/startup-competitors

Verification Agent Protocol

After synthesis 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 synthesis is complete and all deliverable files are written
• Before presenting the final output to the user
• 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Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated.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-competitors

In addition to the universal checks above, verify:

Battle Card vs. Report Consistency

• Every competitor in the battle cards must appear in the competitors-report.md Key Players table
• Strengths/weaknesses in battle cards must not contradict the competitor profiles in the report
• Threat levels must be consistent between battle cards and the report

Matrix vs. Profiles Alignment

• Every competitor in competitive-matrix.md must have a profile in competitors-report.md
• Feature ratings (Strong/Adequate/Weak/Missing) in the matrix must be supported by evidence in the report or battle cards
• Gap analysis items must connect to actual findings, not assumptions

Pricing Landscape vs. Profiles Consistency

• Pricing data in pricing-landscape.md must match pricing mentioned in battle cards
• Value metrics must be consistent across the pricing landscape and competitor profiles
• Switching cost assessments must align between pricing landscape and battle cards

Cross-Deliverable Coherence

• Strategic opportunities in the report must be supported by evidence from at least two deliverables (e.g., pricing gap + customer complaint)
• Strategic risks must be traceable to specific competitor data
• Moat assessment must reference specific competitors and evidence

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
- [ ] Battle cards consistent with report (skill-specific)
- [ ] Matrix aligned with profiles (skill-specific)
- [ ] Pricing landscape consistent with profiles (skill-specific)
- [ ] Opportunities backed by multi-source evidence (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.