test(bmm): scaffold evals for bmad-product-brief
Adds an eval suite for bmad-product-brief following the Anthropic skill-creator schema, plus a new "Extract, don't ingest" constraint on the skill itself. Skill change: - New constraint: source artifacts (user-provided or run-discovered) enter the parent conversation as relevance-filtered extracts via subagents, not loaded wholesale. Keeps the parent context lean against transcripts, brainstorms, research reports, code, web results, and prior briefs. Evals (evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/): - evals.json: 8 artifact/behavioral evals covering Create one-shot, source-memo ingest, Update with contradiction surfacing, Validate inline, Headless mode, brainstorm filtering, research-report filtering, persona filtering. All scenarios use fictional entities (InsuLens, Branfield CC, Forkbird Kitchen, Mossridge Library, Sproutkeeper, Hatchet & Loop Studio, Brightway, Pantry Bridge). - triggers.json: 15 description-firing checks (7 should-fire, 8 should-not-fire) to catch under-triggering and adjacent-skill poaching. - files/: realistic fixtures including a brainstorm with the relevant idea buried at the end, a 3000-word market research report with the relevant section in the middle, and customer interviews with the target persona in position 3 of 4 — each shaped to test that filtering happens against the user's stated focus regardless of where the relevant material sits. Eval directory placement: top-level evals/ outside src/, matching the convention in anthropics/skills (zero of 17 production skills include an evals/ subdir; their skill-creator places dev workspaces as siblings to skill folders). Keeps evals out of any installer or marketplace.json distribution path.
This commit is contained in:
Brian Madison
parent
2ebd98f050
commit
9ef0b7f574
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"skill_name": "bmad-product-brief",
|
||||||
|
"evals": [
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 1,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "I want to create a product brief for InsuLens — a smartphone app that pairs with off-the-shelf $200 thermal imaging accessories to give homeowners professional-grade insulation audits in under 20 minutes. Target is suburban homeowners aged 35-65 with houses built before 2000 (poor insulation, rising energy bills). We've validated demand through 50 user interviews. We're prepping a Series A pitch — investors will read this brief as the primary input for their first call. Help me put this together.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "A run folder containing brief.md (with YAML frontmatter), decision-log.md, and likely a distillate. Brief is 1-2 pages, addresses the InsuLens value prop, target audience, validation evidence, and reads as ready for an investor-pitch input.",
|
||||||
|
"files": [],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"A run folder is created under the configured output_dir matching the configured output_folder_name pattern",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md exists in the run folder with YAML frontmatter containing title, status, created, updated",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md frontmatter status is 'draft' or 'final' (not missing or empty)",
|
||||||
|
"decision-log.md exists in the run folder",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md word count is between 250 and 1500",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md identifies the target audience for InsuLens",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md references the thermal-imaging hardware dependency",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md surfaces what is unknown or unvalidated alongside what is known",
|
||||||
|
"Either distillate.md exists in the run folder or the output explains why it was skipped"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 2,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Create a brief from this memo. It's from our last working group on a new microcredential program at Branfield Community College. Use what's there; ask only what's missing.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "Brief reflects content from the memo without re-asking the user for facts already present in it.",
|
||||||
|
"files": ["evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/branfield-memo.md"],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"A run folder is created with brief.md and decision-log.md",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md incorporates at least 3 distinct facts or decisions present in the input memo",
|
||||||
|
"decision-log.md references having ingested the memo as source material",
|
||||||
|
"The output does not ask the user to re-state the program name, target student, or core curriculum focus if those are present in the memo"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 3,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Update this brief — we've decided to add catering services for corporate events, in addition to the direct-to-consumer delivery model.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "brief.md is updated to reflect the catering service; decision-log.md captures the new decision; distillate.md is regenerated; the `updated` frontmatter timestamp is bumped; the prior 'rejected B2B catering for MVP' decision is surfaced as a contradiction before applying changes.",
|
||||||
|
"files": [
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/forkbird-brief/brief.md",
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/forkbird-brief/addendum.md",
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/forkbird-brief/decision-log.md",
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/forkbird-brief/distillate.md"
|
||||||
|
],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"brief.md mentions the new corporate catering service in the relevant section",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md frontmatter 'updated' field is later than the original 'created' timestamp",
|
||||||
|
"decision-log.md contains a new entry referencing the catering decision",
|
||||||
|
"distillate.md was regenerated (modification timestamp is newer than the input fixture)",
|
||||||
|
"The output surfaces the contradiction with the prior 'rejected B2B catering for MVP' decision before applying changes"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 4,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Validate this brief — the Mossridge Public Library board meets Monday and we need this to land. Is it ready?",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "Inline critique citing specific lines, identifying weaknesses, caveating what cannot be evaluated. No separate validation file is written.",
|
||||||
|
"files": [
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/mossridge-brief/brief.md",
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/mossridge-brief/addendum.md",
|
||||||
|
"evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/mossridge-brief/decision-log.md"
|
||||||
|
],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"The output cites specific line numbers or section names from the input brief",
|
||||||
|
"No new files are created in the mossridge-brief directory or its parent run folder",
|
||||||
|
"The output identifies at least one specific weakness or area for improvement",
|
||||||
|
"The output explicitly caveats at least one claim that cannot be evaluated from the brief alone (e.g., community demand, funding feasibility, volunteer sustainability)",
|
||||||
|
"The output offers to roll the findings into an Update"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 5,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Run headless. Create a brief for: a weekend-project iOS app called Sproutkeeper that reminds houseplant owners when to water their plants based on plant type and indoor humidity sensor data. Target is hobbyist plant owners. MVP scope only, single-developer side project.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "JSON response listing status, intent, and artifact paths. No clarifying questions asked.",
|
||||||
|
"files": [],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"The final output is valid JSON",
|
||||||
|
"The JSON contains keys 'status', 'intent', and at least one artifact path (brief)",
|
||||||
|
"The JSON 'intent' value is 'create'",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md exists at the path referenced in the JSON output",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md is right-sized for a side project (closer to 250-500 words than 1500)",
|
||||||
|
"The transcript contains no clarifying questions to the user"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 6,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Create a brief for our neighborhood compost coordinator app idea — we're moving forward with it. I've attached our full Q2 brainstorming session notes; use what's relevant from there.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "Brief focuses tightly on the compost coordinator concept; ignores the unrelated ideas in the brainstorm. The skill extracts the relevant section rather than treating the entire document as canonical input.",
|
||||||
|
"files": ["evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/q2-brainstorm.md"],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"brief.md addresses the neighborhood compost coordinator concept",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md does not introduce content from unrelated brainstorm ideas (weather + mood, meditation chime, podcasting tool, craft beer subscription, AI sommelier, office plants, ride coordinator, cookbook app, AR home staging)",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md word count is between 250 and 1500",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md incorporates at least 2 specific details from the compost deep-dive section (e.g., two-sided market with apartment dwellers and home compost-pile owners, hyperlocal neighborhood-level scope, free-at-launch with eventual Side B subscription, Portland Sunnyside/Hawthorne pilot)",
|
||||||
|
"decision-log.md indicates the brainstorm was filtered for relevance rather than ingested whole"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 7,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Create a brief for Brightway — our smart bike helmet with crash detection, turn signals, and braking lights. We had Meridian Insights produce a market research report on e-mobility — attached. Use what's relevant from there for the safety helmet category specifically.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "Brief focuses on the smart bike helmet concept; pulls relevant findings from the helmet section of the report and ignores the unrelated mobility segments. The report's whole-document content does not bloat the brief or the parent context.",
|
||||||
|
"files": ["evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/meridian-mobility-report.md"],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"brief.md addresses the Brightway smart bike helmet concept",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md does not introduce content from unrelated mobility segments (e-scooters, charging infrastructure, bike-share, vehicle-to-grid)",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md word count is between 250 and 1500",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md incorporates at least 2 specific findings from the smart helmet section of the report (e.g., market sizing, key players, crash detection technology trends, regulatory or insurance landscape)",
|
||||||
|
"decision-log.md indicates the report was filtered to the helmet category rather than ingested whole"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"id": 8,
|
||||||
|
"prompt": "Create a brief for Pantry Bridge — a meal-kit subscription targeted at adults 65+ who live alone and want fresh meals without grocery shopping. I've attached transcripts from our recent customer research; pull what's relevant from the older-adult interviews.",
|
||||||
|
"expected_output": "Brief focuses on the older-adult target persona, drawing insights from Eleanor's interview specifically. Other personas in the transcript document do not pollute the brief.",
|
||||||
|
"files": ["evals/bmm-skills/bmad-product-brief/files/pantry-bridge-interviews.md"],
|
||||||
|
"expectations": [
|
||||||
|
"brief.md addresses the Pantry Bridge older-adult meal-kit concept",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md does not conflate insights from non-target personas (working parent Susan, college student Marcus, corporate cafeteria buyer Dimitri)",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md word count is between 250 and 1500",
|
||||||
|
"brief.md incorporates at least 2 specific insights from Eleanor's interview (e.g., grocery-trip difficulty, portion sizing, dietary restrictions, social aspects of meals, trust concerns)",
|
||||||
|
"decision-log.md notes which interviews were used and which were excluded"
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||||
|
# Working Group Notes — Microcredential Program
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Branfield Community College**
|
||||||
|
**Meeting:** 2026-04-22
|
||||||
|
**Attendees:** Provost, Workforce Dev Director, Chair of Industry Advisory Board, two faculty leads (Data Analytics, Healthcare Admin), Financial Aid Director
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Why we're doing this
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Regional employer survey (Q1 2026) showed 340+ unfilled mid-skill jobs in the three-county area. State workforce board approved a $1.4M grant if we can launch by fall 2027 with at least three tracks. Existing AAS programs are too long for working adults — average completion 3.5 years.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What we're building
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Six-month stackable microcredentials. Three tracks at launch:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. **Data Analytics** (SQL, Excel/Power BI, intro Python). Faculty lead Marisol Reyes. Strongest employer demand. Will be MVP — first to launch, used to validate format.
|
||||||
|
2. **Healthcare Admin** (medical coding, EHR systems, patient workflow). Faculty lead Dev Patel. Aging population in region drives demand.
|
||||||
|
3. **Sustainable Construction** (green building practices, retrofit basics, code compliance). New faculty hire required.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Stackable means credits transfer into related AAS or BAS later if the student wants.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Decisions made today
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Data Analytics is MVP.** Launch fall 2027, others phase in spring/fall 2028. Validate format before scaling.
|
||||||
|
- **Hybrid delivery.** Two evenings/week in person + asynchronous online. Board rejected pure-online (concerns about adult learner outcomes data).
|
||||||
|
- **Stipend program.** Up to $3,000/student for low-income students, funded from the state grant. Means-tested.
|
||||||
|
- **Industry Advisory Board** has approval authority on curriculum. Three employers committed (regional hospital, mid-size data consultancy, county housing authority). All three commit to interview every graduate.
|
||||||
|
- **Cohort cap: 24 per track per term.** Driven by classroom size and faculty load.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Open questions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Childcare for evening sessions — can we partner with the campus childcare center? Deferred to next meeting.
|
||||||
|
- Marketing — provost wants to know cost per enrolled student before approving budget. Need workforce dev to model.
|
||||||
|
- Do we offer a tuition payment plan in addition to the stipend? Financial aid director thinks yes; provost wants to see uptake projections first.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What we're NOT doing
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Not pursuing pure-online delivery (rejected — see above).
|
||||||
|
- Not launching all three tracks at once (rejected — risk concentration, faculty bandwidth).
|
||||||
|
- Not building employer-customized cohorts (rejected — too operationally complex for MVP).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Next steps
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Workforce Dev: marketing cost model by 2026-05-15.
|
||||||
|
- Provost: childcare partnership exploratory conversation.
|
||||||
|
- Faculty leads: draft data analytics curriculum outline by 2026-06-01.
|
||||||
|
- Reconvene 2026-05-20.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||||
|
# Addendum — Forkbird Kitchen
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Options considered (and not taken)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### B2B / corporate catering
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Considered as a parallel revenue stream from day one. Rejected for MVP. Different operational rhythm (bulk orders, fixed delivery windows, invoiced billing), different customer (procurement, not eaters), different unit economics. Splitting attention at launch risked degrading both. Revisit if consumer foundation is established by month 12.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Subscription / meal plan
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Considered as a recurring-revenue layer. Rejected for MVP. Operationally expensive at our planned scale: requires demand forecasting per subscriber, kitchen scheduling locked further out, and packaging/refrigerated handling we are not yet equipped for. Reasonable to revisit once kitchen utilization stabilizes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Retail / grocery channel
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Considered (refrigerated meals in Whole Foods, Sprouts). Rejected for MVP. Different product (cold meals, longer shelf life, different texture profile), different go-to-market (broker relationships, slotting fees, category management). Parked for year 2 — would require a separate product line, not a channel extension.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Lower-priced everyday tier
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Considered. Rejected for now. The brand position is chef-driven; introducing a value tier alongside risks the premium signal in marketplace search ranking and review patterns. Explored alternative of separate brand for value tier; deferred.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Personas (extended)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**The plant-based weekday professional.** Lives in a dense urban neighborhood, orders 4–6 times a month, splits between own-cooking and delivery. Sources of dissatisfaction with current options: chain plant-based menus feel formulaic, fine-dining plant-based is too expensive for weeknight, marketplace search surfaces too many low-quality options.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**The dietary-flex household member.** One person in a household is plant-based by preference; the other(s) are not. Ordering pattern is "tonight one of us wants Forkbird, the other wants something else." We benefit from being a dependable single-cuisine option that doesn't require negotiating across diets.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Sizing notes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Total addressable: ~6.2M urban professionals across 5 metros eating plant-based 3+ times/week (based on 2024 Plant Based Foods Association data, urban segmentation).
|
||||||
|
- Serviceable addressable (within delivery radius of planned kitchens at launch): ~840K.
|
||||||
|
- Realistic Y1 capture (per metro forecast): 0.4% of SAM = 3,360 active customers across all metros.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Sourcing standard — exact wording
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
"For each dish on the menu, we publish the source of every ingredient that represents at least 5% of cost. We commit that at least 60% of total ingredient weight is sourced within 200 miles of the kitchen preparing that dish. Both numbers are auditable; we publish them per-dish in the app. If we cannot meet the 60% local threshold for a dish, the dish does not ship."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Technical constraints
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Marketplace integration (DoorDash, UberEats, Grubhub) requires their menu management API. We are using a third-party middleware (Olo) to avoid maintaining three separate integrations.
|
||||||
|
- Ingredient transparency display requires structured data per dish. We need an ingredient-master database; current option is to extend our recipe-management software vendor.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
title: Forkbird Kitchen — Product Brief
|
||||||
|
status: final
|
||||||
|
created: 2026-02-14
|
||||||
|
updated: 2026-02-14
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Forkbird Kitchen
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What it is
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A delivery-only ghost kitchen brand offering chef-driven plant-based meals in five US metros: San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago. Launch operating model is direct-to-consumer through our own iOS/Android app and the major third-party marketplaces (DoorDash, UberEats, Grubhub).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Who it's for
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Urban professionals aged 28–45 who eat plant-based meals at least three times a week, value chef-driven food over chain alternatives, and order delivery 4+ times monthly. Initial geographic focus is dense neighborhoods within 3-mile delivery radii of partner kitchens.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We are not building for: families with children (different ticket size and ordering pattern), occasional plant-based eaters (price sensitivity too high for our positioning), or office lunch (different time-of-day operation).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Why it wins
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Three things are deliberately stacked:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. **Chef partnerships, not chef-as-marketing.** Each metro has a named chef (with prior fine-dining or notable plant-based credit) who designs the rotating menu and earns equity in that metro's P&L. They are not endorsers; they are operators.
|
||||||
|
2. **Ingredient sourcing standards.** Published per-dish: where it came from, how it was farmed, what portion of cost it represents. No dish ships if we can't source within 200 miles for ≥60% of ingredient weight. This is auditable, not marketing copy.
|
||||||
|
3. **Speed without cars.** Average ticket-to-door is 28 minutes from order placement, achieved by tight delivery radii and dense order density per kitchen. Long delivery erodes plant-based texture more than animal protein — speed is product, not logistics.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Operating model
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Five kitchens, one per metro, each leased space inside an existing food-prep facility. No customer-facing storefronts. App orders go through our stack; marketplace orders pass through their stacks. Menu rotates every six weeks per chef.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Pricing tier: $14–$22 per entrée before delivery. We are deliberately at chef-driven positioning, not value positioning.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What's known
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Demand validated through three pop-up dinners in SF and NY (Q4 2025). 480 covers, 78% repeat intent based on post-event survey.
|
||||||
|
- Operating partner identified in each metro. Leases signed for SF, NY, LA. Seattle and Chicago in negotiation.
|
||||||
|
- Three of five chefs signed; two in active conversations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What's unknown
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Whether ingredient-sourcing transparency is a differentiator at point of sale (in-app) or only in marketing. Our hypothesis is "both" but we have not tested in-app.
|
||||||
|
- Marketplace economics. DoorDash takes 15–30% depending on tier; we are modeling the lower tier but have not negotiated.
|
||||||
|
- Whether the 3-mile radius holds outside SF/NY (lower density in LA/Chicago).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Risks
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Chef churn. If a metro chef leaves, the metro brand loses its anchor. Mitigation: equity vesting over 24 months, named-chef terms in operating agreement.
|
||||||
|
- Sourcing cost volatility. 60% local-within-200-miles can spike with weather/supply disruption. We have not modeled the worst case.
|
||||||
|
- Marketplace dependency. If DoorDash terms shift adversely, our blended margin is at risk. We are deliberately building the owned-app channel to reduce this dependency.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Success criteria for first 12 months
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 4 of 5 metros operating profitably at the unit level (kitchen + chef + delivery economics) by month 9
|
||||||
|
- 30% of orders through owned app (vs. marketplaces) by month 12
|
||||||
|
- Chef retention 100% through year 1
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||||
|
# Decision Log — Forkbird Kitchen
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-01-08
|
||||||
|
- **Brand position: chef-driven, premium plant-based.** Considered value tier; rejected for MVP. Premium positioning is the wedge against marketplace generic plant-based.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-01-12
|
||||||
|
- **Five-metro launch: SF, NY, LA, Seattle, Chicago.** Considered three-metro start; rejected as not enough density to test the chef-equity model meaningfully.
|
||||||
|
- **Ghost kitchen, no storefront.** Storefronts ruled out — capex too high for MVP, dilutes the speed advantage.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-01-19
|
||||||
|
- **Pricing tier $14–$22 per entrée.** Modeled against three competitor sets: chain plant-based, fine-dining plant-based delivery, generic mid-tier delivery. Sits cleanly above chain, below fine-dining.
|
||||||
|
- **Chef equity in metro P&L.** Rejected flat fee + revenue share alternative; equity creates the operator incentive we want.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-01-26
|
||||||
|
- **Rejected B2B catering segment for MVP.** Different operational rhythm and customer; would split attention at launch and risk degrading both consumer and B2B execution. Revisit in year 2 if consumer foundation is solid. (Discussion: 2 hours; chef partners weighed in against splitting focus; CFO modeled the dilution effect on consumer kitchen utilization.)
|
||||||
|
- **Rejected subscription model for MVP.** Operationally expensive at planned scale; revisit once kitchen utilization stabilizes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-02-02
|
||||||
|
- **Sourcing standard: 60% within 200 miles, published per-dish.** Considered weaker thresholds (50% / 250 miles); rejected as not differentiating enough to be worth publishing. The number has to be defensible.
|
||||||
|
- **Marketplace channel mix: own app + DoorDash + UberEats + Grubhub.** Considered own-app only; rejected as too slow on demand acquisition. Considered marketplaces only; rejected — own app is critical to long-term margin.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-02-09
|
||||||
|
- **Six-week menu rotation per chef.** Considered four-week (more freshness) and eight-week (more operational stability). Six is the compromise; reassess after first two cycles.
|
||||||
|
- **Marketing budget: 60% acquisition / 40% brand.** Rejected pure-acquisition because chef-driven positioning needs brand-level signal that paid acquisition alone won't carry.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-02-14
|
||||||
|
- **Brief finalized for Series A inputs.** Status moved to final.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||||
|
# Forkbird Kitchen (Distillate)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**What:** Delivery-only ghost kitchen brand serving chef-driven plant-based meals across five US metros (SF, NYC, LA, Seattle, Chicago) via own app and marketplaces (DoorDash, UberEats, Grubhub).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Audience:** Urban professionals 28–45 who eat plant-based 3+ times/week and order delivery 4+ times monthly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Differentiation (deliberately stacked):**
|
||||||
|
- Named chef per metro with equity in metro P&L (operator, not endorser)
|
||||||
|
- Auditable per-dish sourcing: ≥60% ingredient weight within 200 miles
|
||||||
|
- 28-min average ticket-to-door via tight 3-mile delivery radii
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Operating model:** Five leased ghost-kitchen spaces, one per metro. Menu rotates every six weeks per chef. Pricing $14–$22 per entrée before delivery.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Validated:**
|
||||||
|
- 480 covers across three SF/NY pop-ups (Q4 2025), 78% repeat intent
|
||||||
|
- Three of five chefs signed; LA/SF/NY leases signed
|
||||||
|
- Three of five operating partners identified
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Open:**
|
||||||
|
- Whether per-dish sourcing transparency moves conversion in-app (untested)
|
||||||
|
- Marketplace economics (DoorDash terms unconfirmed)
|
||||||
|
- 3-mile radius outside high-density metros (LA/Chicago)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Scope explicitly excluded for MVP:** B2B/corporate catering, subscription, retail/grocery, lower-priced value tier. All revisit-able in year 2.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Key risks:** chef churn, sourcing cost volatility, marketplace dependency.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Y1 success criteria:** 4/5 metros unit-profitable by month 9; 30% orders through own app by month 12; 100% chef retention.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
|
||||||
|
# E-Mobility Market Report 2026
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Prepared by:** Meridian Insights
|
||||||
|
**Date:** Q2 2026
|
||||||
|
**Coverage:** North America, with comparative reference to EU markets
|
||||||
|
**Engagement code:** MI-2026-EMOB-007
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Executive Summary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The e-mobility category continues a multi-year structural shift from "alternative transportation" to mainstream mobility infrastructure. North American unit volume across e-bikes, e-scooters, and connected safety hardware grew 18% year-over-year in 2025, against a 6% growth rate for traditional bicycles. Three macro factors are durably reshaping the category: regulatory clarity at the state level (29 US states now have explicit e-bike classifications, up from 14 in 2022), insurance industry interest in telematics-style risk pricing, and a generational shift in commuting preferences among the 28-44 cohort.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This report covers seven segments of the broader e-mobility landscape: e-bike retail, e-scooter regulation, bike-share systems, charging infrastructure, smart helmet hardware, and grid-integration trends. Findings are synthesized from 142 stakeholder interviews, 18 retailer site visits, government regulatory filings, and proprietary point-of-sale data from 4,200 specialty retail outlets.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Methodology
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Quantitative data was sourced from Meridian's proprietary Mobility Retail Panel (MRP), which aggregates POS data from independent specialty retailers and select chain operators. Where panel data is incomplete or lagging, we supplemented with manufacturer-reported shipment volumes and customs/import filings. Qualitative findings draw on 142 interviews conducted between November 2025 and March 2026 with retailers, fleet operators, regulators, manufacturers, and end users.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Helmet category sizing uses a separate methodology described in Section 8, blending CPSC compliance filings, manufacturer disclosures, and a sample purchase-intent survey of 3,400 cyclists.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 3: Market Sizing — Total E-Mobility
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The North American e-mobility market reached an estimated $14.7B in retail volume in 2025, up from $12.5B in 2024. The largest segment by volume is e-bikes at $7.2B, followed by e-scooter retail at $2.8B (excluding shared-fleet operations), bike-share and dockless mobility services at $2.1B, charging infrastructure at $1.8B, and connected safety hardware at $0.8B.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) forecasts through 2030 vary substantially by segment. We forecast 14% CAGR for e-bikes, 6% for e-scooters (decelerating as the regulatory regime stabilizes), 9% for bike-share, 22% for charging infrastructure (driven by both bike and scooter charging), and 31% for connected safety hardware (off a smaller base). Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) integration is too early to forecast reliably; we treat it as an emerging segment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 4: E-Bike Market Deep Dive
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
E-bikes represent the largest single segment by retail value. The 2025 unit mix favored Class 1 (pedal-assist, max assisted speed 20 mph) at 58% of units, Class 2 (throttle, max 20 mph) at 24%, and Class 3 (pedal-assist, max 28 mph) at 18%. Class 3 is the fastest-growing classification on a unit basis, driven by suburban commuter demand.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Manufacturer concentration shifted in 2025. The top 10 brands by unit volume now hold 64% of the market, up from 51% in 2022 — consolidation that mirrors patterns seen in the traditional bicycle market in the early 2000s. Specialized, Trek, and Cannondale (operating their respective electric sub-brands) represent the top three. Direct-to-consumer brands (Rad Power, Lectric, Aventon) collectively hold approximately 19% of retail value.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Retail channel split favored independent specialty bike shops at 47% of unit volume, with direct-to-consumer at 28%, big-box retail at 17%, and e-commerce marketplaces (Amazon, Walmart.com) at 8%. The independent specialty channel commands a price premium of approximately 22% over comparable D2C alternatives, attributed to in-store fitting, post-sale service relationships, and higher-margin component upgrades.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Notable trends in 2025: cargo e-bike sub-segment grew 41% YoY (small base, dense urban geographies); battery range claims continue to drift upward with manufacturer claims of 60+ mile range becoming standard for $2,500+ price points; bottom-bracket motor placement (mid-drive) gained share over hub-drive in the $3,000+ tier.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 5: E-Scooter Regulatory Landscape
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The North American e-scooter regulatory environment matured significantly during 2024-2025 after several years of municipal experimentation and reactive policymaking. Forty-one US cities now operate under what we classify as "stable" regulatory regimes (defined as: explicit operating permit framework, defined sidewalk/bike-lane rules, helmet provisions, and revenue-share or fee structures with the city). This is up from 19 cities in 2022.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The regulatory shift has compressed operator margins. Permit fees and per-trip surcharges in major markets (Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver) range from $0.15 to $0.42 per trip, against average ride revenue of $5.40. Several major operators have exited markets where permit economics have proven unviable; Lime exited five secondary US markets in 2025 citing exactly this reason.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Helmet requirements remain inconsistent. Thirteen US states require helmets for riders under 18 only; seven require them for all riders; the rest leave it to municipalities. Enforcement is widely acknowledged to be minimal even where mandates exist. EU markets are substantially stricter, with mandatory helmet provisions in France, Germany, and Italy applying to all e-scooter riders.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Insurance treatment is also fragmenting. Five US states have classified e-scooters as "motor vehicles" requiring liability coverage, raising the floor on operating costs for shared-fleet providers. Most states still treat them as bicycles for insurance purposes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 6: Bike-Share and Dockless Mobility
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Docked bike-share systems (Citi Bike, Divvy, Bluebikes, Capital Bikeshare) continue stable, slow growth. Capital Bikeshare reported 5.1M trips in 2025 (5% growth); Citi Bike reported 38M (8% growth). Docked systems benefit from station infrastructure that creates predictability for riders and meters demand-side adoption.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Dockless bike-share (without fixed stations) is largely consolidated; the experimentation phase ended in 2023. Lyft operates the dominant national network through its acquired bike-share division, with regional players in select markets. Operating economics for dockless are structurally weaker than docked due to vehicle redistribution costs, vandalism rates, and the absence of station-driven advertising revenue.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A notable trend is the convergence of bike-share and dockless e-bike subscription models. Several operators now offer monthly memberships that include unlimited 30-minute trips on dockless e-bikes within a service zone. Adoption is concentrated in dense urban cores where car-free lifestyles are practical.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 7: Charging Infrastructure Trends
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Charging infrastructure for e-bikes and e-scooters has emerged as a meaningful sub-segment, growing 28% in 2025. The dominant form factor remains residential at-home wall chargers (87% of installed base), but commercial charging — at workplaces, transit stations, and apartment buildings — is the fastest-growing sub-segment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Standardization remains a constraint. Battery interfaces have not converged; Bosch, Shimano, and various proprietary systems coexist. The European Union's USB-C mandate for portable electronics has not yet extended to e-mobility; industry observers expect regulatory pressure to follow within 3-5 years.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Workplace charging is increasingly common in tech and creative-industry employers; we estimate 31% of large urban employers in tech-heavy metros now offer workplace e-bike charging, up from 12% in 2022. Apartment buildings lag — 7% of class-A multifamily properties offer common-area charging, with retrofit cost cited as the primary barrier.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Public charging at transit hubs (subway/light rail stations) remains a stated priority across most major metro transit authorities, but actual installation lags policy commitments significantly. Funding fragmentation and permitting delays are the consistently cited bottlenecks.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 8: Smart Helmet Category
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The connected safety hardware category — colloquially "smart helmets" — is the smallest segment we cover by retail value but has the strongest growth profile. The North American smart helmet market reached $810M in retail value in 2025, up from $480M in 2023, representing a 30% CAGR. We forecast $2.4B by 2030, contingent on the resolution of two open questions detailed below.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Category definition.** We define "smart helmets" as helmets that include at least one connected safety feature: turn signals (typically wireless-controlled), braking lights (auto-activated via accelerometer), crash detection (auto-notification to emergency contacts on detected impact), or integrated navigation/audio (bone-conduction speakers, often paired with smartphone apps). Helmets with passive integrated lighting only (no connectivity) are excluded from this category and tracked under traditional helmet retail.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Key players.** The category remains fragmented; no single manufacturer commands more than 15% market share. Top five by 2025 retail volume: Lumos Helmet (US, market leader at ~14% share with strong DTC presence), Sena Technologies (Korea, intercom heritage, ~11%), Coros (US/China, multi-sport, ~9%), Specialized ANGi (US, premium tier at ~7%), and POC Aid (Sweden, premium safety positioning at ~6%). Approximately 30 smaller brands hold the remaining share.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Crash detection technology.** Two architectures dominate: single-accelerometer crash detection (lower cost, higher false-positive rate) and multi-sensor fusion (accelerometer + gyroscope + GPS movement signature, lower false-positive rate but higher BOM cost). Insurance industry sources indicate that multi-sensor systems are likely to become a baseline requirement for any insurance discount programs, given that single-accelerometer systems triggered roughly 1 false alert per 47 hours of riding in our test panel.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Regulatory landscape.** Smart helmets sit at the intersection of two regulatory regimes: the Consumer Product Safety Commission's bicycle helmet standard (16 CFR 1203, governing impact protection) and the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of intentional radiators (governing the radio components for Bluetooth/cellular). Compliance with both is non-trivial. Eight smart helmet brands have had FCC Part 15 violations issued since 2023, typically for emissions exceeding limits during compliance testing. EU markets additionally require EN 1078 certification for the helmet shell; this is widely held but adds 3-5 months to a typical product development timeline.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Insurance industry interest.** Major auto insurers (State Farm, Progressive, Geico, Nationwide) are actively piloting telematics-style discount programs for cyclists who use connected safety helmets. The proposed structure mirrors auto-insurance "good driver" discount frameworks, with discounts of 5-15% on cycling-specific insurance riders or umbrella policies. As of Q1 2026, three insurers have public pilot programs and one (Progressive) has announced general availability for 2027. This could materially accelerate category adoption if discounts materialize at the upper end of the proposed range.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Distribution.** D2C dominates at 58% of retail value, reflecting the still-emerging category and the absence of strong channel inventory in independent bike shops. The specialty bike shop channel is growing rapidly (up from 12% to 22% of retail value over 2023-2025) as the category gains category-management attention from major distributors. Big-box channels (REI, Dick's Sporting Goods) are present but shallow in selection — typically 4-8 SKUs versus 40+ in dedicated specialty.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Open questions for the segment.** Our growth forecast is conditioned on (a) the proportion of insurers that follow Progressive into general availability of connected-safety discounts; (b) whether multi-sensor crash detection becomes a category baseline (lifting ASP) or remains a premium-tier feature; and (c) whether the current high false-positive rate of single-accelerometer systems triggers a consumer backlash that suppresses category trust before insurance discounts arrive. The downside scenario produces a 2030 category size of $1.4B versus our base-case $2.4B.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 9: Vehicle-to-Grid Integration
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) integration of e-bike and e-scooter batteries is an emerging area, but practical commercial deployment is years away. The thesis is that fleet-scale dockless e-bikes and e-scooters represent meaningful aggregate battery capacity that could participate in demand-response markets, particularly in deregulated electricity markets.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Several technical preconditions must be met: standardized battery interfaces (currently absent), bidirectional charging hardware (rare), aggregator software stack (early-stage), and regulatory clarity on energy market participation by mobility fleets (pre-policy). We treat this as a watch item for 2028+ rather than a current investable theme.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Section 10: Outlook
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Our base-case forecast for North American e-mobility is $22.5B by 2030, with the e-bike segment reaching $11.8B (the largest), connected safety hardware reaching $2.4B (the fastest-growing in percentage terms), and charging infrastructure reaching $4.2B (driven by commercial and multifamily retrofit demand). Bike-share and dockless mobility plateau in the $2.5-3.0B range as urban density limits adoption ceilings.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The largest single uncertainty in this forecast is the trajectory of insurance industry adoption of connected-safety telematics, which could accelerate or substantially constrain the smart helmet segment and, secondarily, influence rider behavior across the broader category. We will revisit forecasts in our Q4 2026 update.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
*This report is prepared for the exclusive use of Meridian Insights subscribers. Reproduction or external distribution without written permission is prohibited.*
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||||
|
# Addendum — Mossridge Tool Lending Library
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Options considered
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Paid lending model (rejected)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Considered charging a nominal per-loan fee ($2–$5) to cover replacement and maintenance. Rejected as inconsistent with library mission of free access. Board has previously stated free access is non-negotiable for core services. A donation jar at checkout was proposed as a soft alternative; deferred.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Hardware store partnership (considered, deferred)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Mossridge Hardware (the store committing in-kind donations) offered to host a satellite lending point. Considered; deferred to year 2. The integration adds operational complexity (split inventory, cross-location tracking) we are not equipped for at launch. Reasonable to revisit once the main location is established.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Mobile lending van (rejected)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Proposed by a board member to serve outlying areas. Rejected for MVP — capital cost ($35K+ for vehicle + outfitting) exceeds the entire grant. Could be a year-three expansion if demand validates.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Skills classes alongside tool loans (deferred)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Considered offering "how to use a power drill" classes as a value-add. Deferred — interesting but distinct programming, not part of the lending service's MVP scope. Adult Services Librarian is interested in piloting separately.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Reference programs reviewed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Berkeley Tool Lending Library (operating since 1979, ~3,000 tools, 250+ daily loans). Funded as a city service.
|
||||||
|
- Oakland Tool Lending Library (operating since 2000, smaller catalog, library-staffed).
|
||||||
|
- Toronto Tool Library (nonprofit, member-supported, paid model — different funding architecture).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Direct correspondence with Berkeley TLL staff (March 2026) suggested:
|
||||||
|
- Theft has been low (~2% annually) due to library card requirement and community norms
|
||||||
|
- The biggest sustainability risk has been staff hours, not tool replacement
|
||||||
|
- Most successful programs have a paid coordinator role, not pure volunteer
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Potential expansion (year 2+)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Hardware store satellite location
|
||||||
|
- Specialty tool categories: woodworking, automotive, sewing
|
||||||
|
- Skills classes paired with relevant tool checkouts
|
||||||
|
- Seed/cuttings library co-located in spring/summer
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Insurance and liability — current state
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Library counsel (Town of Mossridge legal department) has been consulted informally. Formal opinion pending. Existing policy covers patrons in the building; coverage for tool use off-premises is the open question. Awaiting written response before submitting grant application.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
title: Mossridge Public Library — Tool Lending Library Proposal
|
||||||
|
status: final
|
||||||
|
created: 2026-04-30
|
||||||
|
updated: 2026-04-30
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Tool Lending Library at Mossridge Public Library
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What we're proposing
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A free tool-lending service operated out of the Mossridge Public Library, modeled on similar programs in Berkeley, Oakland, and Toronto. Cardholders borrow hand and power tools (drills, saws, ladders, sanders, plumbing snakes, gardening tools) for up to seven days, free of charge.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Why now
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Mossridge residents face rising costs of home maintenance and DIY supplies. Anecdotally, demand for community-shared resources is high — staff have fielded "do you lend tools?" requests for years. A tool library extends the library's mission of equitable access to information and skill-building into the practical-skills domain.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Who it serves
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Mossridge residents with active library cards. Primary audience: single-family homeowners doing their own home repairs, renters making minor improvements with landlord permission, hobbyist woodworkers and gardeners. Estimated 8,000 households in the library's service area.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Service design
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Catalog:** Approximately 200 tools to start, prioritizing the most-requested categories (drilling, cutting, sanding, ladders, garden).
|
||||||
|
- **Loan period:** Seven days, one renewal allowed if no holds.
|
||||||
|
- **Borrower requirements:** Active library card, signed liability waiver, completed safety briefing for power tools.
|
||||||
|
- **Location:** Library basement, currently underutilized storage. Accessible by elevator.
|
||||||
|
- **Hours:** Tuesday–Saturday during library hours; tools returned via after-hours drop slot when closed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Funding
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- ARPA infrastructure grant: $42,000 (anticipated, application pending)
|
||||||
|
- Friends of the Mossridge Library matching funds: $10,000 (committed)
|
||||||
|
- In-kind tool donations from Mossridge Hardware (committed in principle)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Year-one operating cost is estimated at $48,000, primarily tool purchase, maintenance supplies, and shelving/storage retrofit. Ongoing cost (year two and beyond) projected at $12,000 annually for replacement tools and consumables.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Operations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The service will be run by trained library volunteers, supervised by the Adult Services Librarian. Volunteer training program to be developed in partnership with Mossridge Vocational Center. Estimated 4–6 active volunteers needed at any given time, with a roster of 12–15 trained volunteers to provide coverage.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Risks
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Theft and loss.** Tools are valuable and portable. Mitigation: deposit on power tools (refundable), card-required checkout, photo documentation at loan and return.
|
||||||
|
- **Liability.** Borrower waivers will be required; the library's existing insurance policy is being reviewed for coverage.
|
||||||
|
- **Demand uncertainty.** We do not yet know the actual borrowing volume the service will see.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Success criteria
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Launch by Q3 2027 with a catalog of 200 tools.
|
||||||
|
- 300 unique borrowers in the first year of operation.
|
||||||
|
- Zero serious injury incidents.
|
||||||
|
- Tool loss rate under 5% per year.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What we're asking
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Board approval to proceed with the ARPA grant application and finalize the service design for fall 2027 launch.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||||
|
# Decision Log — Mossridge Tool Lending Library
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-03-04
|
||||||
|
- **Pursuing the project.** Adult Services Librarian + Library Director agreed there's enough informal demand signal (years of "do you lend tools?" inquiries) to investigate seriously. Acknowledged that informal inquiries are not the same as validated demand.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-03-11
|
||||||
|
- **Reference programs to study: Berkeley, Oakland, Toronto.** Selected based on size, longevity, and accessibility of operational data.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-03-25
|
||||||
|
- **Initial scope: hand and power tools only.** Rejected including specialty categories (sewing, electronics test gear, automotive) for MVP. Reason: staff expertise and storage. Revisit year 2.
|
||||||
|
- **Free model.** Confirmed — paid model rejected as inconsistent with library mission. Donation jar approved as soft revenue.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-04-01
|
||||||
|
- **Volunteer-run model.** Selected to keep ongoing operating costs low. Acknowledged risk: Berkeley correspondence flagged staff-hours as the biggest sustainability concern in similar programs. Plan to revisit at year-one review.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-04-08
|
||||||
|
- **Funding architecture: ARPA grant + Friends matching + in-kind donations.** Considered municipal budget request; rejected as too slow (next budget cycle is 18 months out). Grant is faster but requires fall 2027 launch deadline.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-04-15
|
||||||
|
- **Launch timing: Q3 2027.** Driven by ARPA grant deadline, not by service-readiness analysis. Acknowledged this is grant-driven, not user-driven, timing.
|
||||||
|
- **Year-one target: 300 unique borrowers.** Set by analogy to comparable programs scaled to Mossridge population. No local validation underlying this number.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-04-22
|
||||||
|
- **Hardware store satellite deferred to year 2.** Operational complexity exceeds our launch capacity.
|
||||||
|
- **Liability: pending formal opinion from town legal.** Borrower waiver in draft.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2026-04-30
|
||||||
|
- **Brief finalized for board meeting.** Status moved to final.
|
||||||
|
- **Open items acknowledged for board discussion:** demand validation method, volunteer sustainability, written legal opinion on off-premises tool use coverage.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
|
||||||
|
# Pantry Bridge — Customer Research Transcripts
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Project:** Pantry Bridge meal-kit concept exploration
|
||||||
|
**Research firm:** In-house
|
||||||
|
**Round:** Discovery interviews, March 2026
|
||||||
|
**Format:** 45-minute semi-structured interviews, video; excerpts below are lightly edited for length and clarity
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The four interviews below cover four distinct potential customer segments. We are sharing all four for context, though the team's current product hypothesis targets one specific segment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Interview 1 — Susan, 38, working parent
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Household:** Two kids (ages 6 and 9), spouse works full-time, both parents work demanding office jobs. Suburban Chicago.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Susan:** "Honestly, the question is just — can I get dinner on the table by 6:30 without it being chicken nuggets again? My kids don't eat anything green unless we play games about it. My husband and I both have late meetings sometimes. We've tried HelloFresh, we've tried Blue Apron, we tried Home Chef. They all kind of work, and they all kind of don't.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The thing that breaks them for us is the prep time. The boxes say 30 minutes but you need to add 10-15 to actually get it done. By Wednesday night I don't have 45 minutes. So we end up using the boxes on weekends and ordering takeout three nights a week, which is the opposite of what the boxes are supposed to do.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If you really wanted to crack it for families like ours: pre-chopped vegetables, sauces that are actually finished and not 'whisk these eight things together.' I'll pay more for less prep. And the recipe books need to read like the kid is going to eat it — not like 'spicy harissa-rubbed cauliflower steaks.'
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Portion sizing — most kits send way too much for our family. We're a family of four but the kids each eat about 60% of a meal. We end up with leftovers that go bad. Better sizing would help."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Interviewer:** What about price?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Susan:** "We spend $250-350 a week on groceries currently and probably another $200 on takeout. So a meal kit that replaces three nights of takeout could be $200 a month and we'd still come out ahead. Most kits are priced fine; it's the time that breaks them."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Interview 2 — Marcus, 21, college student
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Household:** Junior at state university, off-campus apartment shared with two roommates, kitchen has a microwave, a stovetop, and a half-broken oven. Limited budget.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Marcus:** "I'm probably the wrong person for this conversation, no offense. I'm not really a meal-kit person. My food situation is, like, dining hall meal plan when I can use it, and the rest is whatever's cheap and fast. Trader Joe's frozen stuff. Eggs. Pasta. Costco runs with my roommates once a month.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I tried a meal kit when my mom signed me up as a 'starting college' gift. It was nice, but it was $80 a week for two people, which is way out of budget. And honestly, the thing they don't get is that I don't have time at 7 PM to cook. I have time at 11 PM. I want to grab something on my way back from the library and not think.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If you're trying to do meal kits for college students — and I don't really think you should — but if you were, the price has to be like $5 a meal. And it has to be food that survives in a fridge for two weeks because we don't shop on a weekly schedule. We shop when we run out.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Snacks matter more to us than meals, actually. Like, the moment when I'm desperate is 10 PM in the library, not 7 PM. Solve that and I might pay attention."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Interviewer:** Do you have any dietary restrictions?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Marcus:** "I'm vegetarian, sort of. I eat fish. So pescatarian I guess. But mostly because meat is expensive."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Interview 3 — Eleanor, 71, retired, lives alone
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Household:** Widow, lives alone in the same single-family home she's been in for 36 years. Suburban Cleveland. Two adult children live out of state. Drives during the day but no longer at night.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Eleanor:** "I'll tell you what I miss. I miss cooking for someone. My husband Walter passed five years ago this June, and the hardest thing — well, not the hardest, but one of them — is that I don't really cook anymore. I cook eggs. I cook a piece of fish. I open a can of soup more often than I'd like to admit. I used to make Sunday dinners that would feed eight people. Now I eat standing up at the counter half the time.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The grocery store is genuinely difficult. I drive there, I park in the back of the lot because I can usually find a spot, and then it's a long walk in. I get tired by the time I'm in the dairy aisle. Carrying the bags from the car to the kitchen — that's a project. My daughter wants me to use grocery delivery and I've tried, but the apps are all designed for someone twenty years younger than me. Tiny buttons, asking me to click through six screens to add a single tomato. I get frustrated and give up.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What I would actually want — and I've thought about this — is meals for one person. Real portions. Not a frozen TV dinner. Not 'serves four, freeze the rest.' I have a freezer full of leftovers I'll never eat. Just one good meal that I can heat up or finish cooking, that tastes like food I would have made.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I'm watching my sodium because of my blood pressure. Watching sugar too — borderline diabetic, my doctor calls it. So I read labels carefully. The frozen meals you can buy in stores are loaded with both. I'd pay more for less of both, if I trusted that the labels were accurate.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The other thing — and please put this in your notes — is that I'm careful about who I let into my house and what I sign up for. There are scams. My friend Marian got taken for $4,000 last year. So if some company asks for my information, I want to know who they are. I want a real customer service number with a real person. I want it to feel like a real business, not a flashy app.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I don't want it to feel like 'old-people food.' That's an important thing. The Meals on Wheels program in our township is wonderful but it's clearly designed for people who are sicker than I am. I'm not sick. I just live alone and grocery shopping is a lot."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Interviewer:** What would the ideal experience look like?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Eleanor:** "Someone delivers good food, in real portions, made with the kind of ingredients I would have used. I can heat it up or finish it. It doesn't taste like a hospital. The packaging is something I can actually open without a knife. I get a phone call once in a while from a person, not a robot. The price is reasonable — I'm on a fixed income but I can spend on things that matter. Eating well matters."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Interview 4 — Dimitri, 44, Director of Food Services, mid-size hospital
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Organization:** 340-bed hospital, food service operates patient meals, staff cafeteria, and a small retail café. Reports to the COO.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Dimitri:** "I'm probably also not who you should be talking to, but happy to share. We don't buy meal kits. We buy ingredients in institutional volumes from Sysco and US Foods primarily, with some specialty buys for dietary restrictions. We feed about 1,800 people a day across patients, staff, and visitors.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What I deal with that you might find interesting is the patient diet matrix. We have to produce meals that meet specific medical requirements — renal diets, cardiac diets, diabetic diets, dysphagia textures, allergen-free, religious restrictions. Each patient gets a tray that meets their specific orders. It's complex.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If a meal kit company wanted to play in our world, they'd be selling to me at the institutional level — bulk pricing, multi-year contracts, ability to deliver consistent specs across thousands of meals. That's not really a 'meal kit' anymore; that's wholesale food service.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Now, where I might be a buyer in a different sense: my staff cafeteria. We're trying to compete with grab-and-go culture. If you produced ready-to-heat meals targeting our staff demographic — nurses, doctors, techs, who are working 12-hour shifts and want real food, not a sandwich — I might pay attention. But the price point would have to make sense for institutional buying, and you'd need to integrate with our existing food safety protocols.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For consumer meal kits, I'm probably not your customer. We did try one when my wife and I were both working through COVID, and we let the subscription lapse after about three months. Fine product, just didn't fit our patterns."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Note from the research lead
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
These four interviews were selected to represent the range of segments we've considered. The team's working hypothesis after this round is that the older-adult-living-alone segment is the strongest fit for the Pantry Bridge concept — distinctive needs, acknowledged friction with current options, willingness to pay for quality, and a meaningful unmet need around portion sizing and trust. Working parent segment is well-served by existing competitors. College student segment is too price-sensitive. Institutional segment is a different business entirely.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The brief should target the older-adult segment based on the Eleanor interview specifically.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||||
|
# Q2 Brainstorm — Hatchet & Loop Studio
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Date:** 2026-04-15
|
||||||
|
**Present:** Mira, Devon, Sofia, Theo
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Annual Q2 ideation. We're hunting for our next side-project-that-could-become-a-product. Format: 10 minutes wild ideas, 3 minutes per idea on quick takes, then we vote on one to dig into.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Round 1: Everything goes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
(10 minutes, no filtering. We just throw stuff out.)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- A weather app that tracks your mood alongside the forecast (Devon)
|
||||||
|
- Meditation chime that learns your sleep cycle and chimes only at the right wake-window (Theo)
|
||||||
|
- A podcasting tool for non-podcasters — like, you record voice notes and it auto-edits and posts (Sofia)
|
||||||
|
- Craft beer subscription with detailed brewer notes you can read while drinking (Mira)
|
||||||
|
- AI sommelier app that tells you what wine to buy at Trader Joe's based on a photo (Theo)
|
||||||
|
- Office-plant-care subscription with auto-replacement when one dies (Devon)
|
||||||
|
- Neighborhood ride coordinator — like a private Uber pool for one neighborhood (Mira)
|
||||||
|
- Neighborhood compost coordinator — connect people with food scraps to people with active compost piles (Sofia)
|
||||||
|
- Cookbook app where you click "I'll cook this Tuesday" and it auto-generates the shopping list and sends it to your delivery service (Devon)
|
||||||
|
- AR home staging — point your phone at a room and it shows you what it would look like with different furniture (Theo)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Round 2: Quick takes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Weather + mood
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Devon: "I'd use it." Sofia thinks the data correlation isn't strong enough to be useful — interesting concept but the science doesn't support a product. Park.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Sleep-cycle meditation chime
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Theo's pitch — exists already (Sleep Cycle, etc.). Differentiation would be the chime, which is hardware. Out of scope for a software-first studio.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Podcasting for non-podcasters
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sofia: "There are like fifty of these." She's right. Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Craft beer subscription
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Mira admits this is mostly her wanting it for herself. We're not in the logistics business. Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### AI sommelier
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Theo: "The model would have to be incredibly good at label recognition." Sofia: "And there's already Vivino." Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Office-plant-care subscription
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Devon: "I worked at a place that had this. They were always sad plants." Operational nightmare, low margin. Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Neighborhood ride coordinator
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Mira: "Saturated. Lyft and Uber both have pool features. Uber Neighborhood was a thing and they killed it." Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Neighborhood compost coordinator
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sofia: "Hear me out. Cities are mandating organic waste separation but most apartments don't have a composting option. People in single-family homes often have active compost piles and would love more material. There's a missing match-making layer." General agreement this is more interesting than the others. Theo: "How do we make money?" Sofia: "Eventually a small fee on the compost-pile-host side, but for MVP just free and prove the demand." Group lights up. We agree to dig into this in Round 3.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Cookbook → shopping list
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Devon's pitch. Already exists (Mealime, Plan to Eat). Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### AR home staging
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Theo: "IKEA already has this." Skip.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Round 3: Compost coordinator deep dive
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We spent 45 minutes on this. Notes:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Who is the user?**
|
||||||
|
Two-sided market. Side A: apartment dwellers and renters who generate food scraps and want them composted (motivated by environmental values, sometimes by city mandates). Side B: people with active backyard compost piles who want more "browns and greens" — single-family homeowners, urban farmers, school gardens, community gardens.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sofia thinks Side A is the harder side to acquire (weak intent — recycling-adjacent behavior). Side B is easier but smaller. The product has to be designed around Side A's friction points.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Geographic scope.**
|
||||||
|
Hyperlocal — neighborhood-level, not city-wide. The whole point is short-distance handoff: Side A doesn't want to drive their food scraps across town. We're talking 5-block radius matches.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Business model (later).**
|
||||||
|
Free at launch. Eventually: subscription for Side B (compost-pile hosts) — they pay to access more matches. Side A always free. Possibly partner with cities that have green-waste mandates (B2G channel).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Technical approach.**
|
||||||
|
Web app first, mobile second. Map-based discovery. Identity verification light-touch (apartment dwellers are skittish about strangers; need trust signals). Match-and-message pattern, not real-time logistics.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Competition.**
|
||||||
|
ShareWaste exists but is global and not focused on hyperlocal density. Some city-specific apps (NYC's GrowNYC). No one has cracked the neighborhood-density model.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**MVP scope.**
|
||||||
|
One pilot neighborhood. Sofia knows people in a Portland neighborhood (Sunnyside / Hawthorne area) where compost culture is strong. Start there.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Open questions.**
|
||||||
|
- How do we acquire Side A (apartment dwellers)? They have low intent and lots of competing options (just throwing scraps in trash, paying a service, signing up for city pickup if available).
|
||||||
|
- What does the trust layer look like? Reviews? Vouching? Real-name only?
|
||||||
|
- Does Side B saturation become a problem fast (one compost pile can only take so much)? How do we route demand?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Action items
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Sofia: write up the compost coordinator concept as a brief by next Wednesday. Take it to Mira and Devon for first read.
|
||||||
|
- Devon: research ShareWaste's user numbers and any teardowns of why they haven't dominated.
|
||||||
|
- Theo: sketch the trust-layer UX concepts.
|
||||||
|
- Mira: talk to Sofia's Portland contacts about doing user interviews.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Next meeting: 2026-04-29 — review brief draft, decide on go/no-go.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||||
|
[
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Help me write a product brief for my new app idea", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "I need to draft a brief for a feature we're scoping", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Update this product brief — we changed the target audience", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Review my brief and tell me if it's investor-ready", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Validate this brief before our board meeting Monday", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Pressure-test my product brief for weak assumptions", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Help me put together a one-page summary of my product idea for stakeholders", "should_trigger": true },
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Help me brainstorm ideas for a new feature", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Write me a PRD for our checkout flow redesign", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Run a working backwards exercise for my product idea", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Document this existing codebase for AI agents", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Help me write user stories for the next sprint", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Generate a system architecture for my app", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Write code to parse JSON in Python", "should_trigger": false },
|
||||||
|
{ "query": "Create a marketing landing page for my product", "should_trigger": false }
|
||||||
|
]
|
||||||
|
|
@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ Conversationally surface what the user brings, why this brief exists, and the do
|
||||||
- **Right-size to purpose.** A passion project does not need investor-grade rigor. A VC pitch input does. Read the room.
|
- **Right-size to purpose.** A passion project does not need investor-grade rigor. A VC pitch input does. Read the room.
|
||||||
- **Persistence is real-time.** Once Create intent is confirmed, the workspace (run folder, `brief.md` skeleton with `status: draft`, `decision-log.md`) exists on disk and the user knows the path. The decision log is canonical memory — what the user has shared is preserved on disk, not stored in the conversation.
|
- **Persistence is real-time.** Once Create intent is confirmed, the workspace (run folder, `brief.md` skeleton with `status: draft`, `decision-log.md`) exists on disk and the user knows the path. The decision log is canonical memory — what the user has shared is preserved on disk, not stored in the conversation.
|
||||||
- **Continuity across sessions.** If a prior in-progress draft for this project exists, the user is offered to resume.
|
- **Continuity across sessions.** If a prior in-progress draft for this project exists, the user is offered to resume.
|
||||||
|
- **Extract, don't ingest.** Source artifacts (provided by the user or discovered during the run — transcripts, brainstorms, research reports, code, web results, prior briefs) enter the parent conversation as relevance-filtered extracts, not loaded wholesale. Subagents do the extraction against the user's stated focus; the parent context stays lean.
|
||||||
- **Length and coherence.** Aim for 1-2 pages — if it is longer, the detail belongs in the addendum or distillate. Structure in service of the product; downstream consumers (PRD workflow, etc.) read this, so coherent shape matters.
|
- **Length and coherence.** Aim for 1-2 pages — if it is longer, the detail belongs in the addendum or distillate. Structure in service of the product; downstream consumers (PRD workflow, etc.) read this, so coherent shape matters.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Finalize
|
## Finalize
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue