Business Viability

Transform PROBLEM_BRIEF.md and REQUIREMENTS.md artifacts into a comprehensive VIABILITY.md artifact containing market analysis (TAM/SAM/SOM), competitive landscape assessment, cost estimation, revenue modeling, and a data-driven go/no-go recommendation. This is an optional step in the greenfield specification pipeline — it provides business context for investment decisions.

When to Use This Skill

• A PROBLEM_BRIEF.md exists (minimum required input)
• Optionally, REQUIREMENTS.md exists for more accurate cost estimation
• Stakeholders need a business case before committing resources
• The team needs to validate product-market fit assumptions
• Investment or funding decisions depend on viability analysis
• The user has NOT passed the --skip-viability flag

Pipeline Position

[Raw Idea] → [PROBLEM_BRIEF.md] → [REQUIREMENTS.md] → ... → [TASKS.md] → [IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md]
                    ↓                      ↓
              **BUSINESS VIABILITY** (optional, parallel path)
                    ↓
            [VIABILITY.md]

This skill runs as an optional side-branch. It can be executed:

• After PROBLEM_BRIEF.md only (rough estimates)
• After REQUIREMENTS.md (moderate estimates)
• After TASKS.md (detailed estimates with effort data)

More upstream artifacts produce more accurate cost estimates.

Input: artifacts/greenfield/<project_name>/PROBLEM_BRIEF.md, optionally artifacts/greenfield/<project_name>/REQUIREMENTS.md Output: artifacts/greenfield/<project_name>/VIABILITY.md

Skip condition: If the user passes --skip-viability, this skill is not executed and VIABILITY.md is not generated.

Process

Step 1: Read and Analyze Inputs

Load PROBLEM_BRIEF.md and extract:

• Problem statement — defines the market need
• Target users — defines the customer segments
• Success metrics — defines measurable business outcomes
• Constraints — limits on budget, timeline, resources
• Non-goals — clarifies what is NOT being built (reduces cost scope)

If REQUIREMENTS.md is available, also extract:

• REQ count by priority — informs development cost
• NFRs — informs infrastructure cost
• Dependency complexity — informs integration cost

If TASKS.md is available, also extract:

• Total effort points — enables bottom-up cost estimation
• Sprint count — enables timeline-based cost estimation
• Task type distribution — informs cost breakdown

Step 2: Analyze Market (TAM/SAM/SOM)

Estimate the market opportunity using the three-tier model:

TAM (Total Addressable Market):

• The entire market for the problem category
• Calculated top-down: [Total potential customers] * [Annual value per customer]
• Example: "All small businesses in the US that need CRM software = 30M businesses * $500/yr = $15B TAM"

SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market):

• The segment of TAM that your product can realistically reach
• Filtered by: geography, industry, company size, technology readiness
• Example: "US-based real estate agencies with 5-20 agents using cloud tools = 50K agencies * $500/yr = $25M SAM"

SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market):

• The portion of SAM you can realistically capture in 1-3 years
• Filtered by: marketing reach, sales capacity, competitive position
• Example: "5% of SAM in Year 1 through direct sales = 2,500 agencies * $500/yr = $1.25M SOM"

Market sizing rules:

• State all assumptions explicitly (ASM-NNNN)
• Cite data sources where available
• Use conservative estimates (lower bound of ranges)
• TAM > SAM > SOM always
• SOM should be 1-10% of SAM for new entrants
• Include growth rate if the market is expanding

Step 3: Assess Competitive Landscape

Identify and analyze competitors and alternatives:

Competitor format:

Competitor: [Name]
Type: [Direct | Indirect | Substitute]
Description: [What they do]
Strengths: [What they do well]
Weaknesses: [Where they fall short]
Pricing: [Their pricing model and range]
Market Position: [Leader | Challenger | Niche | Emerging]
Differentiation: [How our solution differs]

Competitor types:

Type	Definition	Example
Direct	Solves the same problem for the same users	Competitor CRM for real estate
Indirect	Solves a related problem or serves adjacent users	General CRM adapted for real estate
Substitute	Solves the problem with a fundamentally different approach	Spreadsheets, manual processes, hiring assistants

Analysis deliverables:

1. Competitor comparison matrix (feature parity table)
2. Positioning map (2x2 matrix on key differentiators)
3. Competitive moat assessment (what makes our solution defensible?)

Competitive moat categories:

• Technology: Proprietary algorithm, unique data, AI/ML advantage
• Network effects: Value increases with user count
• Switching costs: Difficult to migrate away once adopted
• Brand: Trust, reputation, community
• Cost advantage: Lower cost structure enables better pricing
• Regulatory: Compliance certification others lack

Step 4: Estimate Costs

Create a cost estimate covering development, infrastructure, and operations:

Cost categories:

Development Costs (One-Time)

Category	Estimation Method	Formula
Engineering labor	Effort points * cost per point	[Total points] * [$/point]
Design/UX	% of engineering cost	Engineering * 15-25%
QA/Testing	% of engineering cost	Engineering * 10-20%
Project management	% of engineering cost	Engineering * 10-15%
Third-party licenses	Per-license or per-seat	[Count] * [$/license]

Engineering cost per point estimation:

Team Composition	Cost per Point
Solo developer	$50-100
Small team (2-3 devs)	$100-200
Agency/contract team	$200-400
Enterprise team	$300-600

If TASKS.md is not available, estimate development cost from requirement count:

• Rough estimate: [REQ count] * $5,000-$15,000 per requirement (varies by complexity)
• P0 requirements: multiply by 1.5x (higher quality bar)
• P1 requirements: multiply by 1.0x
• P2 requirements: multiply by 0.7x (simpler scope)

Infrastructure Costs (Recurring Monthly)

Component	Estimation Basis
Hosting/compute	Based on architecture complexity and expected traffic
Database	Based on data model size and query volume
Storage	Based on data retention requirements
CDN/bandwidth	Based on geographic distribution and traffic
Third-party APIs	Based on integration count and usage volume
Monitoring/logging	Based on component count
Security/compliance	Based on regulatory requirements

Monthly infrastructure tiers:

Scale	Monthly Cost Range	Characteristics
Prototype	$0-50	Free tiers, single server
Early Stage	$50-500	Small dedicated resources
Growth	$500-5,000	Scaled infrastructure, CDN
Scale	$5,000-50,000	Multi-region, high availability

Operational Costs (Recurring Monthly)

Category	Estimation Basis
Customer support	Based on expected user count and support ratio
Marketing/growth	Based on CAC targets and SOM goals
Maintenance/updates	15-20% of development cost annually
Legal/compliance	Based on regulatory requirements

Step 5: Model Revenue

Create revenue projections based on pricing strategy and market capture:

Pricing models to evaluate:

Model	Description	Best For
Subscription (SaaS)	Recurring monthly/annual fee	B2B tools, platforms
Usage-based	Pay per use (API calls, transactions)	APIs, infrastructure
Freemium	Free tier + paid upgrades	Consumer apps, developer tools
One-time license	Single purchase	Desktop software, plugins
Marketplace commission	% of transactions	Marketplaces, platforms
Tiered pricing	Multiple plans at different price points	Most SaaS products

Revenue projection format:

Metric	Month 3	Month 6	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Users (Free)	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]
Users (Paid)	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]
Conversion Rate	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]
ARPU	[$]	[$]	[$]	[$]	[$]
MRR	[$]	[$]	[$]	[$]	[$]
ARR	[$]	[$]	[$]	[$]	[$]
Churn Rate	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]

Key metrics to calculate:

• CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost): Marketing spend / New customers acquired
• LTV (Lifetime Value): ARPU / Monthly churn rate
• LTV:CAC ratio: Must be > 3:1 for sustainable growth
• Payback period: CAC / Monthly ARPU (months to recoup acquisition cost)
• Break-even point: When cumulative revenue exceeds cumulative cost

Step 6: Generate Go/No-Go Recommendation

Synthesize all analysis into a clear recommendation:

Recommendation framework:

Signal	GO	CAUTION	NO-GO
Market Size (SOM)	> $1M ARR potential	$100K-$1M	< $100K
Competition	Clear differentiation	Crowded but opportunity exists	Dominated by incumbents
Development Cost	< 6 months to MVP	6-12 months	> 12 months
LTV:CAC	> 3:1	1:1 to 3:1	< 1:1
Break-even	< 12 months	12-24 months	> 24 months
Technical Risk	Low/manageable	Medium with mitigations	High/unmitigable

Recommendation format:

Recommendation: GO | CONDITIONAL GO | NO-GO

Confidence Level: High | Medium | Low
[Based on quality and completeness of available data]

Key Factors:
1. [Most important positive or negative factor]
2. [Second most important factor]
3. [Third factor]

Conditions (if CONDITIONAL GO):
- [Condition 1 that must be met before proceeding]
- [Condition 2]

Next Steps:
- [Immediate action 1]
- [Immediate action 2]
- [Immediate action 3]

Output Format

Write the artifact following the template at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/templates/VIABILITY.template.md.

The artifact must follow the standard artifact template structure:

# VIABILITY: [Project Name]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence summary: market opportunity, estimated cost, revenue potential, recommendation]

## Inputs
- **Problem Brief**: `PROBLEM_BRIEF.md` — [problem statement, target users, success metrics referenced]
- **Requirements**: `REQUIREMENTS.md` (if available) — [REQ count, complexity assessment]
- **Tasks**: `TASKS.md` (if available) — [effort points for cost estimation]

## Outputs
- This document (VIABILITY.md)
- Informs: Investment decisions, resource allocation, go/no-go gate

## Assumptions
- [ASM-0001]: [Business assumption — e.g., "Market data based on 2025 industry reports"]
- [ASM-0002]: [e.g., "Conversion rate of 3% from free to paid tier"]
- ...

## Open Questions
- [OQ-0001]: [Question affecting viability — e.g., "Actual CAC for target market segment?"]
- ...

## Main Content

### Market Analysis

#### Total Addressable Market (TAM)
- **Definition**: [Market boundary]
- **Size**: $[N]
- **Calculation**: [How TAM was derived]
- **Data Sources**: [Where numbers come from]
- **Growth Rate**: [Annual growth %]

#### Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM)
- **Definition**: [Segment boundary]
- **Size**: $[N]
- **Filters Applied**: [Geography, industry, company size, etc.]
- **Calculation**: [How SAM was derived]

#### Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM)
- **Definition**: [Capture boundary]
- **Size**: $[N] (Year 1), $[N] (Year 3)
- **Capture Rate**: [% of SAM]
- **Rationale**: [Why this capture rate is realistic]

#### Market Opportunity Summary

```mermaid
pie title Market Sizing
    "TAM" : [N]
    "SAM" : [N]
    "SOM Year 1" : [N]

Competitive Landscape

Competitor Analysis

Competitor	Type	Pricing	Market Position	Key Strength	Key Weakness
[Name 1]	Direct	$[N]/mo	Leader	[Strength]	[Weakness]
[Name 2]	Direct	$[N]/mo	Challenger	[Strength]	[Weakness]
[Name 3]	Indirect	$[N]/mo	Niche	[Strength]	[Weakness]
[Name 4]	Substitute	Free/DIY	-	[Strength]	[Weakness]

Positioning Map

quadrantChart
    title Feature Completeness vs Ease of Use
    x-axis Low Feature Completeness --> High Feature Completeness
    y-axis Hard to Use --> Easy to Use
    quadrant-1 Feature-Rich & Easy
    quadrant-2 Simple & Easy
    quadrant-3 Simple & Hard
    quadrant-4 Feature-Rich & Hard
    Competitor A: [0.8, 0.3]
    Competitor B: [0.4, 0.7]
    Our Product: [0.6, 0.8]

Competitive Moat Assessment

• Primary Moat: [Technology | Network | Switching Costs | Brand | Cost | Regulatory]
• Moat Strength: [Strong | Moderate | Weak]
• Time to Replicate: [How long competitors need to match our advantage]
• Defensibility: [Why this moat is sustainable]

Cost Estimate

Development Costs (One-Time)

Category	Estimate	Basis
Engineering	$[N]	[Effort points * cost per point, or REQ-based estimate]
Design/UX	$[N]	[% of engineering]
QA/Testing	$[N]	[% of engineering]
Project Management	$[N]	[% of engineering]
Licenses/Tools	$[N]	[Itemized]
Total Development	$[N]

Infrastructure Costs (Monthly)

Component	Monthly Cost	Annual Cost	Notes
Hosting/Compute	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Database	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Storage	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Third-party APIs	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Monitoring	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Total Infrastructure	$[N]/mo	$[N]/yr

Operational Costs (Monthly)

Category	Monthly Cost	Annual Cost	Notes
Support	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Marketing	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Maintenance	$[N]	$[N]	[15-20% of dev cost annually]
Legal/Compliance	$[N]	$[N]	[Basis]
Total Operations	$[N]/mo	$[N]/yr

Total Cost Summary

Period	Cost
Development (one-time)	$[N]
Year 1 (dev + infra + ops)	$[N]
Year 2 (infra + ops)	$[N]
Year 3 (infra + ops)	$[N]
3-Year Total	$[N]

Revenue Model

Pricing Strategy

• Model: [Subscription | Usage | Freemium | License | Commission | Tiered]
• Rationale: [Why this model fits the market and product]

Pricing Tiers (if applicable)

Tier	Price	Features	Target Segment
Free	$0	[Feature list]	[Who this is for]
Basic	$[N]/mo	[Feature list]	[Who this is for]
Pro	$[N]/mo	[Feature list]	[Who this is for]
Enterprise	$[N]/mo	[Feature list]	[Who this is for]

Revenue Projections

Metric	Month 3	Month 6	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Total Users	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]
Paid Users	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]	[N]
Conversion Rate	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]
ARPU	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]
MRR	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]
ARR	-	-	$[N]	$[N]	$[N]
Monthly Churn	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]	[%]

Unit Economics

Metric	Value	Benchmark	Assessment
CAC	$[N]	< $[N]	[Good/Needs Work]
LTV	$[N]	> 3x CAC	[Good/Needs Work]
LTV:CAC Ratio	[N]:1	> 3:1	[Good/Needs Work]
Payback Period	[N] months	< 12 months	[Good/Needs Work]
Gross Margin	[N]%	> 70% for SaaS	[Good/Needs Work]

Break-Even Analysis

Metric	Value
Monthly Break-Even Revenue	$[N]
Users Needed for Break-Even	[N] paid users
Estimated Break-Even Date	Month [N]

Go/No-Go Recommendation

Recommendation: [GO | CONDITIONAL GO | NO-GO]

Confidence Level: [High | Medium | Low]

Decision Matrix

Factor	Assessment	Signal
Market Size (SOM)	$[N]	[GO/CAUTION/NO-GO]
Competition	[Assessment]	[GO/CAUTION/NO-GO]
Development Cost	$[N], [N] months	[GO/CAUTION/NO-GO]
LTV:CAC	[N]:1	[GO/CAUTION/NO-GO]
Break-Even	Month [N]	[GO/CAUTION/NO-GO]
Technical Risk	[Assessment]	[GO/CAUTION/NO-GO]

Key Factors

1. [Most important factor supporting the recommendation]
2. [Second most important factor]
3. [Third factor]

Conditions (if CONDITIONAL GO)

• [Condition 1 that must be validated before full commitment]
• [Condition 2]

Next Steps

1. [Immediate action — e.g., "Validate pricing with 10 target customers"]
2. [Short-term action — e.g., "Build MVP prototype for user testing"]
3. [Medium-term action — e.g., "Secure initial funding of $X"]

Acceptance Criteria

• TAM, SAM, SOM defined with calculations and assumptions
• At least 3 competitors analyzed (mix of direct, indirect, substitute)
• Competitive positioning map created
• Development costs estimated with clear methodology
• Infrastructure and operational costs estimated
• Revenue model defined with pricing strategy
• Revenue projections cover at least 3 years
• Unit economics calculated (CAC, LTV, LTV:CAC, payback period)
• Break-even analysis completed
• Go/No-Go recommendation is clear and supported by data
• All assumptions documented with IDs
• All IDs sequential and sorted per determinism rules

**Output path**: `artifacts/greenfield/<project_name>/VIABILITY.md`

## Determinism Rules

1. ASM-NNNN IDs: Sort alphabetically by assumption text, assign sequential 4-digit numbers starting from 0001
2. OQ-NNNN IDs: Sort alphabetically by question text, assign sequential 4-digit numbers starting from 0001
3. Competitors listed by type order (Direct first, then Indirect, then Substitute), then alphabetically by name within each type
4. Cost categories listed in order: Development, Infrastructure, Operational
5. Revenue projection columns in chronological order
6. No timestamps in artifact body
7. Sections must appear in template order

## Data Quality and Honesty

This skill produces estimates, not facts. Maintain intellectual honesty:

**Rules for estimates:**
1. Always state confidence level (High/Medium/Low) with rationale
2. Use ranges instead of point estimates where possible ($50K-$80K, not $65K)
3. Clearly label data sources: "Industry report" vs. "Author estimate"
4. Flag when data is unavailable: "[No data — estimate based on comparable products]"
5. Prefer conservative estimates (underestimate revenue, overestimate cost)
6. Document the sensitivity of the recommendation to key assumptions

**Sensitivity analysis:**
For each key assumption, state what happens if it is wrong:

If [assumption] is wrong by [magnitude]:

• Impact on revenue: [+/- $N or %]
• Impact on break-even: [+/- N months]
• Impact on recommendation: [Changes to X / No change]

## Quality Checklist

Before completing, verify:
- [ ] TAM > SAM > SOM (always)
- [ ] SOM is 1-10% of SAM for new entrants
- [ ] At least 3 competitors analyzed
- [ ] At least one substitute (non-product alternative) analyzed
- [ ] Development cost methodology is clear and repeatable
- [ ] Infrastructure costs are based on architecture components
- [ ] Revenue projections include conservative and optimistic scenarios
- [ ] LTV:CAC ratio is calculated and assessed
- [ ] Break-even date is realistic
- [ ] Go/No-Go recommendation is supported by the data presented
- [ ] All assumptions are documented with IDs
- [ ] Sensitivity of key assumptions is discussed
- [ ] Confidence level reflects data quality honestly
- [ ] No made-up statistics or false precision
- [ ] Artifact follows the standard template structure

## Common Pitfalls

1. **Inflated TAM**: Using the broadest possible market definition to make the opportunity look large. Be honest about the realistic addressable market.
2. **Ignoring substitutes**: The biggest competitor is often "doing nothing" or "using a spreadsheet." Always analyze the substitute option.
3. **Underestimating operational costs**: Support, marketing, and maintenance costs often exceed infrastructure costs. Include them.
4. **Hockey stick revenue projections**: Revenue rarely grows exponentially in Year 1. Use realistic adoption curves.
5. **Ignoring churn**: SaaS products have churn. Even a 5% monthly churn rate means replacing half your customers annually. Model it.
6. **False precision**: "$127,493 development cost" implies precision that does not exist. Use "$125K-$135K" instead.
7. **No sensitivity analysis**: If the recommendation changes when one assumption moves by 20%, it is a fragile recommendation. Disclose this.
8. **Competitor analysis bias**: Listing only competitor weaknesses without acknowledging strengths is not analysis, it is advocacy.
9. **Missing the "why now" question**: Why will this product succeed now when previous attempts failed? Market timing matters.
10. **Confusing revenue with profit**: Revenue projections without cost projections are meaningless. Always pair revenue with cost to show profitability timeline.