A trending keyword is not a business. Between the two sits a judgement: could this become a fully-online product, and is it worth the effort? We make that judgement explicit with a scoring rubric instead of a black-box hunch.
The dimensions we score
- Market size — is the underlying demand broad enough to matter?
- Acquisition cost — can the audience be reached affordably online?
- Moat — is there any defensibility, or is it trivially copyable?
- Time-to-revenue — how quickly could a first paying customer appear?
- Compliance — does the idea sit comfortably within legal and platform rules?
- Online purity — how much of the value chain can run without physical operations?
Each opportunity is rated on these and combined into a single viability score. The score is shown next to every opportunity so you can see, at a glance, how strongly the model rates it.
Avoiding paper optimism
It is easy to make every idea look brilliant. We push against that in three ways: the rubric rewards online-only feasibility (not vague upside), the prompt asks the model to argue both sides, and a minimum threshold gates which keywords get a full plan — only candidates scoring above 60 are promoted, so the library is not flooded with weak ideas.
How to read a score
A score is a structured opinion, useful for ranking and triage — not a probability of success and not investment advice. A high score says "worth a serious look", not "this will work". The honest move is to treat it as the start of your own diligence, which is exactly why we also generate a full plan you can interrogate.
Why transparency beats magic
Opaque scores invite blind trust or total dismissal. A visible rubric invites something better: disagreement you can reason about. If you think acquisition cost is underweighted for a given niche, you now have a concrete thing to argue with.