Investor Panel — 3-VC Pitch Review
Review a fundraising pitch before investor meetings: three blind VC personas find weak points, cross-examine, and tag findings CONFIRMED, CORROBORATED or DISPUTED. Reviews a pre-funding pitch (deck content or narrative) for the problems that surface in a real investor meeting. Three independent reviewers (Optimist, Skeptic, Domain Specialist) each flag issues blind, quoting the actual pitch text. They then cross-examine each other's findings, challenging false positives and corroborating real ones. A board verdict tags each finding CONFIRMED, CORROBORATED or DISPUTED and ends with a single Fund/Pass/Revise line. It follows an anti-sycophancy rule: no invented market data, competitors or financials, and missing numbers are called out. It is for pitches to investors you have not closed yet, not recurring updates to existing investors. Whatever you paste is sent to the model as-is, so redact sensitive financials first.
Example input
Use the Investor Panel on this (a sample I wrote). Pre-seed pitch narrative for "ExampleShift" (example.com), raising $1.2M. We build scheduling software for independent physical-therapy clinics. Problem: front desks lose hours to phone tag and no-shows. Solution: an app that texts patients, auto-fills cancellations, and syncs with the clinic's calendar. Market: "The US healthcare scheduling market is $15B, and we only need 1% to be a $150M company." Traction: "1,800 signups, 12 clinics in pilot, 40% month-over-month growth in sign-ups." Business model: $99/month per clinic. Team: two founders, one ex-clinic office manager, one engineer. Competition: "No one is doing exactly this; big EHR vendors are too slow." Use of funds: hire two engineers and a sales lead, 18 months of runway. We have not yet signed any paid contracts. HIPAA compliance is planned for after the seed round.
Example output
## Phase 1 — Independent findings ### 🌤️ Optimist - Biggest reason a friendly investor still passes: no paid contracts. Quote: "We have not yet signed any paid contracts." 12 pilot clinics are free evidence of interest, not evidence anyone pays $99/month. Consequence: the first diligence question has no answer. Fix: convert 3-5 pilots to paid, even at a discount, before the meeting. - "Why you" is credible (an ex-clinic office manager on the founding team), but "why now" is absent. The narrative never says what changed that makes this solvable today. Fix: add one sentence on the trigger (e.g. texting norms, a vendor gap), only if it is true. ### 🔪 Skeptic - Top-down TAM with no bottom-up path. Quote: "$15B... we only need 1% to be a $150M company." At $99/month ($1,188/year), $150M would require roughly 126,000 paying clinics (derived from your numbers), which the pitch never reconciles. Consequence: invites an immediate dismissal of the market slide. Fix: build bottom-up: number of independent PT clinics x $1,188. - Vanity metric. Quote: "1,800 signups... 40% month-over-month growth in sign-ups." Signups are not clinics, and the growth rate is on signups from an unstated base. 12 pilot clinics out of 1,800 signups is the conversion that matters. Fix: show pilot-to-paid conversion and weekly active clinics. - Unit economics missing. $99/month with a sales lead as a planned hire: no CAC, no churn, no gross margin given. Consequence: a skeptic assumes it does not work at scale. Fix: state the numbers you have, or say plainly that they are unmeasured. ### 🎯 Domain Specialist - Competitive claim is unsupported. Quote: "No one is doing exactly this; big EHR vendors are too slow." In healthcare scheduling, a specialist would expect named adjacent players and EHR-integrated reminder features to be addressed. I will not name competitors since none were provided; the pitch must name and differentiate them itself. - Regulatory gap. Quote: "HIPAA compliance is planned for after the seed round." Texting patients and syncing with clinic calendars handles protected health information now, during the pilots. Consequence: a healthcare investor will treat this as a day-one question, not a later task. Fix: state the current handling of PHI and a compliance plan with a date. - Go-to-market mismatch: the pitch is silent on how independent clinics actually buy and on integration with the EHR/practice-management systems they already use. The specialist's five-minute question: "Which EHRs do you integrate with, and does it work without a vendor's cooperation?" …
Real output from running the skill on a sample problem, shortened. The skill file itself is not published here.