Skill: Funding Landscape Researcher

Read before starting:

• global/context/icp.md — required. Dictates which strategic / customer-prepay paths are realistic.
• global/context/product-overview.md — required. Capital intensity and timeline-to-revenue vary by product type.
• global/context/pricing-model.md — required. Fundability math (expected MRR, gross margin, payback) is impossible without it.
• global/context/company-profile.md — required. Entity type (C-Corp Delaware vs LLC), incorporation date, cap table status all constrain the option set. An LLC cannot raise a conventional priced round.
• global/context/competitive-landscape.md — required for context, used as the baseline to diff against in the sync phase.
• global/context/founder-profile.md — strongly recommended. Runway, risk tolerance, fundraising experience, geography shape which paths are viable.

Also load:

• references/funding-stage-guide.md — instrument taxonomy, timelines, red flags, founder-priority → instrument mapping.

If pricing-model.md is missing, stop. Tell the founder:

"I can't survey the funding landscape without a pricing model — fundability math (capital efficiency, payback, revenue trajectory) depends on it. Run Project 09 first, then come back here."

If company-profile.md is missing, stop. Tell the founder:

"Entity structure and cap table state determine which funding instruments are even legal to accept. Run Project 10 first (at least through entity selection)."

Behavior

Open with evidence posture. One of: pre-revenue + pre-prototype, pre-revenue + prototype, with-pilots / LOIs, with-revenue sub-$10K MRR, with-revenue $10K–$100K MRR, with-revenue $100K+ MRR. The posture shapes the entire option set. State it explicitly in the output and in conversation.

Do not assume VC is the default. Before enumerating options, ask the founder which of three priorities they weight highest: speed to close, control (minimize board / governance overhead), or optionality (maximize future fundraising paths). The answer reshapes the finalist list.

Enumerate stage-appropriate sources only. Do not surface Series B+ instruments (venture debt, growth equity, secondaries) unless stage warrants. Use funding-stage-guide.md as the authoritative menu.

Use web-researcher to refresh program-specific facts at run time. Accelerator batch deadlines, current fund activity, grant application windows, active partners at named funds — these rot fast. Do not cite stale data.

Be honest about non-dilutive math. Grants sound free; SBIR Phase I takes 6–9 months from submission to award. If runway is < 9 months, grants are supplementary at best. Say so.

Carry competitive signal. As you research funding paths, you will frequently encounter competitors' funding histories, new entrants, or positioning shifts. Capture these as you go. They become the diff to competitive-landscape.md in Phase 8.

Trim to 1–3 finalists. A landscape overview with 15 "viable" options is not a plan. The Finalist Paths section is the payoff — name them, defend them, and say which two priorities each optimizes for.

Flag upstream inconsistencies. If the founder's company is an LLC but wants institutional VC, the right move is to flip back to Project 10 and re-examine entity structure, not to pretend LLC seed rounds are normal. Surface these gaps candidly.

Flow

Phase 1: Disclaimer, context load, evidence posture

Open with a short disclaimer:

"Fundraising is commercial negotiation, not legal advice. When term sheets appear, route them to a startup attorney before signing. Program specifics (accelerator deadlines, grant windows, fund activity) rot fast — I'll verify at run time but double-check before acting on specific dates or check sizes."

Read the six required global files. Read competitive-landscape.md carefully — you'll diff against it later. State your read of the evidence posture to the founder and ask them to confirm or correct.

Phase 2: Founder priorities interview

Ask the founder to rank three priorities:

• Speed to close — time-to-cash matters more than optimal terms
• Control — minimize board seats, governance overhead, strategic entanglement
• Optionality — preserve the ability to raise a larger round later at better terms

Also ask:

• Current runway (months of cash at current burn)
• Capital required to reach the next milestone (be specific about the milestone)
• Geography constraints (remote-OK, US-based, specific city)
• Fundraising experience (first-time vs repeat founder)

Record the answers. They drive the next two phases.

Phase 3: Stage determination

Based on evidence posture + pricing-model signal, name the stage explicitly:

• pre-seed (idea → prototype)
• early seed (prototype → first paid pilots)
• seed (paid pilots → early MRR)
• post-seed bridge (seed complete, Series A not ready)
• Series A (out of scope for most first-runs — if here, say so)

Cite the specific signals from pricing-model.md and product state that support the stage call.

Phase 4: Source enumeration

Walk through funding-stage-guide.md. For each instrument:

• Is it stage-appropriate? If not, exclude.
• Is the founder's situation a fit? Cite the specific founder-priority / runway / geography that makes it fit or not fit.
• What's the realistic check size and dilution?
• What's the realistic timeline to cash?

Produce a long list (5–10 instruments) with per-instrument notes. Do not trim yet.

Phase 5: Web research refresh

For each instrument on the long list, invoke web-researcher:

• Accelerators: confirm active batch, current terms, next deadline
• Sector-specialist funds: confirm they are actively writing new checks (funds near end-of-life often aren't)
• Grants: confirm current application windows
• Named VCs: check for recent thesis posts, podcast appearances, or portfolio activity within the last 6–9 months

If research surfaces new competitor information (a competitor's recent funding round, a new entrant in the space, a positioning shift), note it for Phase 8.

Phase 6: Tradeoff matrix

Produce a compact matrix showing the long list against: dilution, speed-to-close, expected check size, founder effort, signal value, path preservation. Use the founder's priority ranking from Phase 2 to highlight which rows win on each axis.

Phase 7: Finalist selection and write

Propose 1–3 finalist paths. Each finalist gets:

• A specific path description (e.g., "angel round: 8–12 angels at $25–75K each via warm intros, then scout check from [named fund]")
• Why it wins for this founder's priority ranking
• Expected timeline and capital
• The specific risk or failure mode to watch

Ask the founder for objections or edits. Iterate. Show funding-landscape-overview.md preview. On approval, write to projects/11-fundraising-prep/outputs/funding-landscape-overview.md.

Phase 8: Competitive landscape sync

If Phase 5 research surfaced new competitor/funding signal, produce a proposed diff for global/context/competitive-landscape.md:

• New competitors identified (who they are, what they do, how they relate to the ICP)
• Competitor funding events (round size, date, lead investor, signal implication)
• Positioning shifts (competitor pivot, new segment, pricing move)

Show the diff to the founder. Once approved, invoke the global context-writer skill with the additions. context-writer handles the preview and append/replace logic.

If no new signal surfaced, skip the sync and set competitive_landscape_updated: no in the output frontmatter. Tell the founder: "Research didn't surface anything new on the competitive side. I'm not writing to competitive-landscape.md; the file is current."

Phase 9: Next steps

Surface what comes next based on the finalist paths:

• If any equity path is a finalist → run investor-prospector next
• If advisor-recruitment gaps are visible (founder lacks a specific domain voice that would unlock path X) → run advisor-prospector
• If accelerator is a finalist → deadlines dictate sequencing; name them
• If grants are a finalist → name grant-writing as a distinct workstream; they take months

Minimum Bar

Before writing:

• Evidence posture is explicitly stated and founder-confirmed
• Founder priority ranking is captured (speed / control / optionality)
• Stage is named with specific signals cited
• Long list contains only stage-appropriate instruments
• Web research refresh has happened — no stale fund / accelerator data
• Finalist count is 1–3, not 5+
• Each finalist cites the priority axis it wins on
• competitive_landscape_updated frontmatter field is set (yes with diff, or no)

Before invoking context-writer:

• New competitive signal is concrete (not speculative)
• Diff is scoped — additions and changes only, not a rewrite
• Founder has approved the diff text

Output

Project-scoped: projects/11-fundraising-prep/outputs/funding-landscape-overview.md

Format:

---
analysis_date: YYYY-MM-DD