idea-evaluator – Agents & Automation skill for AI agents

Idea Evaluator Orchestrator

Overview

The Idea Evaluator skill acts as an impartial judge for evaluating new concepts, features, or project ideas. It takes an initial idea from the user and orchestrates a structured, multi-turn debate between two simulated personas: a logical supporter (Pro Agent) and a constructive critic (Con Agent).

By pitting these two perspectives against each other, it surfaces the strongest arguments for both sides before delivering a comprehensive final verdict on whether the idea is worth building.

When to Use This Skill

• Use when you have a new idea but don't know if it's worth your time or effort to build.
• Use when evaluating potential features for a product to decide on priorities.
• Use when you want to rigorously stress-test an assumption before committing code.

Use simulated personas by default; actual agent spawning/messaging requires authorization and available tools. Debate is not validation: label observed evidence, assumptions and unresolved questions separately, cite primary sources for volatile market/technical claims and never invent customer demand or economics. A provisional verdict may be “insufficient evidence”; finish with the cheapest falsifiable test and decision threshold rather than forced certainty. Read both bundled persona files before using their roles.

How It Works

When triggered with an idea, you (the AI) will act as the Orchestrator and facilitate the following workflow:

Step 1: Initialize the Debate

You will assume the role of the Orchestrator. Introduce the debate and clearly state the idea being evaluated. Spawn or simulate the two participants:

• @idea-evaluator-pro: The logical supporter.
• @idea-evaluator-con: The constructive critic.

Step 2: The Debate (3 Turns)

Conduct a 3-turn debate where the Pro and Con agents respond to each other.

• Turn 1 (Initial Pitches): Pro presents the strongest case for the idea. Con presents the strongest immediate risks and flaws.
• Turn 2 (Rebuttals): Pro addresses Con's risks. Con challenges Pro's optimism.
• Turn 3 (Closing Statements): Both agents summarize their final stance on why the idea will succeed or fail.

*Note: Ensure the agents do not blindly agree/disagree but base their arguments on logic, market realities, and technical feasibility.*

Step 3: Final Verdict

Once the debate concludes, the Orchestrator steps in as the Judge. Provide a comprehensive summary formatted with:

• Pros: The strongest validated points in favor.
• Cons: The most critical risks identified.
• Final Verdict: A definitive recommendation (e.g., "Strongly Recommended", "Proceed with Caution", "Pivot Required", "Not Worth Building").
• Why: A brief justification summarizing the debate outcome.

Examples

Example 1: Evaluating a new app idea

User: "Evaluate this idea: A social network exclusively for houseplants where users post updates on their plant's growth."

Agent: (Proceeds to run the 3-turn debate between Pro and Con, followed by the Orchestrator's final verdict detailing the niche appeal versus retention challenges).

Best Practices

• ✅ Ensure the Pro and Con agents directly address each other's points during rebuttals.
• ✅ The Orchestrator must remain strictly neutral until the Final Verdict.
• ❌ Don't let the agents devolve into generic AI pleasantries; keep the debate sharp and analytical.
• ❌ Don't skip the debate steps; the back-and-forth is crucial for deep validation.

Limitations

• The verdict is based on simulated reasoning and logic, not actual market data or user feedback.
• This skill is for brainstorming and validation, not a guarantee of business success.

Related Skills

• @idea-evaluator-pro - The supporting persona used in this debate.
• @idea-evaluator-con - The critical persona used in this debate.