Build investor-ready pitch scripts in multiple formats (10-min, 5-min, 2-min, 1-min elevator, investor email). Produces pitch narratives, Q&A preparation, pitch scoring rubric, and optional investor roleplay practice. Use when the user wants to create a pitch, prepare for investor meetings, craft a startup pitch, write a fundraising narrative, or practice their pitch. Triggers for "pitch deck", "investor pitch", "pitch my startup", "fundraising deck", "seed deck", "how to pitch", "investor meeting", "demo day", "prepare pitch", "pitch script", "elevator pitch for investors", "pitch practice", "practice my pitch", "investor roleplay", or any request to present a startup to investors, accelerators, or partners. Works standalone — no prior startup-design session needed, but leverages its output if available.
Build investor-ready pitch content in multiple formats. Uses a structured 7-element framework combined with a problem-solution-insight foundation to produce pitch narratives that are clear, compelling, and fundable.
INTAKE → RESEARCH (2 parallel waves) → PITCH CONSTRUCTION → REVIEW & PRACTICE
The process: understand the company deeply, research the investor audience and competitive framing, then construct the pitch. Typical runtime: 15-20 minutes in Claude Code (parallel agents), 30-40 minutes in Claude.ai (sequential).
Three principles govern every output this skill produces:
Default output language is English. If the user writes in another language or explicitly requests one, use that language for all outputs instead.
Short and focused — 1-2 rounds of questions. The goal is enough context to build a compelling pitch.
A pitch built on validated data is significantly stronger than one built on self-reported answers. If you haven't already, consider running startup-design first — it provides market research, competitive analysis, business model, financial projections, and a validation scorecard that become the foundation of a much more credible pitch.
Not required. startup-pitch works standalone. But the quality difference is noticeable.
Before asking questions, check if prior sessions have been completed. Look for these files in the working directory or subdirectories:
From startup-design:
00-intake/brief.md — product description and context01-discovery/market-analysis.md — market size, TAM/SAM/SOM01-discovery/competitor-landscape.md — competitor profiles01-discovery/target-audience.md — customer personas, pain points02-strategy/lean-canvas.md — business model summary02-strategy/positioning.md — positioning framework05-financial/revenue-model.md — revenue projections06-validation/scorecard.md — idea scorecardFrom startup-competitors:
competitors-report.md — competitive landscapebattle-cards/ — per-competitor profilespricing-landscape.md — pricing analysisFrom startup-positioning:
positioning-doc.md — positioning documentpositioning-statement.md — positioning statements, elevator pitchcompetitive-alternatives.md — alternatives mapmessaging-implications.md — messaging hierarchyIf these files exist, read them and extract the pitch building blocks: product description, problem/solution, traction, team, market size, business model, positioning, competitive landscape. Tell the user: "I found data from a previous session. I'll use it to build your pitch."
Skip redundant intake questions. Go straight to pitch-specific questions if prior data is sufficient.
Round 1 — The essentials (all required for a pitch):
Round 2 — Sharpening (only if needed):
Pitch-specific questions:
Don't over-interview. A founder with clear answers to Round 1 has enough to build a strong pitch.
Before moving to research, crystallize the company description into exactly 2 sentences + one specific example. This is the foundation of the entire pitch.
Test: send it to a smart friend — could they paraphrase it back correctly? If not, simplify further.
Anti-pattern: "We leverage AI-powered machine learning to optimize cross-functional synergies in the B2B SaaS vertical." Better: "We help sales teams find which leads will actually buy. Our tool analyzes email replies and tells reps exactly who to call next — last month one customer closed 40% more deals."
Save to {project-name}/intake.md — consolidated context for pitch construction. Project name: kebab-case (e.g., ai-sales-assistant).
Create {project-name}/PROGRESS.md with: project name, skill name (startup-pitch), start date, language, requested formats, target audience, research mode (Live / Knowledge-Based), and a phase checklist. Update it after each phase completes.
After intake, assess market complexity and present the Research Depth recommendation to the user.
Reference: Read
references/research-scaling.mdfor the complexity scoring matrix, tier definitions, wave configurations, and the user communication template.
research-scaling.md for the exact template)The selected tier determines the number of agents per wave and search rounds per agent in Phase 2. See research-scaling.md for exact wave configurations per tier.
Two parallel research waves exploring investor audience and competitive/market framing. Together they provide the raw material for a pitch that resonates with the target audience.
Check if the Agent tool is available:
If WebSearch is unavailable, fall back to Knowledge-Based Mode: use training data, mark findings with [Knowledge-Based — verify independently], and reduce confidence ratings by one level. Note the mode in PROGRESS.md.
Reference: Read
references/research-principles.mdbefore starting any wave. It defines source quality tiers, cross-referencing rules, and how to handle data gaps.
Reference: Read
references/research-wave-1-audience-narrative.mdfor agent templates.
Two agents (or two sequential blocks):
A1: Investor & Audience Intelligence — Research the target audience (VC firms, angels, accelerators). What are they investing in? What thesis do they follow? What metrics matter at this stage? What are red flags for them? What's the current fundraising climate in this space? Build an audience profile that shapes how the pitch is framed.
A2: Comparable & Narrative Research — Find comparable companies that pitched successfully in this space. What story did they tell? What analogies worked? What "X for Y" framing resonated? What market trends can the pitch ride? Find the narrative hooks — the facts, trends, or insights that make investors lean forward.
Complete Wave 1 before starting Wave 2. Pass key findings (audience expectations, comparable narratives) as context.
Reference: Read
references/research-wave-2-competitive-framing.mdfor agent templates.
Two agents (or two sequential blocks):
B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch — How competitors position themselves to investors. What narratives have worked for funded competitors? Where are the gaps in their stories that this pitch can exploit? What objections will investors raise based on the competitive landscape? Build a "pitch-aware" competitive frame.
B2: Why Now & Market Timing — Research the timing thesis. What technology shift, behavioral change, or regulatory move makes this the right moment? Find data to support the "why now" — trend charts, adoption curves, policy changes. Assess whether the timing narrative is genuinely strong or forced.
After both waves complete, before synthesis, briefly present what the research found to the user: the investor audience profile, the strongest narrative hooks, the competitive framing angle, and the "why now" thesis. Ask: "Does this align with your pitch vision? Anything to adjust before I build the pitch?"
Keep it to one message — this is a quick alignment check, not a full report.
Reference: Read
references/pitch-frameworks.mdfor the complete framework, including the integration matrix. Reference: Readreferences/research-synthesis.mdfor synthesis protocol and output templates.
Build the pitch using the integrated framework. The construction combines a problem-solution-insight foundation with a structured 7-element approach — see the integration matrix in pitch-frameworks.md for how they connect.
Every pitch must communicate three things clearly:
The insight is what separates a pitch from a product description. Without it, you're just another company doing X.
The pitch is constructed using these elements, but the ORDER depends on what's most impressive about the company:
Determine the lead element based on founder strengths:
The default order for pre-traction companies: What You Do → Insight → Problem → Solution → Market → Business Model → Team → Ask.
Present the pitch narrative structure to the user before generating final deliverables. Show: the opening (2 sentences + example), the ordering rationale, and the key narrative arc. Ask: "Does this story feel right? Is the ordering correct? Anything that's missing or should change?"
Every deliverable file must start with a standardized header: # {Title}: {product} followed by *Skill: startup-pitch | Generated: {date}*. Every deliverable must end with Red Flags, Yellow Flags, and Sources sections.
Generate all requested formats. If the user didn't specify, generate all of them.
{project-name}/pitch-full.md — Full pitch narrative (~10 minutes):
{project-name}/pitch-5min.md — Compressed narrative (~5 minutes):
{project-name}/pitch-2min.md — Verbal pitch (~2 minutes, ~300 words):
{project-name}/pitch-1min.md — Elevator pitch (~1 minute, ~150 words):
{project-name}/pitch-email.md — Investor cold email (~500 words):
{project-name}/pitch-appendix.md — Q&A preparation:
Each agent saves its raw output to {project-name}/raw/. Agents must NOT write directly to deliverable paths — raw and synthesized output are separate.
Raw research files:
investor-audience.mdcomparable-narratives.mdcompetitive-framing.mdwhy-now-timing.mdAfter all pitch deliverables are written, before scoring and review, run a verification pass.
Reference: Read
references/verification-agent.mdfor the full verification protocol, universal checks, and skill-specific checks.
{project-name}/verification-report.mdIn Claude.ai or when Agent tool is unavailable, run the verification checks yourself in the main conversation following the same protocol.
After generating the pitch deliverables, review quality and optionally practice with investor roleplay.
Review the completed pitch against each dimension. Score honestly — a high score on a weak pitch is useless in front of real investors.
Save to {project-name}/pitch-scorecard.md:
| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity — Can someone explain what you do after hearing 2 sentences? | ||
| Strength Sequencing — Is the most impressive element in the first 60 seconds? | ||
| Traction Honesty — Are numbers accurate, timeframed, and real? | ||
| Insight Quality — Is the insight genuinely non-obvious and specific? | ||
| Market Sizing — Is the math bottom-up with clear assumptions? | ||
| Business Model — One model, clearly stated? | ||
| Team Credentials — Specific, verifiable accomplishments? | ||
| Ask Clarity — Amount + milestones + timeframe, stated with confidence? | ||
| Overall |
Verdict:
For each dimension scoring below 7: explain what's weak and suggest a specific fix.
Present the scorecard to the user. For each dimension that scored below 7:
After the scorecard review, offer practice: "Would you like to practice the pitch? I can play an investor and give you feedback."
If the user accepts:
Choose an investor persona:
Roleplay flow:
Multiple rounds: The user can practice multiple times with different personas. Each round surfaces different weaknesses.
Include practical delivery advice in the scorecard file:
Update PROGRESS.md — mark all phases complete.
Reference: Read
references/honesty-protocol.mdfor full protocol and anti-pattern details.
A pitch that overpromises destroys founder credibility. Core rules apply (label claims, quantify, declare gaps), plus pitch-specific additions:
| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | What to Say |
|---|---|---|
| Inflated TAM | "$50B market" with no math | "Show the bottom-up calculation. Investors do the math." |
| Vanity traction | "10K signups" with no activation | "Signups aren't traction. What % actually use the product?" |
| Jargon overload | "AI-powered blockchain synergy" | "What does it actually DO? Say it in words a 10-year-old understands." |
| No insight | Describing a product, not a thesis | "Why will THIS approach work? What do you know that others don't?" |
| Weak team | Titles without achievements | "What have you DONE? Accomplishments, not positions." |
| Vague ask | "We're raising a round" | "How much? For what milestones? In what timeframe?" |
| "No competition" | "We're the first to do this" | "What do customers do TODAY instead? That's your competition." |
Read only what you need for the current phase.
| File | When to Read | ~Lines | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
honesty-protocol.md | Start of session | ~62 | Full honesty protocol with pitch anti-patterns |
research-principles.md | Before starting Phase 2 | ~64 | Source quality, cross-referencing, data gaps |
research-wave-1-audience-narrative.md | When running Wave 1 | ~164 | Agent templates for investor + narrative research |
research-wave-2-competitive-framing.md | When running Wave 2 | ~159 | Agent templates for competitive framing + why now |
pitch-frameworks.md | During Phase 3 | ~261 | Complete pitch framework with integration matrix |
research-synthesis.md | After waves complete | ~417 | Synthesis protocol and output templates |
research-scaling.md | After intake, before Phase 2 | ~75 | Complexity scoring, tier definitions, wave configurations |
verification-agent.md | After pitch construction | ~80 | Verification protocol, universal + skill-specific checks |