What does the score mean?

The 0–100 score represents viability and a recommended action level. Higher scores indicate stronger fit and a clearer path to $1–3M ARR with a solo/duo team.

How are the weights applied?

Each dimension is scored 0–5 and then multiplied by its fixed weight: Distribution 7 per point (max 35), ARPA 4 per point (max 20), Willingness 3 per point (max 15), Scope 3 per point (max 15), Expandability 2 per point (max 10), Competition 1 per point (max 5). The sum is 0–100.

Can I customize for different team sizes or ARR targets?

The baseline is designed for a $1–3M ARR outcome with solo/duo teams. You can adjust weights, thresholds, or dimension definitions to fit other team sizes or ARR targets, but you should re-validate the scoring model with updated assumptions.

niche-success-scorecard

Scanned

npx machina-cli add skill kirillpolevoy/claude-saas-eval-skills/niche-success-scorecard --openclaw

Files (1)

SKILL.md

6.4 KB

Niche Success Scorecard — Lifestyle SaaS

Goal

Generate a quantitative score (0–100) to determine if a niche can realistically reach $1–3M ARR with a solo/duo team.

When to Use

Run this after completing a First Pass evaluation. Requires concrete data on distribution, pricing, competition, and buildability.

Scoring System

Each dimension scored 0–5, then weighted. Total = 100 points max.

1. Distribution You Can Execute Solo (35%)

Score	Criteria
0	No identifiable list, channel, or inbound path
1	Vague audience; would require paid ads with no proven playbook
2	Audience exists but no clean list; cold outbound only
3	One grindy channel that could work with sustained effort
4	Clear list OR strong inbound signal, but not both
5	Clean buyer list + at least one secondary channel/inbound confirmed

Weight: 35 points (Score × 7)

2. ARPA + Path to $1–3M ARR (20%)

Score	Criteria
0	Requires 5,000+ customers to hit $1M ARR
1	Requires 3,000–5,000 customers
2	Requires 2,000–3,000 customers
3	Requires 1,000–2,000 customers
4	Requires 500–1,000 customers
5	Requires 200–500 customers (ARPA $150–$400/mo)

Weight: 20 points (Score × 4)

3. Willingness to Pay / Urgency (15%)

Score	Criteria
0	Pure nice-to-have; no deadline or pain driver
1	Mild convenience; saves some time
2	Noticeable time saver; some frustration with status quo
3	Clear time/money saver; buyers actively looking for solutions
4	Compliance-adjacent or tied to revenue; strong motivation
5	Mandatory/deadline-driven; non-compliance = penalties or lost revenue

Weight: 15 points (Score × 3)

4. Scope + Support Load (15%)

Score	Criteria
0	Heavy integrations, multi-jurisdiction, or extreme edge cases
1	Significant complexity; would need contractor help
2	Buildable but will have annoying support burden
3	Buildable in 6–10 weeks; moderate support expected
4	Buildable in 4–6 weeks; support load manageable
5	Buildable in 2–4 weeks; low support; clear scope

Weight: 15 points (Score × 3)

5. Expandability (10%)

Score	Criteria
0	Dead-end; no adjacent markets or upsells
1	Theoretical expansion but unclear path
2	One adjacent market or upsell tier possible
3	2–3 adjacent verticals or clear upsell path
4	Strong lateral expansion (device types, states, compliance areas)
5	Platform potential; multiple expansion vectors confirmed

Weight: 10 points (Score × 2)

6. Competition / Crowding (5%)

Score	Criteria
0	Funded incumbents dominate; no wedge visible
1	Strong incumbents with loyal customer base
2	Incumbents exist but stagnant or poorly executed
3	Incumbents exist but clear wedge opportunity
4	Few direct competitors; mostly generic substitutes
5	Greenfield; no credible niche-specific players

Weight: 5 points (Score × 1)

Decision Thresholds

Score Range	Decision	Action
80–100	Pursue aggressively	Start validation immediately
65–79	Pursue conditionally	Must clear 1–2 specific risks first
50–64	Hold	Needs more research or market timing
< 50	Kill	Move on; don't revisit without new signal

Bonus: Revenue Quality (Unweighted)

Not scored, but note for decision-making:

Factor	Assessment
Contract structure	Monthly / Annual / Multi-year
Payment reliability	Prepaid / Net-30 / Invoice-heavy
Expansion revenue	Per-seat / Usage / Upsell tiers / None

Annual contracts with expansion revenue = more defensible business.

Output

Filename: Niche_Score_<slug>.md

# Niche Success Score: <Title>

## Score Summary

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| **Total Score** | /100 |
| **Decision** | Pursue / Pursue-Conditional / Hold / Kill |
| **One-line rationale** | |

## Score Breakdown

| Dimension | Weight | Score (0–5) | Points | Notes |
|-----------|-------:|------------:|-------:|-------|
| Distribution (solo-executable) | 35 | | /35 | |
| ARPA + Path to $1–3M ARR | 20 | | /20 | |
| Willingness to Pay / Urgency | 15 | | /15 | |
| Scope + Support Load | 15 | | /15 | |
| Expandability | 10 | | /10 | |
| Competition / Crowding | 5 | | /5 | |
| **TOTAL** | 100 | — | **/100** | |

## Revenue Quality (Unweighted)

| Factor | Assessment |
|--------|------------|
| Contract structure | |
| Payment reliability | |
| Expansion revenue | |

## What Makes This Win (Top 3)

1. 
2. 
3. 

## What Kills This (Top 3)

1. 
2. 
3. 

## Lifestyle Math (Conservative)

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Target ARPA | |
| Customers for $1M ARR | |
| Customers for $3M ARR | |
| Primary acquisition channel | |
| Biggest assumption | |

## Founder Fit Summary

| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Natural buyer access? | Yes / No / Partial |
| Enjoy 50+ sales calls? | Yes / No / Unsure |
| Care in 3 years? | Yes / No / Unsure |
| Ethical concerns? | None / Minor / Major |

## Defensibility Assessment

| Moat Type | Present? | Strength |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Data/workflow lock-in | Yes/No | Weak / Moderate / Strong |
| Relationship moat | Yes/No | Weak / Moderate / Strong |
| Distribution exclusivity | Yes/No | Weak / Moderate / Strong |
| Speed moat | Yes/No | Weak / Moderate / Strong |

## Next Steps (2-Week Gate)

### Validation Interviews

- **Target:** X interviews with [buyer persona]
- **Must hear:** 
- **Must NOT hear:**

### Pilot Design

- **Concierge pilot:**
- **Pricing test:**
- **Success metric:**

### Go/No-Go Criteria

- **Proceed if:**
- **Stop if:**

### Day-by-Day Plan

| Day | Activity | Deliverable |
|-----|----------|-------------|
| 1–3 | | |
| 4–7 | | |
| 8–10 | | |
| 11–14 | | |

Source

git clone https://github.com/kirillpolevoy/claude-saas-eval-skills/blob/main/niche-success-scorecard/SKILL.mdView on GitHub

Overview

This skill generates a 0–100 weighted score to judge whether a niche can realistically hit $1–3M ARR with a solo/duo team. It uses six dimensions—distribution, ARPA path, willingness to pay, scope, expandability, and competition—with explicit weights to drive a clear go/no-go decision.

How This Skill Works

Score 0–5 on each of the six dimensions, then multiply by the dimension-specific weight (distribution 7 per point for 35 max, ARPA 4 per point for 20 max, willingness 3 per point for 15 max, scope 3 per point for 15 max, expandability 2 per point for 10 max, competition 1 per point for 5 max). Sum the results to a 0–100 total. Use the defined thresholds to decide action: 80–100 pursue aggressively, 65–79 pursue conditionally, 50–64 hold, below 50 kill.

When to Use It

After completing a First Pass evaluation with concrete data on distribution, pricing, competition, and buildability.
When you need a go/no-go decision for pursuing a niche aimed at $1–3M ARR with a solo/duo team.
When comparing multiple niches to prioritize which to validate first.
When you’ve requested a scorecard on a niche (e.g., 'score this niche' or 'give me a scorecard for [niche]') to standardize output.
When you want a structured framework to communicate the rationale to stakeholders or investors.

Quick Start

Step 1: Gather concrete data for each of the six dimensions (distribution, ARPA/path to ARR, willingness to pay, scope, expandability, competition).
Step 2: Score each dimension 0–5 and multiply by its weight (distribution ×7, ARPA ×4, willingness ×3, scope ×3, expandability ×2, competition ×1). Sum to 0–100.
Step 3: Compare the total to the thresholds (80–100 aggressive, 65–79 conditional, 50–64 hold, <50 kill) and plan next steps accordingly.

Best Practices

Use concrete, auditable data for each dimension (distribution, pricing, competition, and buildability).
Be candid about scope and support load to avoid biased optimism.
Score honestly on a 0–5 scale; higher scores should reflect verifiable signals.
Cross-check results with qualitative signals such as buyer interest or pilot interest before deciding.
Recompute the score as new data arrives or market conditions change; adjust thresholds if needed.

Example Use Cases

Niche: Boutique fitness studio CRM for solo gym owners — Distribution 4, ARPA/path 3, Willingness 4, Scope 3, Expandability 2, Competition 3. Total = 68 → Pursue conditionally; validate distribution and pricing playbooks.
Niche: Airbnb host listing automation — Distribution 5, ARPA/path 3, Willingness 4, Scope 2, Expandability 3, Competition 2. Total = 67 → Pursue conditionally; test multi-channel inbound and pricing viability.
Niche: SMB HR compliance training automation — Distribution 3, ARPA/path 4, Willingness 4, Scope 2, Expandability 3, Competition 2. Total = 73 → Pursue conditionally; confirm scale and support load before committing.
Niche: Solo attorney client intake automation — Distribution 2, ARPA/path 4, Willingness 3, Scope 3, Expandability 2, Competition 1. Total = 59 → Hold; gather more distribution signals and validate integration scope.
Niche: AI-powered content brief generator for SMB marketing teams — Distribution 3, ARPA/path 5, Willingness 4, Scope 3, Expandability 4, Competition 2. Total = 84 → Pursue aggressively; strong inbound potential and clear expansion paths.

Frequently Asked Questions

Add this skill to your agents