Danijel Martinek
4d1d53432e
Sandcastle implementers run in git worktrees that contain only committed files, so every PRD referencing the spec was unreadable to dispatch agents while the bundle sat untracked in .proto/. The eight spec documents are copied verbatim (filenames preserved) from .proto/veect-product-docs/ and become the canonical source. The stray veect-product-docs.zip at the repo root was already removed before this change — that half of the task is a verified no-op. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016j8z4VHjedXDTjEDNg7qHK
41 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
41 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
# Veect — Founder OS Full-Project Audit
|
||
|
||
_Founder OS phase sweep · 2026-07-10 · requested by founder ("make sure we are not missing something")_
|
||
_Verdict up front: **the build is ahead of the validation.** Phases 6–7 are excellent and twice red-teamed; Phase 1's exit gate has never been cleared and Phase 5 (business model) doesn't exist. Neither blocks the M0 build — both block launch and fundraising._
|
||
|
||
## Phase-by-phase status
|
||
|
||
| # | Phase | Status | What exists | What's missing |
|
||
| --- | ------------------ | ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||
| 1 | Idea Validation | 🔴 **GATE OPEN** | Strong secondary evidence (92% handoff pain, Figma Make complaints, market conceding the DS-fidelity gap) 🟢; assumptions mapped A1–A5 | **Zero primary validation run.** V1 concierge-PRs, V2 mock task test, V3 fake-door, V5 interviews — all designed (PRD §13, with kill criteria), none executed. A1 (designers want code) and A4 (wedge unowned) still 🔴 |
|
||
| 2 | Market Research | 🟡 compressed | Competitive frame (v0/Lovable/Bolt/Figma Make/Subframe/Onlook/Storybook) from knowledge; naming hunt incidentally proved the space is being funded monthly (Legato $7M, Riff €14M — _vibe-coding adjacents_) | Deep teardown (owed for A4, esp. **Onlook + Subframe + Storybook-AI**); TAM/SAM/SOM never computed (research agents were declined) — needed for fundraising, not for building |
|
||
| 3 | Customer Discovery | 🟡 compressed | Personas Maya/Devon (secondary-sourced), JTBD ×4, buying committee sketch | No primary interviews; buying committee unvalidated (esp. security veto vs. the new "app clones your repo + device-flow token" model — **rev 1.2 makes discovery MORE urgent**: will enterprises allow it?) |
|
||
| 4 | Product Strategy | 🟢 solid | Dunford positioning, system+craft wedge, NSM (weekly shipped screens), differentiation vs all clusters | Roadmap beyond v1 (light); category narrative for launch |
|
||
| 5 | Business Model | 🔴 **MISSING** | One deferred note ("open-core, Storybook→Chromatic analogy") | **Nothing modeled.** Rev 1.2 made this load-bearing: standalone app + Docker forces the licensing/monetization decision (OSS core? free app + paid team features? Docker = paid tier?). "Build source-available" is in the spec on an assumption. Pricing, value metric, unit economics: absent |
|
||
| 6 | MVP Definition | 🟢 done | PRD v2 + pivot notes; scope discipline held through two pivots; out-of-scope list load-bearing | PRD partially superseded by spec (by design); refresh after M4 reality |
|
||
| 7 | Technical Planning | 🟢 done, twice red-teamed | Spec rev 1.2.1: standalone+Docker, remote-first connections, worktrees, adapters, AI, milestones M0–M7 with acceptance | **Impeccable ruleset still unreconciled** (F9/craft layer cites philosophy, not the verbatim DESIGN.md — fetch was blocked); fixtures to build |
|
||
| 8 | Go-to-Market | 🟡 head start | Positioning exists (P4) **and a full landing page is BUILT** (`Veect Landing.dc.html` — hero, proof strip, wedge, refusal demo, Polish demo) | Waitlist capture + analytics on the landing → **the V3 fake-door test is now nearly free**; launch plan, channel choice. ⚠️ The proof strip states targets (`0 unregistered / <10% LOC / <20 min`) as facts — validate or soften before public traffic |
|
||
| 9 | Growth | ⏳ correctly idle | NSM + activation metric defined | Post-launch phase; event taxonomy worth sketching before M4 ships telemetry-free (v1 has no telemetry — deliberate; revisit) |
|
||
| 10 | Customer Success | ⏳ correctly idle | — | Post-launch |
|
||
| 11 | Product Evolution | ⏳ correctly idle | Feature-test discipline documented in Founder OS | Post-launch |
|
||
|
||
## Cross-cutting open items (the loose threads)
|
||
|
||
1. **Naming/legal:** veect.com + .ai secured ✅ · veect.dev / npm `veect` + org / GitHub org / X handle — **register today** · EUIPO+USPTO knockout (watch **Vectr**) · counsel pass · entity formation (Veect Labs d.o.o.) + IP assignment **before any collaborator or coding-agent-generated code ships publicly**.
|
||
2. **Design partners:** V1 concierge-PRs and later M4 acceptance both need **~5 real teams with real repos**. Recruiting them is the longest-lead validation item — start now.
|
||
3. **Design brief 🔴s** (carried, unresolved): A1 code-surface framing (export-proof vs. code-workspace), fidelity labels ("production-grade/prototype-grade") to validate with engineers, Impeccable reconciliation, plus **new screens** (Connect Repository, Publish, Environment) added in rev 1.2 — the design agent should get the updated brief before building those flows.
|
||
4. **Security review posture:** rev 1.2's trust model (app executes repo code; device-flow tokens; env secrets) will face enterprise security questions — a one-page security FAQ is cheap insurance and doubles as marketing to Devon.
|
||
5. **Prototype ↔ brief drift: RESOLVED (2026-07-10)** — the prototype's design spec is stored as ground truth (`veect-design-spec-current.md`), the brief defers to it on art direction, the tech spec (rev 1.2.2) adopts its innovations (multi-view frames, bidirectional grammar), and the remaining UI work is specified in `veect-ui-gap-spec.md`.
|
||
|
||
## Recommended sequence (next ~4 weeks)
|
||
|
||
1. **Today:** registrations (npm/GitHub/X/veect.dev) + trademark knockout started + entity/counsel scheduled.
|
||
2. **This week:** hand spec rev 1.2.1 + design brief to the coding agent → **M0**. In parallel, start design-partner recruiting (5 teams).
|
||
3. **Weeks 1–2 (parallel with build):** run the validation gate — V1 concierge-PRs (no product needed), V3 fake-door landing page (= GTM start), 10 discovery interviews probing A1/A3 **and the rev 1.2 trust question** ("would your org connect this to your repo?").
|
||
4. **Week 2–3:** Phase 5 sprint with me — licensing/open-core decision + pricing model + unit-economics skeleton. Blocks launch posture and any fundraising narrative; does not block the build.
|
||
5. **Week 3–4:** competitive teardown (Onlook/Subframe/Storybook-AI) to harden A4; reconcile Impeccable rules into F9; refresh design brief 🔴s with validation data.
|
||
|
||
## Exit-gate summary
|
||
|
||
Phase 6 ✅ · Phase 7 ✅ · Phase 4 ✅(light) · **Phase 1 ❌ — the discipline line: V1's kill criteria (≥3/5 PRs merged with <10% LOC changed) is the go/no-go for treating Veect as validated rather than believed** · Phase 5 ❌ — schedule the sprint · Phases 2–3 🟡 — upgrade opportunistically · 8 starts via the fake-door · 9–11 correctly parked.
|