/team-deliverables

name: team-deliverables
description: "Output templates and scoring rubrics for multi-agent team workflows. Use when generating final deliverables from agent team debates, formatting validation verdicts, or scoring PRD reviews. Trigger on: 'format the team output', 'validation verdict template', 'PRD review report format', 'competitive synthesis template', 'scoring rubric'."

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