/startup-pitch

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Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated.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