faglo/remotion_service
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs initial

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Daniil
2026-04-06 01:44:58 +03:00
parent 2a344ad588
commit 694b8bc77c
84 changed files with 6922 additions and 298 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.claude/skills/attack-surface/SKILL.md
+316
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
---
name: attack-surface
description: >
Strategic research framework that compresses months of market/competitive research into hours through structured power questions. Extracts unspoken industry insights, fragile market assumptions, and strategic attack surfaces from competitor data, reviews, and industry sources using parallel intelligence gathering.
Use when user says "attack surface", "research the market", "competitive analysis", "analyze competitors", "find market opportunity", "stress-test this idea", "market research", "evaluate opportunity", "find blind spots", "market entry", or when they want to deeply understand a market, evaluate a new direction, find industry blind spots, assess a partnership, or analyze opportunities.
Do NOT use for code review, testing, deployment, bug fixing, or implementation tasks.
---
# Attack Surface — Strategic Research Framework
Compress months of market research into hours. The difference between 3 hours and 3 months isn't the amount of information — it's knowing which questions actually matter.
Instead of "summarize these" or "analyze the competition", this framework extracts:
- **UNSPOKEN INSIGHTS** — what successful players understand that customers never say out loud
- **FRAGILE ASSUMPTIONS** — beliefs the entire market is built on, and how they break
- **ATTACK SURFACES** — the blind spots, the fragile consensus, the opening nobody is talking about
## Search Tool Selection
**Primary: Exa MCP** — Use `mcp__exa__web_search_exa`, `mcp__exa__crawling_exa`, `mcp__exa__deep_researcher_start` when available. Best for neural search, crawling full pages, and deep research.
**Fallback: WebSearch + WebFetch** — If Exa MCP is unavailable or returns errors, fall back to the built-in `WebSearch` tool for finding sources and `WebFetch` for crawling page content. WebSearch returns snippets; WebFetch gets full page text.
**Detection:** At the start of Phase 2, test Exa with a simple search. If it fails, switch to WebSearch/WebFetch for the entire session and note this in the Source Dossier.
## When to Use
- Entering a new market or vertical
- Evaluating a new feature direction for an existing project
- Assessing a partnership or platform opportunity
- Stress-testing a business idea before committing
- Finding competitive blind spots and underserved niches
- Any strategic question that benefits from deep evidence-based analysis
## Workflow Overview
7 phases, alternating between automated intelligence gathering and user-guided analysis:
| Phase | Name | Mode | Output |
|-------|------|------|--------|
| 1 | Briefing | Interactive | Research brief |
| 2 | Source Collection | Automated (parallel) | Source dossier |
| 3 | Unspoken Insights | Automated + checkpoint | Insight report |
| 4 | Fragile Assumptions | Automated + checkpoint | Assumption map |
| 5 | Investor Stress-Test | Automated + checkpoint | Stress-test results |
| 6 | Opportunity Mapping | Automated + checkpoint | Opportunity matrix |
| 7 | Action Plan & Save | Automated | Final research document |
---
## Phase 1: Briefing
Start by understanding what the user wants to research. This is an interactive conversation — ask questions until you have a clear research brief.
**Gather:**
1. **Target** — What market, industry, or opportunity? (e.g., "yacht brokerage SaaS", "AI flashcards for language teachers", "mobile reading apps")
2. **Angle** — What's the user's position? Entering as newcomer, expanding existing product, evaluating partnership?
3. **Known competitors** — Any specific companies or products the user already knows about?
4. **User-provided sources** — URLs, files, documents the user wants included? Accept any format.
5. **Specific questions** — Anything particular the user wants answered beyond the standard framework?
**Project context:** If the research relates to an existing project the user is working on, ask about the current product, tech stack, and strategic position. This grounds the analysis in real context rather than hypotheticals.
**Output a research brief** before proceeding:
```
Research Brief:
- Target: [market/opportunity]
- Angle: [newcomer / existing player / evaluator]
- Known competitors: [list]
- User sources: [list of URLs/files]
- Key questions: [specific questions beyond standard framework]
- Project context: [if applicable, key facts about the user's product]
```
Ask user to confirm before proceeding to Phase 2.
---
## Phase 2: Source Collection
This is the intelligence-gathering phase. Launch parallel subagents to collect diverse source material. The quality of analysis depends on the quality and diversity of sources.
### Tool availability check
Before launching subagents, test Exa MCP availability:
- Try a simple `mcp__exa__web_search_exa` call
- If it succeeds → use Exa tools in all subagents
- If it fails → instruct all subagents to use `WebSearch` + `WebFetch` instead
### What to gather
Launch 4-6 parallel `general-purpose` subagents, each focused on a different source type.
**Subagent 1: Competitor Intelligence**
Search for and crawl 5-8 competitor landing pages, product pages, and pricing pages. Extract: value propositions, positioning, pricing models, feature lists, target audience language.
**Subagent 2: Customer Voice**
Search Reddit, forums, review sites (G2, Trustpilot, Product Hunt, App Store reviews) for customer complaints, praise, and unmet needs in this market. Extract: recurring pain points, feature requests, emotional language, switching triggers.
**Subagent 3: Industry Analysis**
Search for industry reports, expert analysis, trend pieces, and earnings call transcripts. Extract: market size, growth trends, key players, regulatory landscape, technology shifts.
**Subagent 4: Adjacent & Emerging**
Search for startups entering this space, adjacent markets that could expand into it, and emerging technologies that could disrupt it. Extract: new entrants, pivot signals, technology trends, funding patterns.
**Subagent 5: User-Provided Sources** (if any)
Crawl all URLs the user provided. Extract full content.
### Subagent prompt template
Read `references/gatherer-prompt.md` for the detailed prompt template to use for each subagent. Each subagent receives:
- The research brief from Phase 1
- Its specific focus area
- Instructions for which search tool to use (Exa or WebSearch/WebFetch)
### After collection
Compile all subagent results into a **Source Dossier** — a structured document with all collected evidence organized by source type. Present a summary to the user:
```
Source Dossier Summary:
- Search tools used: [Exa MCP / WebSearch+WebFetch]
- X competitor pages analyzed
- X customer reviews/complaints collected
- X industry reports found
- X emerging players identified
- X user-provided sources crawled
Key themes so far: [2-3 sentences]
```
Ask: "Sources collected. Anything you want me to search for specifically before we start analysis? Or should I proceed?"
---
## Phase 3: Unspoken Insights
The first analytical question — the one that separates this from generic "market analysis":
> "Based on all collected evidence: What does every successful player in this market understand that their customers never say out loud?"
This question works because it forces the analysis past surface-level features and pricing into the deeper truths that drive the market.
**Run this as a subagent** — launch a `general-purpose` subagent with the full Source Dossier and the analysis prompt from `references/analyst-prompt.md` (Section: Unspoken Insights).
**Present findings** to the user as 3-5 numbered insights, each with:
- The insight itself (one clear sentence)
- Evidence from sources (specific quotes, data points)
- Why this matters strategically
**Checkpoint:** "Here are the unspoken insights I found. Do any of these surprise you? Want me to dig deeper on any of them, or should we move to fragile assumptions?"
---
## Phase 4: Fragile Assumptions
The second power question:
> "What are the 3-5 assumptions this entire market is built on, and what would have to be true for each one to be wrong?"
This question maps the market's attack surface — the beliefs everyone takes for granted that could be upended.
**Run as subagent** with Source Dossier + Phase 3 insights. Use prompt from `references/analyst-prompt.md` (Section: Fragile Assumptions).
**Present findings** as a structured assumption map:
For each assumption:
- **The assumption** (what everyone believes)
- **Evidence it's true** (why people believe this)
- **What breaks it** (specific conditions that would make it wrong)
- **Fragility score** (1-5: how likely is it to break in the next 2-3 years?)
- **If it breaks** (what happens to the market)
**Checkpoint:** "These are the fragile assumptions I found. Any you disagree with? Want to explore any further?"
---
## Phase 5: Investor Stress-Test
The third power question:
> "Write 5 questions a world-class investor would ask to destroy this business idea, then answer each one using only the evidence in our source dossier."
This is adversarial by design. The goal is to find every weak point before committing resources.
**Run as subagent** with Source Dossier + all prior analysis. Use prompt from `references/analyst-prompt.md` (Section: Investor Stress-Test).
**Present findings** as 5 numbered challenges:
For each:
- **The killer question** (phrased as an investor would ask it)
- **The evidence-based answer** (citing only our sources)
- **Confidence level** (strong / moderate / weak)
- **Remaining risk** (what the answer doesn't fully address)
### Iterative Deepening
For any answer rated "weak" confidence, automatically follow up:
> "What's the strongest version of this argument and where does it still break?"
Continue until all weak points are either resolved or clearly flagged as genuine risks.
**Checkpoint:** "Here's the stress-test. X questions have strong answers, Y have remaining risks. Want to dig deeper on any of these?"
---
## Phase 6: Opportunity Mapping
Now synthesize everything into actionable opportunities:
> "Given all the unspoken insights, fragile assumptions, and blind spots we've found — what are the 3 highest-leverage entry points or strategic moves? For each, what's the evidence, what's the risk, and what would you need to validate first?"
**Run as subagent** with ALL prior analysis. Use prompt from `references/analyst-prompt.md` (Section: Opportunity Mapping).
**Present** as an opportunity matrix:
| Opportunity | Evidence | Risk | Validation Needed | Leverage (1-5) |
|-------------|----------|------|-------------------|----------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
**Checkpoint:** "These are the highest-leverage opportunities I see. Which ones resonate? Should I develop any of them into a concrete action plan?"
---
## Phase 7: Action Plan & Save
Based on user's selections from Phase 6, create a concrete action plan:
1. **Immediate next steps** (this week)
2. **Validation experiments** (this month)
3. **Strategic moves** (this quarter)
### Save the Document
Compile ALL phases into a single research document and save it.
Use this format:
```markdown
---
id: RESEARCH-YYYY-MM-DD-attack-surface-{slug}
created: YYYY-MM-DD
topic: Attack Surface Analysis — {Topic}
sources: [list of source types used]
search_tools: [Exa MCP / WebSearch+WebFetch]
tags: [attack-surface, market-research, {topic-tags}]
---
# Attack Surface: {Topic}
## Executive Summary
[3-5 bullet points with the most important findings]
## Research Brief
[From Phase 1]
## Source Dossier Summary
[From Phase 2 — source counts and key themes]
## Unspoken Insights
[From Phase 3]
## Fragile Assumptions
[From Phase 4 — the assumption map]
## Investor Stress-Test
[From Phase 5 — questions, answers, confidence levels]
## Opportunity Matrix
[From Phase 6]
## Action Plan
[From Phase 7]
## Raw Sources
[Links to all sources consulted]
```
Save to the project root as `RESEARCH-YYYY-MM-DD-attack-surface-{slug}.md`. Tell the user the file path and offer to discuss any findings further.
---
## Subagent Instructions
All subagents use the `general-purpose` subagent type via the Agent tool. Read the reference files for detailed prompt templates:
- `references/gatherer-prompt.md` — Prompt template for Phase 2 source collection subagents
- `references/analyst-prompt.md` — Prompt templates for Phases 3-6 analysis subagents
When launching subagents:
- Phase 2: Launch 4-6 gatherers **in parallel** (one Agent tool call per search focus)
- Phases 3-6: Launch **sequentially** (each builds on prior results)
- Always pass the full Source Dossier to analysis subagents
- Set `run_in_background: false` for analysis subagents (need results before proceeding)
- Always include the search tool instructions (Exa vs WebSearch) in subagent prompts
### Token Budget
This skill launches 6-10 subagent calls total. Estimated cost:
- Phase 2: 4-6 subagents x ~5-15K tokens each
- Phases 3-6: 4 subagents x ~10-20K tokens each
- Total: ~60-150K tokens per full research session
---
## Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Skipping Phase 1 briefing | The research brief focuses everything — never skip |
| Generic searches | Use specific, targeted queries from the research brief |
| Presenting analysis without evidence | Every insight must cite specific sources |
| Moving past weak stress-test answers | Always run iterative deepening on weak answers |
| Forgetting to save | Always save the final document at the end |
| Ignoring user-provided sources | Crawl them FIRST — the user chose them for a reason |
| Not testing Exa availability | Always test before launching parallel subagents |
.claude/skills/attack-surface/references/analyst-prompt.md
+151
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
# Analysis Subagent — Prompt Templates
Use these templates when launching Phases 3-6 analysis subagents. Each receives the Source Dossier and prior analysis results. All analysis subagents should use `general-purpose` subagent type.
---
## Section: Unspoken Insights (Phase 3)
```
You are a strategic analyst conducting deep market research.
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Source Dossier:
{FULL_SOURCE_DOSSIER}
Your task: Answer this question with rigorous evidence from the sources above:
"What does every successful player in this market understand that their customers never say out loud?"
This isn't about features or pricing. It's about the deeper truths — the things that take founders 2 years of customer calls to figure out. The psychological patterns, the hidden motivations, the unspoken expectations.
Look for:
- Patterns in what successful companies do but don't advertise
- Gaps between what customers SAY they want and what they actually pay for
- Emotional undercurrents in customer complaints and reviews
- Things competitors all do the same way (unspoken consensus)
- Customer behaviors that contradict their stated preferences
Return exactly 3-5 insights. For each:
1. **The insight** — one clear, provocative sentence
2. **Evidence** — 2-3 specific quotes or data points from the sources, with source URLs
3. **Strategic implication** — why this matters for someone entering or competing in this market
Be specific and evidence-based. Generic observations like "customers want a good user experience" are worthless. We need insights that would make an industry veteran say "it took me years to figure that out."
```
---
## Section: Fragile Assumptions (Phase 4)
```
You are a strategic analyst mapping the attack surface of a market.
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Source Dossier:
{FULL_SOURCE_DOSSIER}
Prior analysis — Unspoken Insights:
{PHASE_3_RESULTS}
Your task: Answer this question:
"What are the 3-5 assumptions this entire market is built on, and what would have to be true for each one to be wrong?"
Every market operates on a set of shared beliefs that nobody questions. These are the load-bearing assumptions — if one breaks, the entire competitive landscape shifts. Your job is to find them.
Look for:
- Pricing models everyone copies (is there a reason, or just convention?)
- Distribution channels everyone uses (what if a new channel emerges?)
- Customer segments everyone targets (who is being ignored?)
- Technology choices everyone makes (what if the tech shifts?)
- Business models everyone follows (what if a different model works?)
- Regulations everyone plans around (what if they change?)
For each assumption, return:
1. **The assumption** — what everyone in this market believes
2. **Evidence it's currently true** — why this belief is reasonable today (cite sources)
3. **Breaking conditions** — specific, concrete conditions that would make it false
4. **Fragility score (1-5)** — how likely these conditions are in the next 2-3 years
- 1 = rock solid, would take a black swan
- 3 = plausible, early signals visible
- 5 = already cracking, evidence of change in sources
5. **If it breaks** — what happens to the market, who wins, who loses
Focus on assumptions scored 3-5. Those are the real attack surfaces.
```
---
## Section: Investor Stress-Test (Phase 5)
```
You are a world-class venture investor reviewing a potential investment. Your reputation depends on finding fatal flaws BEFORE writing a check. You've seen 10,000 pitches and killed 9,900 of them.
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Source Dossier:
{FULL_SOURCE_DOSSIER}
Prior analysis:
- Unspoken Insights: {PHASE_3_RESULTS}
- Fragile Assumptions: {PHASE_4_RESULTS}
Your task:
Step 1: Write 5 questions that would destroy this business idea. Not softballs — the questions that make founders sweat. The ones that expose whether they've really done their homework or are running on hope.
Step 2: Answer each question using ONLY the evidence in the Source Dossier and prior analysis. No hand-waving. If the evidence doesn't support a strong answer, say so.
For each of the 5 questions:
1. **The killer question** — phrased as an investor would ask it, sharp and direct
2. **The evidence-based answer** — using only our collected sources
3. **Confidence level** — STRONG (evidence clearly supports), MODERATE (evidence partially supports), or WEAK (evidence is thin or contradictory)
4. **Remaining risk** — what the answer doesn't fully address
Step 3: For any answer rated WEAK, follow up with:
"What's the strongest possible version of the argument for this idea, and where does it still break?"
The goal is not to kill the idea — it's to stress-test it so thoroughly that whatever survives is genuinely defensible.
```
---
## Section: Opportunity Mapping (Phase 6)
```
You are a strategic advisor synthesizing an entire research sprint into actionable opportunities.
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
All prior analysis:
- Unspoken Insights: {PHASE_3_RESULTS}
- Fragile Assumptions: {PHASE_4_RESULTS}
- Investor Stress-Test: {PHASE_5_RESULTS}
Your task:
"Given all the unspoken insights, fragile assumptions, and blind spots we've found — what are the 3 highest-leverage entry points or strategic moves?"
For each opportunity:
1. **The opportunity** — one clear sentence describing the strategic move
2. **Why now** — what's changed (or changing) that makes this viable
3. **Evidence** — specific findings from our research that support this
4. **The moat** — what would make this defensible once established
5. **Risk** — the biggest thing that could go wrong
6. **Validation needed** — the cheapest, fastest experiment to test this before committing
7. **Leverage score (1-5)** — how much impact relative to effort
Also identify:
- **The contrarian opportunity** — the one that goes against market consensus but is supported by evidence
- **The timing play** — the one that depends on getting the timing right (a fragile assumption about to break)
- **The safe bet** — the one with the most evidence and lowest risk
Rank all opportunities by leverage score. Be honest about which ones are speculative vs. well-supported.
```
.claude/skills/attack-surface/references/gatherer-prompt.md
+187
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
# Source Gatherer — Subagent Prompt Templates
Use these templates when launching Phase 2 subagents. Each subagent gets a specific focus area and the research brief.
## Search Tool Instructions
Include ONE of these blocks at the top of every subagent prompt, depending on Exa availability:
### If Exa MCP is available:
```
SEARCH TOOLS: Use Exa MCP for all searches.
- `mcp__exa__web_search_exa` — neural search, returns relevant results with snippets
- `mcp__exa__crawling_exa` — crawl a URL to get full page content (use maxCharacters: 10000)
- `mcp__exa__deep_researcher_start` + `mcp__exa__deep_researcher_check` — for comprehensive research queries
```
### If Exa MCP is NOT available (fallback):
```
SEARCH TOOLS: Use built-in WebSearch and WebFetch.
- `WebSearch` — search the web, returns result snippets. Run multiple searches with different queries.
- `WebFetch` — fetch full page content from a URL. Use for competitor pages, articles, reviews.
For each search, run 2-3 different query variations to maximize coverage.
```
---
## Template: Competitor Intelligence
```
You are gathering competitive intelligence for a strategic research project.
{SEARCH_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS}
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Your job: Find and analyze 5-8 competitor or key player websites in this market.
Search queries to try:
- "{market} software/platform/tool"
- "best {market} solutions {year}"
- "alternatives to {known_competitor}" (if any known)
- "{market} startup"
For each competitor found, crawl their landing page, pricing page, and about page.
For each competitor, extract and return:
- Company name and URL
- Value proposition (their main headline/pitch)
- Target audience (who they're speaking to)
- Key features (top 5-10)
- Pricing model (if visible)
- Positioning language (how they differentiate)
- Notable claims or promises
Return a structured report with all competitors analyzed. Include direct quotes from their sites.
```
---
## Template: Customer Voice
```
You are gathering customer sentiment for a strategic research project.
{SEARCH_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS}
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Your job: Find genuine customer opinions — complaints, praise, and unmet needs.
Search queries to try:
- "reddit {market} complaints"
- "reddit {market} frustrating"
- "reddit {market} switched from {competitor}"
- "{competitor} review" or "{competitor} problems"
- "site:producthunt.com {market}"
- "{market} customer reviews G2 Trustpilot"
Crawl the most relevant results to get full content.
Extract and categorize:
- **Recurring pain points** (what comes up again and again)
- **Emotional triggers** (what makes people angry, excited, or frustrated)
- **Feature requests** (what people wish existed)
- **Switching triggers** (why people leave one solution for another)
- **Praise patterns** (what people genuinely love)
Include direct quotes with source URLs. Raw customer language is more valuable than your summary — preserve the exact words people use.
```
---
## Template: Industry Analysis
```
You are gathering industry-level intelligence for a strategic research project.
{SEARCH_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS}
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Your job: Find broad industry context — market size, trends, expert analysis.
Search queries to try:
- "{market} market size growth trends {year}"
- "{market} industry report"
- "{market} market analysis {year}"
- "{major_company} earnings call {market}" (if applicable)
- "{market} regulatory changes"
- "{market} technology disruption"
If using Exa, also use `deep_researcher_start` with model `exa-research-pro` for comprehensive coverage.
Extract:
- **Market size and growth** (TAM/SAM/SOM if available)
- **Key trends** (what's changing in this market)
- **Regulatory landscape** (any regulations that matter)
- **Technology shifts** (what new tech is enabling or disrupting)
- **Expert predictions** (what industry analysts say is coming)
- **Funding patterns** (who's investing, how much, in what)
Cite specific numbers and sources. Vague claims like "the market is growing" without data are useless.
```
---
## Template: Adjacent & Emerging
```
You are scanning for emerging threats and adjacent opportunities for a strategic research project.
{SEARCH_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS}
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Your job: Find what's coming next — new entrants, adjacent markets, and potential disruptors.
Search queries to try:
- "{market} startup {year}"
- "{market} new entrant funding"
- "pivot to {market}"
- "{adjacent_market} expanding into {market}"
- "AI {market}" or "{market} automation"
- "Y Combinator {market}" or "TechCrunch {market} {year}"
Crawl the most promising results.
Extract:
- **New entrants** (startups launched in last 2 years)
- **Adjacent threats** (companies from other markets that could enter)
- **Technology disruptors** (new tech that could change the game)
- **Pivot signals** (companies pivoting toward this market)
- **Funding patterns** (recent funding rounds in this space)
- **Unconventional approaches** (anyone doing something radically different)
Focus on what nobody in the established market is paying attention to yet.
```
---
## Template: User-Provided Sources
```
You are extracting content from sources provided by the user for a strategic research project.
{SEARCH_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS}
Research brief:
{RESEARCH_BRIEF}
Sources to crawl:
{LIST_OF_URLS_OR_FILES}
Your job: Extract full content from each source. For URLs, use crawling tools (Exa crawling or WebFetch). For local files, use the Read tool.
For each source, return:
- Source URL/path
- Title
- Full extracted content (preserve structure)
- Key takeaways relevant to the research brief (3-5 bullet points per source)
These are sources the user specifically chose — they contain information the user considers important. Extract everything.
```