/investor-research

name: investor-research
description: When the user wants to identify, evaluate, or prioritize potential investors for a fundraising round. Also activates when the user asks "who should I pitch?", "find me investors", "build an investor list", or mentions VC/angel targeting.
related: [pitch-deck, fundraising-email]
reads: [startup-context]

Investor Research

When to Use

• The founder is preparing to fundraise and needs a target investor list.
• The founder has a list of investors and wants to qualify or prioritize them.
• The founder asks which VCs or angels are a good fit for their stage, sector, or geography.
• The founder wants to understand a specific fund's thesis, portfolio, or decision-making process.

Context Required

From `startup-context`: stage, sector/category, location, current round target (amount), business model, and any existing investor relationships or warm connections.

From the user: geographic preferences (if any), whether they want VC-only, angel-only, or both, any investors already in conversation, and any firms they want to explicitly avoid (e.g., portfolio conflicts they know about).

Workflow

1. **Read startup context** — Pull stage, sector, geography, round size, and existing investors from `.agents/startup-context.md`. 2. **Define investor criteria** — Based on context, establish the filtering parameters: stage match, sector focus, typical check size range, geographic relevance, and portfolio conflict exclusions. 3. **Build the raw list** — Research investors matching the criteria. For each investor, capture: firm name, partner name, fund stage focus, sector focus, typical check size, recent fund size/vintage, portfolio companies, geographic preference, and a source URL. 4. **Check for conflicts** — Flag any firm that has a portfolio company directly competing with the founder's startup. These go on a "conflicts" list, not the target list. 5. **Score and tier** — Assign each investor to Tier 1 (strong fit, prioritize), Tier 2 (good fit, pursue), or Tier 3 (acceptable fit, use as backfill) using the scoring framework below. 6. **Identify warm paths** — For each Tier 1 investor, suggest how the founder might get a warm intro: mutual connections, portfolio founder intros, accelerator networks, or conference overlap. 7. **Deliver the target list** — Output a structured, sortable list with tiers and recommended outreach order.

Output Format

A markdown table with the following columns, grouped by tier:

## Tier 1 — High Priority

| Firm | Partner | Stage Focus | Sector Fit | Check Size | Recent Fund | Conflict? | Warm Path | Notes |
|------|---------|-------------|------------|------------|-------------|-----------|-----------|-------|

Followed by a "Conflicts" section listing excluded firms and why.

Followed by a "Research Gaps" section listing anything that could not be verified and needs the founder's input.

Frameworks & Best Practices

Investor Qualification Criteria (The 7-Point Filter)

1. **Stage fit** — Does the firm invest at the founder's current stage? A Series B fund will not lead a seed round. This is the first filter and it is binary: pass or fail. 2. **Sector focus** — Does the firm have a stated thesis or track record in the founder's sector? Look at their last 10 investments, not just their website copy. 3. **Check size match** — Does the firm's typical check size align with what the founder needs? A $2B fund rarely writes $500K checks. A $50M fund rarely leads $20M rounds. 4. **Portfolio conflicts** — Does the firm already have a company in the same space? This is the most common reason pitches are dead-on-arrival. Check every portfolio company, including quiet ones. 5. **Fund vintage** — Is the firm actively deploying from a recent fund? A fund raised 4+ years ago is likely in harvest mode and not writing new checks. Prefer firms that closed a fund within the last 18 months. 6. **Geographic relevance** — Some firms only invest locally. Others require board seats that demand proximity. Remote-friendly firms have expanded, but geography still matters for many funds. 7. **Partner-level interest** — Is there a specific partner whose background, interests, or public writing aligns with the startup? Pitching the right partner at the right firm matters as much as pitching the right firm.

Tiering Framework

• **Tier 1**: Matches on 6-7 of the criteria above. The firm has invested in adjacent companies, the partner has spoken publicly about the space, and a warm intro path exists. Pursue first.
• **Tier 2**: Matches on 4-5 criteria. Good fit on stage and sector but may lack a warm path or have a slightly mismatched check size. Pursue in the second wave.
• **Tier 3**: Matches on 3 criteria. Acceptable as backfill if the round needs more participants. Do not spend significant time here until Tier 1 and 2 are exhausted.

Sourcing Investor Information

• **Crunchbase / PitchBook**: Fund size, recent investments, portfolio companies.
• **Firm website**: Stated thesis, partner bios, blog posts that reveal focus areas.
• **Twitter/X and Substack**: Many partners publish their current interests publicly. Recent posts are a better signal than old "About" pages.
• **SEC filings**: Fund size from Form D filings when not publicly disclosed.
• **Portfolio founder back-channels**: The single best diligence on an investor is talking to founders they have backed — both successes and companies that struggled.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• **Spraying 200 cold emails** — Fundraising is a funnel. 30 well-targeted, well-introduced conversations beat 200 cold ones.
• **Ignoring portfolio conflicts** — Founders waste weeks pitching firms that will never invest because of a conflict.
• **Pitching the wrong partner** — At multi-partner firms, the wrong partner will say "interesting, let me introduce you to my colleague" at best, or just pass.
• **Targeting only brand-name firms** — Tier 2 and emerging funds are often faster