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

• Header: Command name, date, subject (idea/PRD/competitors)

• Scores: Numerical scores with brief justification

• Verdict: Clear recommendation (BUILD / DON'T BUILD / READY / NEEDS REVISION / etc.)

• Evidence: Key findings from each agent's investigation

• Conflicts: Where agents disagreed and why

• 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.