Review product risk before coding by checking demand, alternatives, channels, switching costs, and failure signals.
Before You Build helps an AI coding workflow pause before implementation and check whether the feature, product, or tool is worth building. It focuses on product risk rather than code structure: who needs the thing, what they use today, why they would switch, how distribution works, and what evidence would make the project safer to start.
The upstream project ships a standalone skill repository and an npx installer for several coding assistants.
Restate the product or feature in one concrete sentence. Name the intended user, the job they are trying to finish, and the current workaround or competitor.
Review the idea across demand, workflow fit, willingness to switch, distribution, pricing, data access, and operational burden. Prefer specific doubts over generic brainstorming.
Suggest the smallest useful validation step before implementation. This could be a buyer conversation, landing page test, manual concierge workflow, prototype, waitlist, paid pilot, or narrow internal trial.
If the risk is acceptable, move into implementation with the assumptions written down. If the risk is high or evidence is weak, recommend a smaller experiment instead of building the full version.
User: Build a dashboard for AI trend monitoring.
Before coding, check:
- Which role needs this dashboard every week?
- What source do they use today?
- What decision changes because of the dashboard?
- Would they pay for alerts, reports, or workflow integration?
- What is the smallest manual report that proves repeat use?
User: Build an internal CRM for our small team.
Before coding, check:
- What breaks in the current spreadsheet or existing CRM?
- How many people will use it daily?
- What data must be imported or kept in sync?
- What process change is required after launch?
- Can a no-code workflow prove the need first?
Problem: The assistant repeats the product pitch instead of challenging the assumptions. Solution: Ask for current alternatives, switching triggers, and a validation step before code.
Problem: The review becomes too broad and blocks progress. Solution: Pick the riskiest assumption and test only that first.
Problem: The idea is treated as a startup even when it is a small internal workflow. Solution: Scale the risk review to the project size and only ask questions that change the build decision.
@saas-mvp-launcher - Use when moving from validation into MVP planning and launch execution.@ux-research-methodology - Use when the next step needs structured user research.Copy a source-pinned command for your client. You run it yourself.
Destination: .claude/skills/before-you-build · pinned to the source commit
# Run from your project root
git clone https://github.com/sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills.git .skillboard-tmp
git -C .skillboard-tmp checkout 5cf4dfeb13ea966daa1e117897689cd7991e3f44
mkdir -p ".claude/skills"
cp -r ".skillboard-tmp/plugins/agentic-awesome-skills-claude/skills/before-you-build" ".claude/skills/"
rm -rf .skillboard-tmpReview the source before running. This copies files into your project; it is not a one-click install and does not verify runtime safety.
sudo apt update && sudo apt install -y gitnpm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code# Run from your project root
git clone https://github.com/sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills.git .skillboard-tmp
git -C .skillboard-tmp checkout 5cf4dfeb13ea966daa1e117897689cd7991e3f44
mkdir -p ".claude/skills"
cp -r ".skillboard-tmp/plugins/agentic-awesome-skills-claude/skills/before-you-build" ".claude/skills/"
rm -rf .skillboard-tmpDestination: .claude/skills/before-you-build
Scanner static-checks@0.1.0 · commit 5cf4dfeb13ea. Static checks cannot prove runtime safety – review the source and the exact diff before installing. How checks work.
No static rules matched. This is not a safety guarantee.