startup-evaluation — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited startup-evaluation (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Evaluate the health of a startup, not just the attractiveness of its pitch.
This skill combines:
Prompt
Use startup-evaluation on this company/idea.
Assess startup health, evidence quality, red flags, fundraising readiness, and the next cheapest validation step.Use Case
Expected Result
Output Example
Verification Case
Verified Effect
Use this equation as the mental model:
Startup Health =
Opportunity quality
x Team quality
x Evidence momentum
x Capital discipline
x Learning velocity
- Fatal risksDo not average away a fatal flaw. A brilliant market with no reachable customer, no team fit, or six weeks of runway is unhealthy.
Before scoring, classify:
| Field | Options |
|---|---|
| Stage | idea, pre-seed, seed, Series A, growth, mature |
| Startup type | lifestyle/SME, innovation-driven, VC-scale, hard tech, AI-native |
| Evaluation lens | founder health check, investor due diligence, fundraising readiness, pivot decision |
| Evidence state | narrative only, interviews, behavior, payment, retention, repeatable growth |
If data is missing, continue with assumptions and mark confidence low.
Rank claims by evidence quality:
| Level | Evidence | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Founder belief, TAM slide, friend feedback | very weak |
| 1 | Customer interviews about past behavior | weak |
| 2 | Landing page, waitlist, demo usage | moderate |
| 3 | Paid pilot, preorder, signed LOI, repeated use | strong |
| 4 | Retention, expansion, organic referral, healthy unit economics | very strong |
Quotes and intentions do not prove demand. Payment, repeated usage, retention, and referral are stronger.
Default weights. Adjust only when stage or startup type clearly requires it.
| Dimension | Weight | Healthy signal | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customer pain and beachhead | 15 | narrow painful use case, reachable buyer, urgent workflow | vague user, nice-to-have pain |
| Market and timing | 15 | large/growing market or focused profitable niche, clear timing window | TAM-only logic, market too early/late |
| Value proposition and 10x | 15 | 10x better, 1/10 cost, or new capability | marginal improvement |
| PMF and traction | 15 | retention, payment, pull, repeatable channel | paid growth only, high churn, weak usage |
| Business model and unit economics | 10 | LTV/CAC > 3, clear pricing, gross margin path | CAC unknown, payback too long |
| Team and governance | 15 | founder-market fit, complementary roles, written equity/decision rules | solo gaps, cofounder conflict, weak recruiting |
| Capital and runway | 10 | 12-18 month runway, milestone-based spend, financing plan | <6 month runway, unfocused burn |
| Moat and risk control | 5 | data, network, distribution, regulatory or execution moat | easily copied, platform/model dependency |
Score each dimension:
0 = absent
1 = narrative only
2 = weak signal
3 = plausible but incomplete
4 = evidence-backed
5 = strong and repeatableFinal score:
| Score | Status | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Healthy | Scale or fundraise if risks are bounded. |
| 65-79 | Promising | Continue, but fix the top constraint before major spend. |
| 50-64 | Fragile | Narrow scope and validate before hiring/fundraising. |
| 0-49 | Unhealthy | Pivot, pause, or redesign assumptions. |
For VC-backed or investor-facing evaluations, add a 5T view:
| 5T | Question |
|---|---|
| Team | Why this team? What unfair insight or execution proof exists? |
| Target Market | Can this become a power-law outcome, not just a good business? |
| Tech/Product | Is there defensibility beyond using current tools? |
| Traction | Is growth pulled by customers and retention, not only paid push? |
| Terms | Does valuation, dilution, and round structure leave room for returns? |
Use the 5T view to decide whether the company is venture-scale. A healthy bootstrapped company can still be a poor VC investment.
Use when relevant:
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is this Type 1, 2, or 3 AI? | Tools on existing software, replacement software, or software becoming labor have different TAM and pricing logic. |
| Does the product improve 10-40% or 10-40x? | VC outcomes need step-change value, not small convenience. |
| What remains if code or models get cheaper? | Moat must move to data, workflow, distribution, trust, regulation, or physical execution. |
| Is there product surplus? | Products built for the next model can fail before users adopt them. |
| Are hardware, supply chain, regulation, or deployment loops bottlenecks? | Hard-tech health depends on non-software execution constraints. |
Use these thresholds:
| Metric | Green | Yellow | Red |
|---|---|---|---|
| Runway | 18+ months | 6-18 months | <6 months |
| Fundraising start | before 12 months runway | 6-12 months | after crisis starts |
| LTV/CAC | 3-5+ | 1-3 | <1 or unknown at scale |
| CAC payback | <12 months | 12-18 months | >18 months |
| Burn focus | tied to next milestone | mixed | vanity hiring/spend |
Capital should buy evidence for the next milestone. Spending that does not reduce the top uncertainty is unhealthy.
Name one primary constraint:
| Constraint | Typical fix |
|---|---|
| No painful problem | customer discovery and problem pivot |
| Wrong beachhead | segment narrower by buyer, workflow, urgency |
| Weak value proposition | quantify before/after value and 10x wedge |
| No behavior evidence | pretotype, paid pilot, concierge MVP |
| Weak retention | reduce scope, improve core workflow, delay scale |
| Team gap | recruit missing builder/seller/operator, clarify equity and decisions |
| Capital risk | cut burn, milestone fundraising, smaller experiment |
| Moat risk | build data loop, distribution edge, workflow lock-in, trust layer |
Return:
## Startup Health Memo
Stage / type / lens:
Verdict:
Health score:
Confidence:
### Evidence Ledger
Facts:
Assumptions:
Missing evidence:
### Scorecard
| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Risk |
### Top Constraint
...
### Red Flags
...
### Fundraising Readiness
...
### Next Cheapest Test
Hypothesis:
Experiment:
Metric:
Decision rule:
Cost/time:
### 30-Day Operating Focus
...~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.