}" | {angle} | {investor type} |
| "{subject 2}" | {angle} | {investor type} |
| "{subject 3}" | {angle} | {investor type} |

## Cold Email (~500 words)

{Hook — one sentence that makes them read the next line}

{What we do — 2 sentences + example}

{Traction or insight — the strongest signal, with numbers}

{Why now — one sentence timing thesis}

{The ask — specific and direct}

{Close — easy next step, not "let me know your thoughts"}

## Follow-Up Email (~200 words)

{Shorter, references the first email. Adds one new data point. Clear CTA.}

## Personalization Notes
- **For angel investors:** Lead with the problem and your personal connection to it
- **For VCs:** Lead with traction or market size
- **For accelerators:** Lead with team and speed of execution
- **For strategic partners:** Lead with mutual opportunity

## Red Flags
- {email-specific concerns}

## Sources
- {key sources}

pitch-appendix.md

# Pitch Appendix: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## Top 10 Investor Questions (with Prepared Answers)

### Q1: {Most likely question}
**Short answer:** {2-3 sentences — for verbal delivery}
**Detailed answer:** {full explanation with data — for follow-up emails}
**Source:** {where the data comes from}

[Repeat for Q2-Q10]

## Objection Handling

### "{Objection 1}"
**Why they ask this:** {investor's concern}
**Response:** {how to address it honestly}
**Supporting data:** {evidence}

[Repeat for each common objection]

## Known Weaknesses
{Honest assessment of pitch gaps — with plans to address each. Identifying weaknesses proactively is stronger than hoping investors won't notice.}

## Financial Backup
{Detailed numbers if available from prior sessions. If not: note "Financial projections not yet validated — consider running startup-design for detailed modeling."}

## Competitive Detail
{Deeper competitive analysis for Q&A — from prior sessions if available. If not: note "Competitive landscape not fully mapped — consider running startup-competitors for battle cards."}

## Red Flags
- {appendix-specific concerns}

## Yellow Flags
- {areas needing more data}

## Data Gaps & Limitations
- {what data is missing — every pitch has blind spots, be explicit}

## Sources
- {all data sources used across all deliverables, with tier ratings}

Post-Synthesis Verification

After writing all pitch deliverables (before the scorecard/review phase), run the Verification Agent protocol. See references/verification-agent.md for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-pitch-specific coherence (pitch claims vs. source data, cross-format consistency, pitch vs. appendix alignment, honesty checks).

---

pitch-deck-outline.md

Translate the full narrative into slides — compression and visualization, not new writing. Follow the pitch order already established; a typical investor deck runs 10-12 slides (Title, Problem, Solution, Market, Product, Business Model, Traction, Go-to-Market, Team, Financials, The Ask).

# Pitch Deck Outline: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

**Source narrative:** pitch-full.md — same order, translated to slides.

## Slide 1 — Title
**Headline:** {Company name + one-line description in customer language}
**Visual:** Logo, tagline
**Speaker notes:** {The 2-sentence opener}

## Slide {N} — {Element}
**Headline:** {One takeaway sentence — never a label}
**Body:**
- {3-5 bullets, under 30 words total}
**Visual:** {Chart / diagram / screenshot suggestion}
**Speaker notes:** {What to say, from the corresponding pitch-full.md section}

{...repeat for all slides...}

## Deck Quality Checklist
- [ ] Every headline tells the takeaway (headlines alone, in sequence, pitch the company)
- [ ] One idea per slide
- [ ] Under 30 words per slide body
- [ ] A visual suggested for every slide
- [ ] Speaker notes on every slide
- [ ] The final slide carries a clear ask

## Red Flags
- {...}

## Yellow Flags
- {...}

## Sources
- {source} [Tier N]

pitch-scorecard.md

# Pitch Scorecard: {product}
*Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*

## Data Foundation
**Built with:** {Validated research (startup-design/competitors/positioning) / Self-reported data (intake only)}
{If self-reported: "Note: This pitch was built without validated research data. Scores in Market Sizing, Traction Honesty, and competitive Q&A may improve significantly after running startup-design or startup-competitors."}

## Scoring Rubric

| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Rationale |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| **Clarity** | | {Can someone explain what you do after hearing 2 sentences?} |
| **Strength Sequencing** | | {Is the most impressive element in the first 60 seconds?} |
| **Traction Honesty** | | {Are numbers accurate, timeframed, and real? Or acknowledged as missing?} |
| **Insight Quality** | | {Is the insight genuinely non-obvious and specific?} |
| **Market Sizing** | | {Is the math bottom-up with clear assumptions?} |
| **Business Model** | | {One model, clearly stated?} |
| **Team Credentials** | | {Specific, verifiable accomplishments?} |
| **Ask Clarity** | | {Amount + milestones + timeframe, stated with confidence?} |
| **Overall** | | |

## Verdict
- **65-80:** Investor-ready. Go pitch.
- **50-64:** Investor-ready with caveats. Address the weak dimensions first.
- **35-49:** Needs work. Iterate on the weakest areas before pitching.
- **Below 35:** Major gaps. Consider running startup-design or startup-positioning to strengthen the foundation.

## Weak Dimensions (Score < 7)
For each:
- **Dimension:** {name}
- **What's weak:** {specific problem}
- **How to fix:** {actionable suggestion}
- **Data needed:** {what information would strengthen this}

## Delivery Readiness
- [ ] 2-sentence opener practiced until effortless
- [ ] All numbers memorized (not read from notes)
- [ ] Prepared answers for top 5 investor questions
- [ ] Know the biggest weakness and how to address it
- [ ] Practiced with at least one person (or investor roleplay)

## Red Flags
- {scorecard-specific concerns}

## Yellow Flags
- {areas to watch}

Wave 1: Audience & Narrative Intelligence

Read research-principles.md first.

---

Agent A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence

Research task: Build investor audience profile for {product description} pitch
Context: {product summary from intake}
Target audience: {VC/angels/accelerator/demo day — from intake}
Stage: {pre-seed/seed/Series A — from intake}

RESEARCH PROTOCOL:

ROUND 1 — Fundraising landscape in this space (4-5 searches):
- "{product category} startup funding {current year}"
- "{product category} VC investments {current year}"
- "seed stage {product category} fundraise"
- "{product space} Series A metrics benchmarks"
- "what VCs look for in {product category} startups"

ROUND 2 — Specific audience research (3-4 searches):
If specific investors/funds are named:
- "{fund name} portfolio companies"
- "{fund name} investment thesis"
- "{investor name} blog pitch advice"
- "{fund name} demo day companies"

If no specific audience:
- "best investors {product category} {current year}"
- "{product category} angel investors"
- "{accelerator name} recent batch companies"

ROUND 3 — Stage-appropriate metrics (3-4 searches):
- "seed stage metrics investors expect {current year}"
- "{product category} startup benchmarks Series A"
- "what traction for seed round {product category}"
- "seed round size {product category} {current year}"
- "pre-seed vs seed metrics expectations"

ROUND 4 — Current climate (2-3 searches):
- "fundraising climate {current year} startups"
- "{product category} funding trends {current year}"
- "VC sentiment {product space} {current year}"

OUTPUT FORMAT:

## Investor Audience Profile

### Fundraising Landscape
- Current funding climate in {space}: {bullish/neutral/bearish}
- Recent notable rounds: {examples with amounts}
- Average round size at this stage: {range}
- Key metrics investors expect at this stage:
  - {metric 1}: {benchmark}
  - {metric 2}: {benchmark}
  - {metric 3}: {benchmark}

### Target Investor Profile
- Fund/investor type: {VC/angel/accelerator}
- Typical check size: {range}
- Investment thesis alignment: {how this pitch fits}
- Portfolio overlap: {similar companies they've funded}
- Red flags for this audience: {what turns them off}

### Stage-Appropriate Expectations
- What "good traction" looks like at this stage: {specifics}
- What "great traction" looks like: {specifics}
- Minimum viable metrics to raise: {specifics}
- Common objections at this stage: {list}

### Current Climate Notes
- Fundraising difficulty: {easier/normal/harder than 12 months ago}
- Hot topics investors are interested in: {trends}
- Topics investors are fatigued by: {overhyped areas}

> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]

---

Agent A2: Comparable & Narrative Research

Research task: Find comparable pitch narratives and story hooks for {product description}
Context: {product summary from intake}
Market: {market/category from intake}
Competitors: {known competitors from intake}

RESEARCH PROTOCOL:

ROUND 1 — Comparable companies and their stories (4-5 searches):
- "{competitor 1} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 1} fundraise announcement"
- "{competitor 2} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 2} seed round"
- "{product category} startup pitch deck examples"
- "{product category} demo day pitch"
- "{product category} successful pitch story"

ROUND 2 — Narrative patterns that work (3-4 searches):
- "{product category} for {customer type}" startup analogy
- "X for Y" startup pitch examples {product category}
- "{problem} startup story founder"
- "why I built {product category}" founder story

ROUND 3 — Market narrative and trends (3-4 searches):
- "{product category} market trends {current year}"
- "why now {product category}" timing narrative
- "{product space} tailwinds {current year}"
- "{regulatory/technology/behavioral change} driving {product category}"

ROUND 4 — What doesn't work (2-3 searches):
- "{product category} startup failed pitch" OR "common mistakes {product category} pitch"
- "investor objections {product category}"
- "{product category} startup risk" investors worried about

OUTPUT FORMAT:

## Comparable Narratives

### Successful Pitches in This Space
For each comparable:
- **Company:** {name}
- **What they raised:** {amount, stage, when}
- **Narrative angle:** {how they framed the story}
- **Key hook:** {what made investors lean in}
- **Analogy used:** {if any "X for Y" framing}
- **Source:** {where this info came from}

### Narrative Hooks Available
Rank by strength (strongest first):

1. **{Hook name}** — {description}
   - Why it works: {reasoning}
   - How to use: {specific suggestion}
   - Risk: {potential downside}

2. **{Hook name}** — {description}
   [same structure]

### "X for Y" Candidates
| Analogy | Clarity | Risk | Recommendation |
|---------|---------|------|----------------|
| "{product} is like {X} for {Y}" | High/Med/Low | {what could go wrong} | Use/Avoid |

Only recommend "X for Y" if:
- X is widely known to the target investor audience
- The analogy clarifies more than it confuses
- It doesn't box you into the wrong category

### "Why Now" Narrative
- **Timing thesis:** {what makes this the right moment}
- **Evidence:** {trend data, regulatory change, behavioral shift}
- **Strength:** Strong / Moderate / Weak
- **Risk:** {what could undermine the timing argument}

### What NOT to Do
- Narratives that have been overused: {examples}
- Objections investors will raise: {top 3-5}
- Narrative traps to avoid: {specific to this space}

> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]

Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now

Read research-principles.md first. Use findings from Wave 1 (audience expectations, comparable narratives) to focus the research.

---

Agent B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch

Research task: Build pitch-aware competitive frame for {product description}
Context: {product summary from intake}
Known competitors: {list from intake or prior sessions}
Wave 1 findings: {investor expectations, comparable narratives}

IMPORTANT — PITCH-FOCUSED COMPETITIVE FRAMING:
This is NOT a full competitive analysis (startup-competitors does that).
This is specifically: how do competitors position themselves to investors,
what narratives have worked for them, and where are the gaps this pitch can exploit.

RESEARCH PROTOCOL:

ROUND 1 — Competitor investor positioning (4-5 searches):
- "{competitor 1} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 1} fundraise announcement"
- "{competitor 2} funding round {current year}"
- "{product category} funded startups {current year}"
- "{competitor} investor presentation" OR "{competitor} demo day"
- "why {competitor} raised" OR "{competitor} investor thesis"

ROUND 2 — Competitive narrative gaps (3-4 searches):
- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" investor perspective
- "{product category} startup weaknesses"
- "{competitor} criticism" OR "{competitor} limitations investor"
- "what's missing in {product category}" OR "{product category} underserved"

ROUND 3 — Investor objections about competition (2-3 searches):
- "investor concerns {product category} crowded market"
- "{product category} competitive moat" investor perspective
- "why invest {product category} despite competition"

ROUND 4 — Cross-reference and validate (2-3 searches):
- Verify key claims from rounds 1-3
- Search for contrarian views
- Look for recent changes (new entrants, acquisitions, pivots)

OUTPUT FORMAT:

## Competitive Framing for Pitch

### How Competitors Position to Investors
For each funded competitor:
- **{Competitor}:** Raised {amount} with narrative: "{their story}"
  - What resonated with investors: {specifics}
  - Where their narrative is weak: {gaps}
  - Source: {citation}

### Narrative Gaps to Exploit
Rank by pitch impact (strongest first):

1. **{Gap name}** — {description}
   - Why competitors can't claim this: {reasoning}
   - How to frame it in the pitch: {specific suggestion}
   - Evidence: {data point}

### Likely Investor Objections About Competition
| Objection | Why They'll Ask | Prepared Reframe |
|-----------|----------------|-----------------|
| "{objection}" | {reasoning} | "{how to respond}" |

### Competitive Positioning One-Liner
For the pitch, craft ONE sentence that captures competitive differentiation:
- Candidate 1: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L}
- Candidate 2: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L}
- Recommended: {which and why}

> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning}
> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]

---

Agent B2: Why Now & Market Timing

Research task: Build "why now" timing thesis for {product description}
Context: {product summary from intake}
Market: {market/category from intake}
Wave 1 findings: {trends mentioned in comparable narratives}

IMPORTANT — THE "WHY NOW" QUESTION:
Every investor asks "why now?" — why is this the right moment for this company?
A pitch without a credible timing thesis leaves investors wondering
"why hasn't someone done this already?" or "why will this work NOW vs. 2 years ago?"

RESEARCH PROTOCOL:

ROUND 1 — Technology and market shifts (4-5 searches):
- "{product category} market growth {current year}"
- "{technology enabling this product} adoption rate {current year}"
- "{product category} inflection point" OR "{product space} tipping point"
- "why now {product category}" OR "{product space} momentum {current year}"
- "{enabling technology} cost reduction" OR "{enabling technology} democratization"

ROUND 2 — Behavioral and regulatory changes (3-4 searches):
- "{customer behavior change} driving {product category}"
- "{regulatory change} affecting {product space} {current year}"
- "COVID / remote work / AI impact on {product category}"
- "{product space} buyer behavior shift {current year}"

ROUND 3 — Adoption curves and precedents (2-3 searches):
- "{product category} adoption curve"
- "{comparable market} adoption timeline" (analog from adjacent space)
- "{product category} early adopters vs mainstream"
- "when did {similar product category} take off"

ROUND 4 — Counter-arguments (2-3 searches):
- "why {product category} won't work" OR "{product space} headwinds"
- "{product category} too early" OR "{product space} not ready"
- Skeptical takes on the timing thesis

OUTPUT FORMAT:

## Why Now: Timing Thesis

### Primary Timing Driver
- **What changed:** {specific shift — technology, regulation, behavior}
- **When it changed:** {date or timeframe}
- **Evidence:** {data with source}
- **Impact on this company:** {how it enables or accelerates the pitch}

### Supporting Timing Signals
1. **{Signal}** — {description with data}
   - Source: {citation}
   - Strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak

2. **{Signal}** — {description with data}
   [same structure]

### "Why Now" Narrative for the Pitch
Craft a 2-3 sentence "why now" that can slot into the pitch:
- Version 1 (data-led): "{version}"
- Version 2 (story-led): "{version}"
- Recommended: {which and why}

### Counter-Arguments (Investor Skepticism)
| Skeptical View | Evidence For It | How to Address |
|---------------|-----------------|----------------|
| "{concern}" | {data} | "{response with evidence}" |

### Timing Assessment
- **Is the timing genuinely strong?** Yes / Partially / No
- **Risk of being too early:** {assessment}
- **Risk of being too late:** {assessment}
- **Honest recommendation:** {use the timing thesis / downplay timing / find a different angle}

If the timing isn't genuinely strong, say so. A forced "why now" is worse than none — investors see through it. In that case, recommend leading with a different pitch element instead.

> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning}
> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]

Verification Agent Protocol

After pitch construction completes, spawn a Verification Agent (V1) that audits all deliverables for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. This step catches issues that individual agents and synthesis can miss.

When to Run

• After all pitch deliverables are written (before the scorecard/review phase)
• Uses one agent: V1: Verification

Agent Task

The V1 agent reads ALL deliverable files (not raw files) and checks them against the rules below. It produces a verification-report.md in the project directory.

Universal Checks

These apply to every skill in the startup plugin:

1. Claims Without Source

Every quantitative claim must have a data label: [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]. Flag any number, percentage, or factual assertion without a label.

2. Internal Contradictions

Cross-check numbers and statements across deliverable files. Flag when:

• The same metric appears with different values in two files
• A claim in one file contradicts a claim in another
• Confidence ratings disagree (e.g., "High confidence" in one file, different data in another suggests Medium)

3. Confidence Rating Consistency

Verify that confidence ratings match the evidence:

• A claim with only one Tier 3 source cannot be rated High
• A claim with multiple Tier 1 sources should not be rated Low
• Every major section must have a confidence rating

4. Data Gaps Declared

Every deliverable must have a Data Gaps section. Flag:

• Files missing the Data Gaps section entirely
• Sections where data is clearly thin but no gap is declared
• Gaps mentioned in raw files that didn't make it into the synthesized deliverables

5. Flags Present

Every deliverable must end with Red Flags and Yellow Flags sections. Flag:

• Files missing these sections
• Files with "No flags identified" where the content clearly contains risks

6. Stale Data

Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated.

7. Duplicate Sources

Flag when the same source is used as "independent corroboration" in multiple places. Two claims both citing the same blog post don't have independent verification.

Skill-Specific Checks: startup-pitch

In addition to the universal checks above, verify:

Pitch Claims vs. Source Data

• Every numerical claim in the pitch narratives (traction, market size, revenue, growth rate) must be traceable to either intake data or prior session files
• If the pitch was built on startup-design data, verify that market size numbers match market-analysis.md
• If built on startup-competitors data, verify competitive claims match competitors-report.md
• Flag any number in the pitch that doesn't appear in any source file

Cross-Format Consistency

• The 2-sentence opener must be identical (or a faithful compression) across all pitch formats
• Market size, traction numbers, and the ask must be consistent across pitch-full, pitch-5min, pitch-2min, pitch-1min, and pitch-email
• The unique insight must be the same concept across all formats (phrased differently but same core idea)
• Team credentials must not vary between formats (no inflated version in one, modest in another)

Pitch vs. Appendix Alignment

• Every objection in pitch-appendix.md must have a corresponding answer
• Known weaknesses in the appendix must match the Red/Yellow Flags in pitch files
• Q&A answers must not contradict claims made in the pitch narratives
• If competitive backup references battle cards, verify the competitor names and claims match

Honesty Checks

• Flag any traction claim without a timeframe ("10K users" without "in X months")
• Flag top-down TAM without bottom-up math
• Flag team credentials that are titles without accomplishments
• Flag "no competition" or equivalent claims

Output: verification-report.md

# Verification Report: {project-name}
*Generated: {date}*

## Summary
- **Critical issues:** {count}
- **Warnings:** {count}
- **Info:** {count}

## Critical Issues
Issues that could mislead decision-making. The process pauses here for user review.

### {Issue title}
- **File(s):** {affected files}
- **Section:** {section name}
- **Problem:** {description}
- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve}

## Warnings
Issues that reduce quality but don't block decisions.

### {Issue title}
- **File(s):** {affected files}
- **Problem:** {description}
- **Suggested fix:** {how to resolve}

## Info
Minor improvements and observations.

- {observation}
- {observation}

## Verification Checklist
- [ ] All quantitative claims labeled
- [ ] No internal contradictions found
- [ ] Confidence ratings consistent with evidence
- [ ] Data gaps declared in all deliverables
- [ ] Red/Yellow flags present in all deliverables
- [ ] No stale data unmarked
- [ ] No duplicate-source false corroboration
- [ ] Pitch claims traceable to source data (skill-specific)
- [ ] Cross-format consistency verified (skill-specific)
- [ ] Pitch and appendix aligned (skill-specific)
- [ ] Honesty checks passed (skill-specific)

Flow Control

• If Critical issues > 0: Pause. Show the user: "Verification found {N} critical issues that could affect decision-making." List them. Ask: "Should I fix these before continuing, or proceed as-is?"
• If only Warnings/Info: Show a one-line summary: "Verification complete: {N} warnings, {N} info items. See verification-report.md for details." Continue to scorecard/review phase.