/startup-positioning

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Flag any data point older than 18 months that isn't marked as potentially outdated.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

In addition to the universal checks above, verify:

Positioning Statement vs. Research

• The Moore positioning statement must use the exact best-fit customer profile from positioning-doc.md Component 4
• The category in the statement must match the recommended category from market-category-analysis.md
• The differentiator must map to a verified unique attribute from Component 2
• The Neumeier Onliness Statement must pass: does "only" genuinely hold up given the competitive alternatives in competitive-alternatives.md?

JTBD vs. Customer Intelligence

• Jobs-to-be-done referenced in the positioning must have evidence in competitive-alternatives.md
• Best-fit customer characteristics must connect to actual pain points from customer intelligence research
• Value themes must trace back to real customer language from the language map

Cross-Deliverable Coherence

• The messaging hierarchy in messaging-implications.md must reflect the positioning priority from positioning-doc.md
• Category label must be consistent across all deliverables
• Words to use/avoid must not contradict the language used in positioning statements
• Freemium positioning (if present) must be consistent across positioning-statement.md and messaging-implications.md

Validation Test Results

• If Neumeier Onliness Test is marked "Pass" but the basic statement contains qualifiers or hedging, flag it
• If Moore Template is marked "Pass" but any field is vague or generic, flag it
• If Mental Ladder test is marked "Pass" but the position requires more than 10 words to state, flag it

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
- [ ] Positioning statements match research data (skill-specific)
- [ ] JTBD consistent with customer intelligence (skill-specific)
- [ ] Cross-deliverable coherence verified (skill-specific)
- [ ] Validation tests genuinely pass (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.