idea-autopsy

Run a hard-nosed multi-axis review of a proposal, pitch deck, spec, business plan, project brief, or any document describing something to potentially build or fund, and return an explicit Invest / Proceed-with-caution / Pivot / Skip verdict with graded findings and a measurable flip-condition. Use whenever the user asks to evaluate, critique, review, stress-test, or get an honest take on a proposal or strategic document — including phrases like "should I build this", "is this worth my time", "evaluate this idea", "give me a verdict", "should I invest in this", "go/no-go", or any request for decision-shaped feedback on whether to commit time or money to a project. Trigger even when the user doesn't explicitly say "evaluate" — if they share a doc and ask for honest feedback that will inform a go/no-go decision, this is the right tool. Scope is product/business proposals.

Translate a critique (from stress-test-idea, evaluate-proposal-harsh, or manual review notes) into a concrete change plan for v2 of an idea doc, proposal, pitch deck, or spec — section-by-section edits, things to cut, things to add, things only the founder can provide, and an explicit rejection log for findings the user disagrees with. Each change recommendation is required to name what it REMOVES, not what it hedges. Default acceptance is bucket-aware (auto-accepts Consensus + real-Unique from stress-test output, Critical + High from verdict output) instead of accept-all. Use whenever the user has a critique in hand and wants to draft the next version — including "iterate this", "apply this critique", "draft v2", "rewrite based on this", "turn these findings into changes", "what should I actually change", "next version of this doc", "close the loop". Scope is product/business proposals.

Turn an idea-autopsy verdict into ranked constructive strategy — alternative theses, wedge-to-platform sequencing, and a go-to-market shape grounded in the team's stated assets.

Subject an idea doc, proposal, pitch deck, or early concept brief to brutal adversarial review by running three complementary-lens reviewers in parallel — a thinking-skills battery (jobs-to-be-done, fermi-estimation, pre-mortem, graded steel-manning), a devils-advocate dimension critique, and a silent-failure lens hunting unspoken assumptions — then synthesizing their findings into a prioritized list of changes for v2. Use whenever the user wants to harden, improve, stress-test, or get adversarial feedback on a doc they intend to revise — including phrases like "tear this apart", "stress test this idea", "what should I fix", "make this stronger", "find the holes", "critique loop", or any request for harsh feedback that will inform a doc rewrite rather than a go/no-go decision. Scope is product/business proposals; other doc types produce uneven output.