team-deliverables

Team Deliverables

Templates and scoring rubrics for the final outputs of multi-agent team workflows.

When to Use This Skill

Auto-loaded by all six agents:

• idea-researcher, market-researcher, idea-skeptic - For validation verdict and competitive synthesis scoring rubrics
• market-fit-reviewer, feasibility-reviewer, scope-reviewer - For PRD review report scoring rubrics

Use when you need:

• Generating the final output of a team workflow
• Scoring ideas, PRDs, or competitive positions
• Structuring multi-perspective findings into a single deliverable
• Ensuring consistent output format across team workflows

Template Selection Guide

Command	Template	When
/agent-teams:validation-sprint	Validation Verdict	After cross-examination of idea investigation
/agent-teams:prd-stress-test	PRD Review Report	After cross-referencing PRD review dimensions
/agent-teams:competitive-war-room	Competitive Synthesis	After parallel competitor deep-dives

---

Scoring Rubrics

Validation Sprint Scores (1-10)

User Problem Score

Score	Meaning
1-2	No evidence of real user pain. Problem is theoretical.
3-4	Some users mention this, but it's a mild annoyance. Existing solutions work "well enough."
5-6	Real problem, but unclear severity or frequency. Some workarounds exist.
7-8	Clear, validated pain point. Users actively seeking solutions. Workarounds are inadequate.
9-10	Hair-on-fire problem. Users spending significant time/money on bad workarounds.

Market Opportunity Score

Score	Meaning
1-2	Tiny niche. No evidence of willingness to pay. Market too small to sustain a business.
3-4	Small market or crowded space with no clear differentiation angle.
5-6	Viable market but competitive. Differentiation possible but unproven.
7-8	Attractive market with clear gaps. Evidence of willingness to pay. Timing is right.
9-10	Large, growing market with underserved segments. Strong demand signals. Clear entry point.

Defensibility Score

Score	Meaning
1-2	No moat. Any competitor could copy this in weeks. Pure feature play.
3-4	Weak differentiation. First-mover advantage only, which isn't a moat.
5-6	Some defensibility through domain expertise, data, or network effects. Not bulletproof.
7-8	Strong differentiation with compounding advantages. Switching costs for users.
9-10	Deep moat. Proprietary data, strong network effects, or structural advantage.

PRD Review Scores (1-5)

Market Fit Score

Score	Meaning
1	No clear target user or problem. Fundamental market questions unanswered.
2	Target user defined but problem validation missing. "If you build it, will they come?" is unaddressed.
3	Problem and user are clear, but differentiation is weak. Could be any competitor's PRD.
4	Strong problem-solution fit. Clear differentiation. Minor positioning gaps.
5	Excellent. Clear user, validated problem, sharp differentiation, compelling value prop.

Feasibility Score

Score	Meaning
1	Major technical unknowns. Requirements are vague or contradictory. Can't estimate effort.
2	Core approach is clear but many requirements are ambiguous. Multiple "TBD" sections.
3	Mostly clear. Some edge cases missing, some acceptance criteria need tightening. Buildable with clarification.
4	Clear requirements, well-defined acceptance criteria. Minor gaps. Ready for engineering review.
5	Precise, testable requirements. Edge cases covered. Acceptance criteria are specific and measurable.

Scope Score

Score	Meaning
1	Massive scope. Years of work presented as an MVP. No prioritization visible.
2	Too much for V1. Some nice-to-haves mixed in with must-haves. Needs significant cutting.
3	Reasonable but could be tighter. A few features could be deferred without losing core value.
4	Well-scoped. Clear must-haves, reasonable timeline. Only minor fat to trim.
5	Ruthlessly scoped. 3-5 core features. Clear what's in V1 vs. later. Ships fast.

---

Template Standards

Required Elements in Every Deliverable

1. Header: Command name, date, subject (idea/PRD/competitors)
2. Scores: Numerical scores with brief justification
3. Verdict: Clear recommendation (BUILD / DON'T BUILD / READY / NEEDS REVISION / etc.)
4. Evidence: Key findings from each agent's investigation
5. Conflicts: Where agents disagreed and why
6. Next Steps: Specific, actionable recommendations

Formatting Rules

• Use tables for scores (scannable)
• Use bullet points for findings (not paragraphs)
• Bold the verdict and any blocking issues
• Keep the executive summary under 5 lines
• Put detailed evidence in expandable sections when the report is long

---

Ready-to-Use Resources

In assets/:

• validation-verdict-template.md: Go/No-Go format with three perspectives for validation sprints
• prd-review-report-template.md: Multi-dimensional review with conflicts section for PRD stress tests
• competitive-synthesis-template.md: Positioning map and battle cards format for competitive war rooms

---

Remember: Templates create consistency, not rigidity. Adapt sections when the findings demand it. A template that forces you to fill in blanks with nothing useful is worse than no template.