pivot-engine git:20260906.e7c44bdA

Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/a01246d68f677ced.

---
name: pivot-engine
description: Generates structured pivot options for a scored idea based on weak dimensions, market_insights signals, and founder constraints. Includes scoring simulation, minimum viable pivot criteria, effort estimation, and indie buildability filtering.
---

<!-- version: 0.5.0 | outputs: memory/ideas/<slug>/pivot_options.json + memory/ideas/<slug>/pivot_report.md -->

# Skill: pivot-engine

## Purpose

When an idea scores poorly in one or more dimensions, generate concrete pivot options rather than abandoning the idea entirely. A pivot is a deliberate change in **one variable** to improve the weakest dimension — not a complete restart. The best pivots preserve what's already strong while fixing what's broken, and they're grounded in real market signals, not wishful thinking.

## Input

- Idea slug
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/scores.json` (current scores — required)
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/weaknesses.json` (weak dimensions with root causes — required in standard mode, optional in micro mode)
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/idea.md` (current concept, `business_model`)
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/competitors.json` (positioning gaps, competitor complaints)
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/distribution.json` (current channel assessment)
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/pricing.json` (current pricing model and WTP)
- `memory/ideas/<slug>/retention.json` (current retention assessment)
- `memory/user_profile.md` (ICP tier, budget, time, distribution advantages)
- `memory/market_insights/<niche>-*-<YYYY>-<MM>.md` (trend data — **use all available platform files**)

### Using Market Insights

Market insights are essential for generating pivots grounded in real demand rather than theory. Extract:

| Field | How it informs pivots |
|---|---|
| `top_signals` | Identify adjacent niches or audience segments with validated demand. A trending subreddit or TikTok hashtag near the idea's space suggests a viable audience pivot target. |
| `trend_velocity` | If the current niche is "declining", pivoting within it is futile — pivot to an adjacent rising niche. If "rising-fast", the problem may be execution (distribution, pricing), not the market. |
| `monetization_evidence` | If monetization is weak but market_insights show competitors successfully charging in the space, the issue is pricing model or positioning, not WTP. Pivot the model, not the idea. |
| Platform narratives (Reddit complaints, TikTok trends, App Store gaps) | Source specific pivot targets: underserved segments mentioned in Reddit threads, content angles trending on TikTok, App Store categories with stale top results. |

## Pivot Types

| Pivot type | What changes | What stays | When to use |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Audience narrowing** | Target user segment | Core problem and solution | Demand is broad but shallow; CAC too high because targeting is diffuse |
| **Audience expansion** | Broaden from niche to adjacent segment | Core solution mechanics | Market is too small (micro-niche verdict); SOM < $10K |
| **Feature simplification** | Scope and complexity | Core value proposition | Complexity too high; time-to-MVP exceeds founder capacity |
| **Feature pivot** | Core feature emphasis | Target audience and problem | Current feature set doesn't match what users actually want (review mining signals) |
| **Niche pivot** | Problem space subcategory | Solution approach | Competition too high in broad category; narrow to underserved niche |
| **Pricing pivot** | Pricing model or price point | Product and audience | WTP mismatch; wrong model for usage pattern; competitive pricing gap |
| **Distribution pivot** | Primary acquisition channel | Product and audience | Current channel is unviable; founder lacks skills/budget for assumed channel |
| **Platform pivot** | Target platform (iOS → web, mobile → desktop) | Core idea and audience | Wrong platform for audience behavior or market dynamics |
| **Monetization pivot** | Revenue model (B2C → B2C2B, app → content, product → service) | Core domain expertise | Direct monetization unviable but the domain has other revenue paths |
| **Problem pivot** | Which problem to solve | Target audience and domain | Audience is right but the specific pain point is weak; adjacent problem is stronger |
| **Channel-partner pivot** (B2B) | Who sells it: direct to the buyer vs. through an agency, MSP, or platform that already owns the buyer relationship | Product and end problem | Distribution is weak because the founder has no access to the buyer, but a channel partner does |
| **Packaging pivot** (B2B) | Billing unit and tiering (per seat → per client, flat → usage, free tier → trial) | Product, audience, price level | Monetization is weak because the unit punishes the buyer or hides value, not because WTP is absent |
| **ICP-size pivot** (B2B) | Which company size or maturity to sell to (solo operators → 5–40 person firms, or the reverse) | Product and problem | Retention is weak because of buyer mortality, or sales cycle is too long for the current segment |

The `business_model` in `idea.md` decides which rows apply: the three B2B rows are for `prosumer`, `b2b-smb`, and `b2b2c` ideas; a pivot that changes `business_model` itself counts as one variable and must be flagged as such.

## Micro-pivot Mode

When the user names the variable themselves — "what if I charged per client instead of per seat", "what if I sold to agencies instead of end users", "what if I led with the export feature" — there is nothing to diagnose. Run micro mode:

| | Standard mode | Micro mode |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | A verdict of `pivot`/`drop`, or the user asks what to change | The user names one variable to change |
| `weaknesses.json` | Required | Optional; read it if it exists, do not block on it |
| Options generated | 2–3, ranked | **Exactly one** — the named change, worked out properly |
| `pivot_scope` | `standard` | `micro` |
| `variables_changed` | 1–2 | Exactly 1 |
| Report | Full `pivot_report.md` | Short form: the change, the evidence, the score projection, the trade-off, the first action |

Everything else is unchanged: the option must still pass the Minimum Viable Pivot Criteria, the scoring simulation, and the indie buildability filter. Micro mode is a shortcut through diagnosis, not through rigour — if the named change fails the criteria, say so plainly and explain what would have to change instead.

## Slug Rule

A pivot either updates the idea in place or becomes a new idea. Count what changes:

| Condition | Decision | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Exactly one variable changes (pricing, audience segment, channel, platform, feature emphasis) | `in-place` | `pivot_scores.json` is written to the same directory. The idea keeps its slug and status. If a decision memo exists, regenerate it with a version note. |
| Two variables change, OR `business_model` changes, OR the core problem changes | `new-slug` | Create `memory/ideas/<slug>-<pivot-word>/` with a fresh `idea.md` carrying `pivot_of: <old-slug>`. Set the original's frontmatter to `status: paused` and `superseded_by: <new-slug>`. |

`<pivot-word>` is one or two words naming the change (`habit-tracker-climbers-b2b`, `invoice-app-agencies`). Keep the combined slug within 40 characters.

Do not copy dimension files into the new directory. A pivot big enough to earn a new slug changes the competitive set, the pricing anchors, and the channels, so those files are researched again; `idea.md` is the only inheritance. Never delete the original directory — the paused idea is the record of what was tried.

## Minimum Viable Pivot Criteria

A pivot must be different enough to change the score but similar enough to preserve existing work and insights. Apply the **Same Idea Test**:

### A valid pivot must meet ALL of these:

1. **Changes exactly 1–2 variables** from the list above. Changing 3+ variables is a new idea, not a pivot — create a new idea slug instead.
2. **Preserves at least one strong dimension** (score ≥ 60 in the original). A pivot that abandons all strengths is a restart.
3. **Has evidence** — the pivot direction is supported by at least one concrete signal (market_insights data, competitor gap, user complaint, trend).
4. **Addressable root cause** — the weakness it targets has `root_cause_type` of "addressable" or "situational" in `weaknesses.json`. Pivots cannot fix structural weaknesses unless the pivot changes the core mechanic (which usually means it's a new idea).

### A pivot is NOT valid if:

- It requires the founder to acquire a skill set they don't have and can't learn in < 4 weeks
- It targets a completely different audience AND a different problem (that's a new idea)
- The only evidence is "maybe this would work" with no supporting signal
- It makes the idea harder to build without a proportional improvement in market viability

## Process

### Step 1 — Load and assess weakness landscape

1. Load `weaknesses.json`. Identify all weak dimensions and their root causes.
2. Separate weaknesses into:
   - **Addressable** (`root_cause_type` = "addressable" or "situational") → these are pivot targets
   - **Knowledge gaps** (`root_cause_type` = "knowledge-gap") → these need more research, not a pivot
   - **Structural** (`root_cause_type` = "structural") → only fixable by major pivot or new idea
3. If `overall_weakness_severity` = "fatal" and all weaknesses are structural, recommend dropping rather than pivoting. Note this in the output.

### Step 2 — Map weak dimensions to pivot types

Use this mapping to identify which pivot types are most likely to improve each weak dimension:

| Weak dimension | Primary pivot types | Secondary pivot types |
|---|---|---|
| **Demand** (< 40) | Problem pivot, audience narrowing | Niche pivot |
| **Competition** (< 40) | Niche pivot, audience narrowing | Feature pivot, platform pivot |
| **Monetization** (< 40) | Pricing pivot, monetization pivot | Audience narrowing (higher-WTP segment) |
| **Distribution** (< 40) | Distribution pivot, platform pivot | Audience narrowing (more reachable segment) |
| **Retention** (< 40) | Feature pivot, feature simplification | Problem pivot (pick a stickier problem) |
| **Founder-Market Fit** (< 40) | Niche pivot (toward founder's domain), feature simplification | Platform pivot (to founder's strongest platform) |

If multiple dimensions are weak, prioritize the one with the lowest score AND an addressable root cause.

### Step 3 — Generate pivot options using market_insights

For each applicable pivot type (from Step 2), generate a concrete option:

1. **Pull evidence from market_insights**:
   - For audience pivots: look for specific user segments mentioned in Reddit discussions or TikTok content
   - For niche pivots: identify adjacent niches with rising trend_velocity
   - For distribution pivots: check which channels show actual activity for the niche in market_insights
   - For pricing pivots: reference monetization_evidence and competitor pricing from `competitors.json`

2. **Be specific, not generic**:
   - Bad: "Narrow the audience"
   - Good: "Target freelance designers who use Figma (150K+ active in r/FigmaDesign) instead of all designers. This segment has higher WTP ($8–12/mo based on competitor pricing), active Reddit communities for organic distribution, and specific pain points around invoice management that existing tools ignore."

3. **Generate 2–3 options**, ranked by expected impact. Each option must pass the Minimum Viable Pivot Criteria.

### Step 4 — Scoring simulation

For each pivot option, simulate the expected score change by projecting how each dimension would shift. This gives the orchestrator enough information to decide whether a full re-score is warranted.

#### Simulation method

For the dimension(s) the pivot targets, estimate the new score range based on:
- The pivot direction and its evidence strength
- Category benchmarks from the rubrics in `idea-scoring`
- What the market_insights data suggests about the pivot target

For dimensions the pivot doesn't target, assume they remain unchanged **unless** there's a clear secondary effect:
- Audience narrowing typically improves Distribution (+5 to +15) but may reduce Demand (-5 to -10) and Market Size
- Feature simplification typically improves Founder-Market Fit (+10 to +20) but may reduce Retention (-5 to -10) if features drove stickiness
- Pricing pivots can affect Distribution (freemium → more installs) and Retention (subscription → commitment)

#### Projected score calculation

```
projected_score = sum of (projected_dimension_scores × weights) × projected_floor_penalty
```

Use the same weights and floor penalty logic from `idea-scoring`. This is an estimate — the actual re-score (step 4 of the pivot-optimization workflow) will be definitive.

Report as a range: `projected_score_range: { low: X, high: Y }`.

### Step 5 — Effort estimation

Each pivot has an execution cost. Estimate it relative to the founder's tier:

| Effort level | Definition | Typical timeline |
|---|---|---|
| **Low** | Can be done in a weekend. Changes copy, positioning, pricing, or targeting — no code changes. | 1–3 days |
| **Medium** | Requires feature changes or new content. Some development work. | 1–3 weeks |
| **High** | Significant rebuild. New core feature, new platform, or new audience requiring fresh research. | 1–3 months |

#### Tier adjustment on effort

| Founder tier | Adjust |
|---|---|
| **Beginner** | Upgrade effort by one level (what's "medium" for a builder is "high" for a beginner) |
| **Builder** | No adjustment |
| **Growth** | Downgrade effort by one level (what's "medium" for a builder is "low" for growth) |

A pivot with "high" effort for the founder's tier should be flagged as risky — the time investment may not be justified unless the projected score improvement is substantial (≥ 20 points).

### Step 6 — Indie buildability filter

Before finalizing, verify each pivot option passes these constraints:

| Constraint | Fails if |
|---|---|
| **Solo buildable** | Pivot requires a team (e.g., marketplace requiring both supply and demand side simultaneously) |
| **Budget feasible** | Pivot requires spend exceeding founder's budget tier (e.g., "run paid social" for a Bootstrap founder) |
| **Time feasible** | Pivot requires > 3 months of work for the founder's tier |
| **Skill feasible** | Pivot requires skills the founder doesn't have and can't learn in 4 weeks (e.g., "build an ML model" for a no-code beginner) |
| **Sales-cycle guard** | Pivot moves the idea to a buyer whose median sales cycle exceeds 60 days, whose first purchase requires procurement or a security review, or whose ACV exceeds ~$10k and therefore needs outbound sales. B2B-SMB, prosumer, and agency-resale buyers with self-serve or light-touch sales pass this guard; enterprise buyers do not. |

If a pivot fails any constraint, either modify it to fit or discard it and note why.

### Step 7 — Select recommended pivot

Rank remaining options by: `(projected_score_improvement / effort_level)` — the best pivot is the one with the highest score impact per unit of effort.

Tie-breakers:
1. Stronger evidence from market_insights
2. Lower risk (fewer dimensions negatively affected)
3. Preserves more of the original idea's strengths

## Output

Write two files to `memory/ideas/<slug>/`:

### 1. `pivot_options.json`

Machine-readable structured data for downstream skills (`idea-scoring`, `decision-memo`):


```json
{
  "idea_slug": "",
  "generated_at": "YYYY-MM-DD",
  "lane": "b2c | b2b",
  "pivot_scope": "micro | standard",
  "slug_decision": "in-place | new-slug",
  "new_slug": null,
  "original_score": 0,
  "original_verdict": "",
  "triggered_by_weaknesses": [
    {
      "dimension": "",
      "score": 0,
      "root_cause_type": "",
      "root_cause_description": ""
    }
  ],
  "structural_weaknesses_unpivotable": [],
  "pivot_options": [
    {
      "pivot_id": "pivot-1",
      "pivot_type": "",
      "description": "",
      "specific_change": "",
      "evidence": "",
      "evidence_source": "",
      "meets_minimum_viable_pivot": true,
      "scoring_simulation": {
        "dimensions_improved": [
          { "dimension": "", "current": 0, "projected_low": 0, "projected_high": 0 }
        ],
        "dimensions_worsened": [
          { "dimension": "", "current": 0, "projected_low": 0, "projected_high": 0 }
        ],
        "dimensions_unchanged": [],
        "projected_score_range": { "low": 0, "high": 0 },
        "projected_verdict_range": ""
      },
      "effort": {
        "level": "low | medium | high",
        "tier_adjusted_level": "low | medium | high",
        "timeline": "",
        "what_changes": "",
        "what_stays": ""
      },
      "indie_buildability": {
        "passes": true,
        "constraints_checked": ["solo_buildable", "budget_feasible", "time_feasible", "skill_feasible", "sales_cycle_guard"],
        "failed_constraints": []
      },
      "trade_offs": [],
      "variables_changed": 0
    }
  ],
  "recommended_pivot": "",
  "recommended_pivot_rationale": "",
  "drop_recommendation": false,
  "drop_rationale": "",
  "market_insights_sources_used": []
}
```

### 2. `pivot_report.md`

Human-readable pivot brief. This is the document the founder actually reads. Write it after `pivot_options.json` is complete — source all data from the JSON, don't introduce new judgements.

#### Structure

```markdown
---
idea_slug: <slug>
original_score: <X>
original_verdict: <verdict>
recommended_pivot: <pivot_id>
created_at: <YYYY-MM-DD>
---

# Pivot Report: <Idea Name>

## Why the Original Idea Scored <X>/100

<2–3 sentences. State the root cause of the low score plainly — not a list of every problem, just the one or two structural reasons the idea can't work as-is. Cite specific scores from scores.json (e.g. "Distribution scored 34/100 because…"). No hedging.>

---

## What Can Be Fixed vs. What Can't

**Addressable weaknesses** (pivot targets):
- <dimension>: <1-sentence root cause and why it's fixable>
- ...

**Structural weaknesses** (cannot be pivoted away):
- <dimension>: <1-sentence root cause and why no pivot can fix it>
- ...

<If all weaknesses are structural, state clearly that a pivot is unlikely to rescue this idea and explain why.>

---

## Pivot Options

### Option 1 — <Pivot Type>: <Short Name> · Projected score: <low>–<high>/100 · Effort: <tier_adjusted_level>

**The change:** <1–2 sentences. Be specific about exactly what changes — audience, feature, channel, pricing model, platform. Name concrete details (specific subreddits, competitor pricing, App Store keywords, etc.).>

**Why this works:** <2–3 sentences grounded in evidence. Cite the market_insights signal, competitor gap, or user complaint that supports this direction. Name the source (e.g. "r/FigmaDesign has 150K active members discussing invoice pain", "BookPal's 1-star reviews consistently mention X", "TikTok hashtag #X has 40M views and rising velocity").>

**What stays the same:** <1 sentence. What existing work and strengths are preserved.>

**Score projection:**
| Dimension | Current | Projected |
|---|---|---|
| <dimension> | <current>/100 | <low>–<high>/100 |
| <dimension (worsened)> | <current>/100 | <low>–<high>/100 |
| ... | ... | unchanged |

**Trade-offs:** <1–2 sentences. What this pivot gives up. Be honest — every pivot has a cost.>

**Effort:** <What specifically needs to change — code, copy, positioning, research. Timeline.>

---

### Option 2 — <Pivot Type>: <Short Name> · Projected score: <low>–<high>/100 · Effort: <tier_adjusted_level>

<Same structure as Option 1.>

---

### Option 3 — <Pivot Type>: <Short Name> · Projected score: <low>–<high>/100 · Effort: <tier_adjusted_level> *(optional)*

<Same structure as Option 1. Include only if a genuinely distinct third option exists.>

---

## Recommendation

**Go with Option <N> — <Short Name>.**

<3–4 sentences. State why this option has the best impact-to-effort ratio. Reference the scoring simulation. Name the one thing that makes this pivot more credible than the alternatives (the market signal, the competitor gap, the distribution advantage). End with a specific first action the founder should take this week.>

**If this pivot also scores below 50:** <1 sentence — what that means and what to do (drop, major rethink, or new idea slug).>

---

## What to Do First

<1–3 concrete steps, ordered. Each step should be doable within a week. No vague advice — name the specific subreddit, pricing change, App Store keyword, or feature to cut. If a RAT experiment makes sense before committing to the pivot, define it here: ≤2 weeks, ≤$100, pass/fail criteria.>
```

#### Writing rules for `pivot_report.md`

1. **Every claim cites a source.** Name the market_insights file, competitor data point, or dimension score behind every assertion. "Demand is weak" is not a claim — "Demand scored 36/100 because search volume for 'invoice app for freelancers' is 2,400/mo, below the 10K threshold for a viable indie SOM" is.
2. **Options must be meaningfully distinct.** Don't generate three variations of the same audience pivot. Each option should change a different variable.
3. **Score projections must be ranges, not false precision.** `62–71/100` is honest. `67/100` implies certainty the model doesn't have.
4. **The recommendation must pick one.** Not "it depends" — commit to the best option and explain why.
5. **Total length: ~500–800 words.** Cut anything that doesn't help the founder decide. This is a decision brief, not a research report.

---

## Notes

- If `overall_weakness_severity` = "fatal" and all weaknesses are structural, set `drop_recommendation` = true and explain why no pivot can save this idea. Still generate 1 option as a "Hail Mary" if the founder wants to try, but be honest about the odds.
- When generating niche pivots, always check `competitors.json` for `positioning_gaps` — an identified gap with evidence is the strongest pivot foundation.
- Pivot options that combine two small changes (e.g., audience narrowing + pricing change) are allowed as a single option if both changes are "low" effort. Call this out as a **compound pivot** and flag the higher risk.
- The `pivot_id` field is used by `idea-scoring` to link re-scores in `pivot_scores.json` back to the specific option.
- `pivot_scope: micro` requires exactly one entry in `pivot_options` with `variables_changed: 1`; the harness rejects anything else. `slug_decision: new-slug` requires `new_slug` to be filled.
- If market_insights files are past their `stale_after` date, note that pivot evidence may be outdated and recommend refreshing trend analysis before committing to a pivot direction.
- Only `addressable_weaknesses` from `weaknesses.json` are pivot targets. A `knowledge_gaps` entry means a dimension file is missing or thin: send it back to that research skill rather than pivoting around it.