From c1f2b4ee1dce4160ee93be0673d41f909c3e05e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ryota Ikezawa Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 01:16:48 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] feat(claude): add trend-arbitrage skill for gap opportunity discovery Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 --- dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/SKILL.md | 202 +++++++++++++ .../trend-arbitrage/references/examples.md | 171 +++++++++++ .../trend-arbitrage/references/phases.md | 271 ++++++++++++++++++ .../references/validation-template.md | 78 +++++ 4 files changed, 722 insertions(+) create mode 100644 dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/SKILL.md create mode 100644 dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/examples.md create mode 100644 dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/phases.md create mode 100644 dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/validation-template.md diff --git a/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/SKILL.md b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..011847f --- /dev/null +++ b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +--- +name: trend-arbitrage +description: | + End-to-end workflow for finding content, app, service, or product opportunities + where search demand is high but quality supply is low (trend arbitrage). + Use when: finding content gaps, keyword opportunities, niche research, + analyzing whether a topic or idea is worth pursuing, or competitive gap analysis. +--- + +# Trend Arbitrage Skill + +Find "Volume: High / Difficulty: Low" gaps in any market and turn them into +actionable content or product strategies. Based on the methodology of identifying +demand-supply mismatches before competitors notice them. + +## Core Concept + +Trend Arbitrage = Finding topics where **search demand is growing** but **quality supply is scarce**. + +Three conditions must ALL be true: +1. **Breakout** — Search volume rising sharply in recent months +2. **Information Gap** — Top results are outdated, thin, or user-generated (Q&A sites, forums) +3. **High Intent** — Searchers want to solve a problem, buy something, or learn a specific skill + +## Initial Classification + +Before starting any phase, use `ask_user_input` to classify the opportunity type unless +the user has already made it clear. This determines which discovery methods, validation +criteria, and strategy templates to use. + +**Always ask upfront:** + +1. **What type of gap are you looking for?** + - Content gap (blog, newsletter, guide, course) + - App/Tool gap (SaaS, utility, mobile app) + - Service gap (consulting, subscription service, productized service) + - Product gap (digital product, template, dataset, curated list) + +2. **What market or niche?** (free text if not already specified) + +3. **What's your time horizon?** + - Quick win (launch in 1-2 weeks) + - Medium play (1-3 months to build) + - Long-term bet (3-12 months, bigger moat) + +The answers shape every subsequent phase — discovery sources, validation criteria, +strategy templates, and execution plans all differ by type. + +## Workflow Overview + +The skill operates in 4 phases. Run them sequentially or jump to any phase. + +``` +CLASSIFY → Phase 1: DISCOVER → Phase 2: VALIDATE → Phase 3: STRATEGIZE → Phase 4: EXECUTE +(Ask type) (Find signals) (Confirm the gap) (Design the play) (Create the plan) +``` + +Read `references/phases.md` for the detailed procedure of each phase. + +## Phase 1: DISCOVER — Find Gap Signals + +**Goal**: Generate a list of 5-10 candidate opportunities showing breakout signals. + +**Inputs**: Determined by classification above. If anything is ambiguous, ask via `ask_user_input`. + +**Methods by type** (use web_search for all): + +### Content gaps: +1. Google Trends exploration — rising queries in the niche +2. Community pain points — Reddit, forums, Q&A sites with repeated unanswered questions +3. Supply-side audit — search results dominated by outdated/thin content + +### App/Tool gaps: +1. "I wish there was an app for..." signals — Reddit, X/Twitter, Hacker News, Product Hunt comments +2. Existing tool complaints — App Store/Play Store reviews with recurring frustration patterns +3. Technology accessibility gaps — powerful tech (AI, APIs) that lacks a simple UI wrapper +4. Adjacent tool search — what tools exist in adjacent markets but not this one? + +### Service gaps: +1. Hiring pain signals — "looking for [role]" posts with complaints about cost/quality/speed +2. Process pain — "how do I [task]" where answers are complex and people clearly want someone to do it for them +3. Freelancer marketplace gaps — Fiverr/Upwork categories with low ratings or sparse supply + +### Product gaps: +1. Curation demand — "best [resources] for [niche]" with no definitive answer +2. Template/framework demand — "how to [process]" where a reusable template would save time +3. Data gaps — frequently asked questions requiring research that nobody has packaged + +**Output**: A ranked table of candidates: + +``` +| # | Opportunity | Type | Signal Source | Trend Direction | Initial Assessment | +|---|-------------|------|--------------|-----------------|-------------------| +| 1 | ... | App | ... | ↑↑ Breakout | Promising | +``` + +## Phase 2: VALIDATE — Confirm the Gap Exists + +**Goal**: For top 3 candidates from Phase 1, produce a quantified gap score. + +Validation criteria shift by opportunity type: + +### For Content gaps: + +**Demand Score (1-5)**: Based on search volume and community interest +**Supply Score (1-5, inverted)**: Based on quality/freshness of existing content +**Intent Score (1-5)**: From casual browsing (1) to purchase-ready (5) + +### For App/Tool gaps: + +**Demand Score (1-5)**: Based on how many people are asking for this tool, workaround complexity +**Supply Score (1-5, inverted)**: Based on existing tools' quality, UX, and pricing gaps +**Feasibility Score (1-5)**: Can the user realistically build this? (replaces Intent for apps) + +### For Service gaps: + +**Demand Score (1-5)**: Based on hiring posts, freelancer marketplace activity, complaint volume +**Supply Score (1-5, inverted)**: Based on existing service providers' quality, speed, pricing +**Margin Score (1-5)**: Is the willingness-to-pay high enough for sustainable solo delivery? + +### For Product gaps: + +**Demand Score (1-5)**: Based on how often people search for / ask about this resource +**Supply Score (1-5, inverted)**: Does a good version of this product already exist? +**Packaging Score (1-5)**: How easily can scattered information be packaged into a sellable unit? + +**Arbitrage Score** = Metric1 × Metric2 × Metric3 (max 125) + +Produce a validation report. Read `references/validation-template.md` for the format. + +**Thresholds**: +- Score ≥ 60: Strong GO — prioritize immediately +- Score 30-59: Conditional — worth pursuing if you have domain expertise +- Score < 30: PASS — not enough edge + +## Phase 3: STRATEGIZE — Design the Play + +**Goal**: For each GO topic, create a concrete strategy. + +Determine the optimal **format** based on the gap type: + +| Gap Type | Best Format | Example | +|----------|-------------|---------| +| No comprehensive guide exists | Long-form article/guide | "Complete Guide to X" | +| Info is scattered across forums | Curated resource list | "Internet Pipes" style | +| Existing tools are too complex | Simple tool/template | PhotoAI model | +| No localized version exists | Localized adaptation | JapanDrop-style newsletter | +| Information changes frequently | Newsletter/subscription | Milk Road model | +| People need ongoing help | Community or service | Designjoy model | + +Strategy output must include: +1. **Positioning statement**: "For [audience] who [pain point], this is [format] that [unique value]" +2. **Content angle**: What specific angle differentiates from existing content +3. **Monetization path**: How this becomes revenue (ads, product, affiliate, service, subscription) +4. **Competitive moat**: Why copycats can't easily replicate (first-mover, curation quality, trust, community) +5. **Effort estimate**: Time to create MVP content/product +6. **Success metrics**: What to measure in the first 30/90 days + +## Phase 4: EXECUTE — Create the Action Plan + +**Goal**: Produce a concrete, time-boxed execution plan the user can start today. + +Output a week-by-week plan: + +**Week 1: Foundation** +- Keyword list (primary + long-tail) +- Content outline or product spec +- Distribution channel selection + +**Week 2-3: Creation** +- Content/product creation milestones +- Draft → Review → Publish pipeline + +**Week 4: Launch & Measure** +- Distribution plan (SEO, social, community seeding) +- Metrics tracking setup +- Iteration triggers (when to double down vs pivot) + +If the user's project context is known (e.g., JapanDrop, Tuck), tailor the execution plan +to fit their existing infrastructure and tech stack. + +## Usage Modes + +**Quick scan**: User says "find opportunities in [niche]" → Classify, then run Phase 1 only +**Full analysis**: User says "analyze [specific topic/idea]" → Classify, then run Phase 2 + 3 +**End-to-end**: User says "find and plan a new project" → Classify, then run all 4 phases +**Validation only**: User says "is [topic/app idea] worth pursuing?" → Classify, then Phase 2 only +**Recon**: User says "what gaps exist in [market]?" → Classify all 4 types, run Phase 1 across types + +## Important Principles + +1. **Data over intuition** — Always ground recommendations in searchable evidence, not guesses +2. **Be brutally honest** — If a gap doesn't exist or is closing fast, say so clearly +3. **Speed matters** — Trend windows close. Bias toward actionable speed over perfect analysis +4. **Localization is an edge** — For Japanese market content targeting English speakers (or vice versa), cross-language gaps are often the richest arbitrage opportunities +5. **AI content saturation** — In 2025-2026, generic AI-written content floods mid-tier keywords. Focus on gaps requiring human curation, original research, or unique perspective + +## References + +- `references/phases.md` — Detailed procedures for each phase +- `references/validation-template.md` — Gap validation report template +- `references/examples.md` — Real-world arbitrage case studies for pattern matching diff --git a/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/examples.md b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/examples.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..51569ca --- /dev/null +++ b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/examples.md @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +# Trend Arbitrage Case Studies + +Reference examples for pattern matching when evaluating opportunities. +These illustrate different gap types and how they were exploited. + +--- + +## Case 1: Steph Smith — Remote Work Content (2019) + +**Gap type:** Freshness + Comprehensiveness +**Timeline:** Detected 2019, exploded 2020 + +**Discovery signal:** +- "Remote work" search trend showing steady upward trajectory for 18+ months +- No pandemic yet — just a gradual cultural shift + +**Supply gap:** +- Existing content was shallow listicles ("10 Remote Work Tools") +- No deep content addressing emotional/psychological aspects +- Related searches revealed pain points: "remote work loneliness", "remote work career growth" + +**Strategy:** +- Created deep, empathy-driven guides addressing the EMOTIONAL side of remote work +- Positioned as the human voice in a sea of tool lists +- Compiled insights into paid ebook "Doing Content Right" + +**Result:** +- $130K+ in book sales from personal site alone (no Amazon) +- Built authority that led to a16z podcast host role + +**Pattern to recognize:** +- Steady upward trend (not spike) +- Emotional/human angle missing from existing content +- Related searches reveal deeper unmet needs than surface query + +--- + +## Case 2: Steph Smith — Internet Pipes (2024) + +**Gap type:** Curation +**Timeline:** 2024 + +**Discovery signal:** +- AI flood creating "information overload" fatigue +- Growing demand for trusted, curated information sources + +**Supply gap:** +- Plenty of "news" but no curated "signal vs noise" resource +- People willing to pay for someone else's filtering work + +**Strategy:** +- Packaged her personal collection of high-quality RSS feeds/URLs +- Sold as a simple downloadable list +- Value = curation judgment, not original content + +**Result:** +- 1,400+ copies sold + +**Pattern to recognize:** +- When information overload is the problem, curation IS the product +- "Simple" products can command premium prices if they save time/effort +- Personal taste and judgment as a moat + +--- + +## Case 3: Milk Road — Crypto Newsletter (2022) + +**Gap type:** Format/Accessibility +**Timeline:** 10 months to acquisition + +**Discovery signal:** +- Crypto market booming, massive search/interest volume +- Existing crypto content was dense, jargon-heavy, intimidating + +**Supply gap:** +- NO entertaining, beginner-friendly daily crypto news +- Gap was in FORMAT, not in topic coverage + +**Strategy:** +- "5-minute daily crypto newsletter you actually enjoy reading" +- Humor + simplicity in an overly serious market +- Email format = owned audience (not algorithm dependent) + +**Result:** +- 250K+ subscribers in 10 months +- Acquired for 8-figure sum + +**Pattern to recognize:** +- The gap can be in FORMAT, not topic +- Sometimes a saturated topic has a massive accessibility gap +- Newsletter format enables rapid audience building + high acquisition value + +--- + +## Case 4: Pieter Levels — PhotoAI (2023) + +**Gap type:** Tool/Usability +**Timeline:** Early mover in AI photo generation + +**Discovery signal:** +- Stable Diffusion launched, massive interest in AI image generation +- Technical barrier to entry was extremely high for average users + +**Supply gap:** +- AI image generation tools required technical setup (Python, command line, GPUs) +- No "upload and get results" simple tool existed + +**Strategy:** +- Built simplest possible UI: upload photos → get AI-generated professional photos +- Targeted clear use case: professional headshots, dating profile photos +- Zero marketing budget — product-led growth via social sharing + +**Result:** +- $132K MRR (Monthly Recurring Revenue) +- Solo founder, no employees + +**Pattern to recognize:** +- When new technology is powerful but inaccessible → usability wrapper opportunity +- First to simplify wins, even if the underlying tech is open source +- Specific use case > general tool + +--- + +## Case 5: Designjoy — Design Subscription (2022) + +**Gap type:** Service model (process pain) +**Timeline:** Grew to $1M ARR as solo founder + +**Discovery signal:** +- "Hire designer" and "design agency" searches showing frustration signals +- Community complaints about slow agencies, unreliable freelancers, expensive firms + +**Supply gap:** +- Not a content gap — a SERVICE DELIVERY gap +- Existing options: expensive agencies (slow), freelancers (unreliable), cheap marketplaces (low quality) +- Nobody offered: fixed price + unlimited requests + no meetings + fast delivery + +**Strategy:** +- Monthly subscription for unlimited design requests +- Asynchronous communication only (no meetings) +- Solo operator keeping overhead at zero + +**Result:** +- $130K monthly revenue +- Zero employees + +**Pattern to recognize:** +- Arbitrage can apply to services, not just content +- "Process pain" (meetings, hiring, managing) can be bigger than "quality pain" +- Subscription model with async delivery = highly scalable for solo operators + +--- + +## Common Patterns Across All Cases + +1. **None of them competed on "quality" in a crowded space.** They found empty spaces. +2. **All of them validated demand BEFORE creating.** Data first, creation second. +3. **Speed of execution mattered more than perfection.** First mover advantage was critical. +4. **The "product" was often surprisingly simple.** URL lists, wrapper UIs, curated newsletters. +5. **Moats came from positioning and trust, not technical complexity.** +6. **Zero or minimal marketing spend.** The product-market fit did the marketing. + +--- + +## Anti-Patterns (What NOT to Do) + +1. **"I'll write better content about [saturated topic]"** — Quality alone rarely wins +2. **"Let me spend 6 months perfecting this"** — The window will close +3. **"AI can write this for me"** — If AI can easily write it, the gap will fill fast +4. **"This topic is popular so it must be good"** — Popular ≠ opportunity (check supply!) +5. **"Nobody has done this so nobody wants it"** — Could be true; validate demand first diff --git a/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/phases.md b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/phases.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..663a37f --- /dev/null +++ b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/phases.md @@ -0,0 +1,271 @@ +# Phases Reference — Detailed Procedures + +## Phase 1: DISCOVER — Detailed Procedure + +### Step 1.1: Define the Search Space + +Ask the user (or infer from context): +- What market/niche? Be specific: "fitness" is too broad, "home workout equipment for small apartments in Japan" is good +- Who is the target audience? Demographics, language, expertise level +- What's the user's unfair advantage? (Domain expertise, existing audience, technical skill, geographic knowledge) + +### Step 1.2: Mine Gap Signals + +Use web_search to investigate signal sources **based on the classified opportunity type**. + +#### For ALL types: + +**Source A: Google Trends Data** +- Search: "[niche] site:trends.google.com" or "[niche] google trends rising" +- Search: "[niche] trending 2025 2026" +- Look for: "Breakout" labeled queries, steady upward trajectories over 12+ months + +**Source B: Community Pain Points** +- Search: "[niche] site:reddit.com" — look for repeated questions with no good answers +- Search: "[niche] frustrating OR annoying OR wish there was" +- Search: "[niche] site:news.ycombinator.com" if tech-adjacent + +#### For Content gaps, additionally: + +**Source C: Content Supply Audit** +- For each candidate topic, search the topic directly +- Assess page 1 results: Are they fresh? Authoritative? Comprehensive? +- Red flags = opportunity: results from 2+ years ago, Q&A dominance, thin listicles + +**Source D: Cross-Market Language Gaps** +- Search the topic in English AND the target language +- If great content exists in one language but not the other → localization arbitrage + +#### For App/Tool gaps, additionally: + +**Source C: Existing Tool Frustration** +- Search: "[niche] app review" or "[niche] tool alternative" +- Search: "[existing tool] complaints OR problems OR alternative" +- Check Product Hunt, App Store reviews for recurring UX frustrations +- Look for: people building hacky workarounds (spreadsheets, manual processes) for problems a tool should solve + +**Source D: Technology Wrapper Opportunities** +- Search: "[new technology] for beginners" or "[API/framework] simple tool" +- When powerful tech is inaccessible to non-developers → wrapper opportunity (PhotoAI pattern) + +#### For Service gaps, additionally: + +**Source C: Hiring/Outsourcing Pain** +- Search: "hire [role] reddit" or "[service] too expensive OR too slow" +- Check freelancer marketplaces for categories with low satisfaction +- Look for: DIY tutorials that people clearly don't want to DIY ("just tell me the answer") + +**Source D: Productized Service Precedents** +- Search: "[service] subscription OR unlimited OR flat rate" +- If the model exists in adjacent markets but not this one → service gap (Designjoy pattern) + +#### For Product gaps, additionally: + +**Source C: Curation Demand** +- Search: "best [resources] for [niche]" — is there a definitive list? +- Search: "[niche] resource list OR toolkit OR starter kit" +- If answers are scattered across many threads → curation product opportunity (Internet Pipes pattern) + +**Source D: Template/Framework Demand** +- Search: "[process] template" or "[task] framework" +- If people keep asking for structured approaches to common tasks → template product + +### Step 1.3: Score and Rank + +For each discovered topic, assign a quick signal strength: +- ↑↑↑ Breakout: Explosive growth, minimal competition +- ↑↑ Growing: Steady growth, some competition forming +- ↑ Emerging: Early signals, unclear trajectory +- → Flat: Stable demand, may still have supply gaps +- ↓ Declining: Avoid unless you see a counter-trend + +Present the top 5-10 as a ranked table. + +--- + +## Phase 2: VALIDATE — Detailed Procedure + +### Step 2.1: Demand Assessment + +Assessment method depends on the opportunity type classified at the start. + +**For Content gaps:** +1. Search the exact topic — note autocomplete suggestions volume +2. Search "[topic] statistics" or "[topic] market size" +3. Search "[topic] newsletter OR blog OR podcast" — many = proven demand +4. Check long-tail variations — more variations = deeper demand + +**For App/Tool gaps:** +1. Count how many people are asking for this tool (Reddit threads, forum posts, tweets) +2. Search "[problem] workaround" — more workarounds = stronger unmet demand +3. Check if adjacent markets have tools that this market lacks +4. Search App Store / Product Hunt for similar tools — note ratings and review counts + +**For Service gaps:** +1. Search freelancer marketplaces for this category — note volume and pricing +2. Count hiring posts and complaints about existing providers +3. Estimate willingness-to-pay from what people currently spend on inferior alternatives + +**For Product gaps:** +1. Search for the resource — how often is it requested vs how well it's served? +2. Check if similar products sell in adjacent niches (social proof for the format) +3. Look at Gumroad, Lemon Squeezy, etc. for comparable product pricing/sales + +Score 1-5 based on evidence found. + +### Step 2.2: Supply Assessment + +**For Content gaps** — audit search results: +- [ ] Are the top results from authoritative domains? +- [ ] Were they published/updated within the last 6 months? +- [ ] Do they comprehensively answer the query? +- [ ] Is there a definitive "best" resource? + +**For App/Tool gaps** — audit existing solutions: +- [ ] Do existing tools solve the core problem? +- [ ] Is the UX acceptable for non-technical users? +- [ ] Is pricing accessible for the target audience? +- [ ] Are existing tools actively maintained and improving? + +**For Service gaps** — audit existing providers: +- [ ] Can users easily find and hire someone for this? +- [ ] Are existing providers fast, reliable, and reasonably priced? +- [ ] Is the process frictionless (no meetings, clear deliverables)? +- [ ] Do existing providers have good reviews/reputation? + +**For Product gaps** — audit existing products: +- [ ] Does a comprehensive, up-to-date version of this product exist? +- [ ] Is it easy to find and purchase? +- [ ] Is the quality good enough that there's no room for improvement? +- [ ] Is it priced appropriately for the target audience? + +Each unchecked box increases the Supply score (more gaps = higher opportunity). + +### Step 2.3: Third Metric Assessment + +The third metric varies by type: + +**Content → Intent**: Informational low (1-2), Informational high (3), Commercial (4), Transactional (5) +**App/Tool → Feasibility**: Can the user build this with their skills and available time? (1=impossible, 5=weekend project) +**Service → Margin**: Is willingness-to-pay sufficient for sustainable solo delivery? (1=razor thin, 5=premium pricing) +**Product → Packaging**: How easily can scattered info be packaged into a sellable unit? (1=very complex, 5=straightforward curation) + +### Step 2.4: Calculate and Report + +Arbitrage Score = Demand × Supply Gap × [Third Metric] (max 125) + +Present using the validation template from `references/validation-template.md`. + +--- + +## Phase 3: STRATEGIZE — Detailed Procedure + +### Step 3.1: Identify the Gap Type + +Based on Phase 2 findings, classify the primary gap: + +| Gap Type | Key Indicator | Best Response | +|----------|--------------|---------------| +| **Comprehensiveness gap** | No single thorough resource | Definitive guide or course | +| **Freshness gap** | All content is outdated | Updated, current resource | +| **Format gap** | Info exists but wrong format | Repackage (video → text, scattered → curated) | +| **Accessibility gap** | Content too technical/jargon-heavy | Simplified, beginner-friendly version | +| **Localization gap** | Content doesn't exist in target language | Translated/adapted version | +| **Curation gap** | Info is scattered everywhere | Curated collection (like Internet Pipes) | +| **Tool gap** | People describe wanting a tool that doesn't exist | Build a simple tool/template | +| **Community gap** | People discussing but no hub exists | Forum, newsletter, or community | + +### Step 3.2: Design the Value Proposition + +Fill in: "For **[specific audience]** who **[specific pain]**, **[product name]** is a **[format]** that **[key benefit]**, unlike **[current alternatives]** which **[their weakness]**." + +### Step 3.3: Choose Monetization Model + +Match to the gap type and user's capabilities: + +| Model | Best When | Revenue Timing | Effort | +|-------|-----------|---------------|--------| +| SEO + Affiliate | Commercial intent keywords | Medium-term (3-6 months) | Medium | +| Digital product (ebook, course) | Comprehensiveness/curation gap | Quick if audience exists | High upfront | +| Newsletter + sponsorship | Freshness gap, ongoing topic | Slow build (6-12 months) | Ongoing medium | +| SaaS/Tool | Tool gap | Medium-term | High upfront | +| Consulting/Service | Expertise gap | Immediate | Time-intensive | +| Ad revenue (blog/YouTube) | High-volume informational | Slow (6-12 months) | Ongoing medium | + +### Step 3.4: Define Competitive Moat + +Every strategy must answer: "When competitors notice this gap (and they will within 6-18 months), why will I still win?" + +Strong moats: +- **First-mover + brand**: Being THE known resource (hard to displace once established) +- **Curation quality**: Taste and judgment that AI can't replicate +- **Community lock-in**: Users stay for the network, not just the content +- **Unique data/access**: Original research, insider knowledge, geographic advantage +- **Cross-language advantage**: Bridging markets that competitors in either market can't + +Weak moats (avoid relying on these alone): +- "I write better" — AI is closing this gap rapidly +- "I was first" — without brand building, first-mover advantage fades +- "I work harder" — not sustainable or scalable + +### Step 3.5: Estimate Effort and Timeline + +Be realistic. For a solo creator: +- Blog post / SEO article: 1-3 days +- Comprehensive guide / ebook: 1-4 weeks +- Curated resource collection: 1-2 weeks +- Newsletter setup + first issues: 1 week setup + ongoing +- Simple tool/template: 1-2 weeks (if technical) +- Course: 4-8 weeks + +Factor in the user's existing infrastructure. If they already have a blog, newsletter system, etc., reduce estimates accordingly. + +--- + +## Phase 4: EXECUTE — Detailed Procedure + +### Step 4.1: Week 1 Plan — Foundation + +**Day 1-2: Keyword Architecture** +- Primary keyword (the main gap topic) +- 5-10 long-tail variations (for supporting content) +- Related keywords (for internal linking / content cluster) + +**Day 3-4: Content Blueprint** +- For articles: Detailed outline with H2/H3 structure +- For products: Feature spec / table of contents +- For newsletters: First 4 issue topics + format template + +**Day 5: Distribution Strategy** +- Primary channel (SEO, social, community, email) +- Secondary channels for amplification +- Specific subreddits, forums, or communities to seed + +### Step 4.2: Week 2-3 Plan — Creation + +Provide specific daily milestones: +- Day-by-day creation schedule +- Review checkpoints (self-review, peer review if available) +- Quality gates: Does each piece match the gap identified in Phase 2? + +### Step 4.3: Week 4 Plan — Launch & Iterate + +**Launch checklist**: +- [ ] Content/product live and accessible +- [ ] SEO basics: title, meta description, schema markup +- [ ] Shared in 2-3 relevant communities (non-spammy, value-first) +- [ ] Tracking in place (analytics, search console, revenue tracking) + +**Iteration triggers** (check at 30 and 90 days): +- Traffic growing? → Double down, create supporting content +- Ranking but not converting? → Improve CTA, add lead magnet +- Not ranking? → Check: is content comprehensive enough? Build backlinks +- Gap closing (competitors entering)? → Differentiate or pivot to adjacent gap + +### Step 4.4: Integration with User's Projects + +If the user has existing projects, show how this arbitrage play fits: +- Which existing infrastructure to reuse (domain, newsletter list, social accounts) +- How to cross-promote with existing content +- Tech stack alignment (prefer user's known tools) +- Whether this should be a standalone project or extension of existing work diff --git a/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/validation-template.md b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/validation-template.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..29f661b --- /dev/null +++ b/dot_claude/skills/trend-arbitrage/references/validation-template.md @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +# Gap Validation Report Template + +Use this template when reporting Phase 2 validation results. + +--- + +## Validation Report: [Topic Name] + +### Summary + +| Metric | Score | Evidence | +|--------|-------|----------| +| **Demand** | X/5 | [One-line evidence] | +| **Supply Gap** | X/5 | [One-line evidence] | +| **[Third Metric]** | X/5 | [One-line evidence] | +| **Arbitrage Score** | XX/125 | Demand × Supply Gap × [Third Metric] | + +> **Third Metric by type**: Content → Intent, App/Tool → Feasibility, Service → Margin, Product → Packaging +| **Verdict** | GO / CONDITIONAL / PASS | | + +### Demand Evidence + +**Search volume indicators:** +- [What was found when searching this topic] +- [Related queries and their apparent volume] +- [Community interest signals: subreddit size, forum activity, social mentions] + +**Trend direction:** +- [Is demand growing, stable, or declining?] +- [Any seasonal patterns?] +- [What's driving the demand?] + +### Supply Gap Evidence + +**Current page 1 landscape:** +1. [Result 1]: [Domain] — [Published date] — [Quality assessment] +2. [Result 2]: [Domain] — [Published date] — [Quality assessment] +3. [Result 3]: [Domain] — [Published date] — [Quality assessment] + +**Gap indicators found:** +- [ ] Forum/Q&A results prominent on page 1 +- [ ] Top results older than 18 months +- [ ] No comprehensive single resource +- [ ] Content in wrong language for target audience +- [ ] Content requires expert knowledge (accessibility gap) + +### Intent Analysis + +**Dominant intent type:** [Informational / Commercial / Transactional] + +**Supporting evidence:** +- [Related search queries and what they imply] +- [Are people looking to learn, compare, or buy?] + +### Opportunity Window + +**Estimated window:** [How long before this gap closes] +- [Are competitors likely to notice soon?] +- [Is AI-generated content filling this gap?] +- [Any barriers to entry for competitors?] + +### Risks + +- [Risk 1: e.g., "Topic may be seasonal"] +- [Risk 2: e.g., "Large publisher could cover this any time"] +- [Risk 3: e.g., "Monetization path unclear"] + +--- + +## Multi-Topic Comparison Table + +When validating multiple topics, present them side by side: + +| Topic | Demand | Supply Gap | [Third Metric] | Score | Verdict | Window | +|-------|--------|-----------|----------------|-------|---------|--------| +| Topic A | 4/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 | 60 | GO | 6 months | +| Topic B | 3/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 36 | CONDITIONAL | 3 months | +| Topic C | 5/5 | 1/5 | 5/5 | 25 | PASS (saturated) | — |