Digital platform business model evaluator

Purpose

Produce a rigorous evaluation of a digital platform business model — scoring network effects potential, monetization fit, moat durability, and scalability — so leadership knows whether the model can defensibly compound value or whether it's a feature dressed up as a platform. Surfaces the launch and economic risks that kill most platforms before they're committed to.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

• Evaluate a marketplace, platform, or two-sided/multi-sided business model
• Decide whether to fund or kill a digital platform initiative
• Pressure-test the defensibility and network effects of a platform idea
• Compare a platform monetization model against alternatives (take rate, subscription, listing fee, ads)
• Diagnose why an existing platform isn't compounding or scaling
• Assess the chicken-and-egg cold-start risk of a new marketplace

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

• Platform concept: 2–4 sentence description of what the platform does and for whom
• Participant sides: Who are the distinct user groups (e.g., buyers/sellers, riders/drivers, creators/audience)
• Value exchange: What each side gives and gets through the platform
• Proposed monetization: How the platform intends to make money (take rate, subscription, listing fee, ads, lead gen, SaaS layer)
• Target market: Geography, vertical, and rough market size if known
• Current stage: Idea / prototype / launched with traction / scaling
• Known competitors or incumbents: Existing platforms or substitutes serving these users

If participant sides or value exchange are unclear, infer the most plausible structure and state the assumption explicitly before scoring.

Instructions

Step 1: Classify the Platform Type

Establish what kind of platform this actually is — this determines which frameworks apply.

• Transaction platform (marketplaces, gig): matches two sides for an exchange; success = liquidity
• Innovation platform (app stores, dev ecosystems): third parties build on top; success = developer adoption
• Integration/hybrid platform (combines transaction + ecosystem)
• Social/content network: success = engagement density and content supply
• Pseudo-platform check: Is this actually a linear pipeline business (single-sided SaaS, reseller, aggregator with no cross-side value) misbranded as a platform? If so, flag it now — the rest of the evaluation changes materially.

Step 2: Network Effects Analysis

Score the strength and type of network effects (Strong / Moderate / Weak / Absent).

• Direct (same-side) effects: Does each new user make the platform more valuable to others on the same side? (often negative — more sellers = more competition)
• Cross-side effects: Does growth on one side increase value on the other? (the core engine of two-sided markets)
• Data network effects: Does usage improve the product via data/learning loops?
• Effect strength test: Apply the question — at what point does each marginal user add diminishing, flat, or negative value? Identify the saturation and congestion risks.
• Local vs. global liquidity: Do network effects compound globally or reset per geography/category? (Local-only effects are far weaker moats — e.g., ride-hail vs. global social.)

Step 3: Chicken-and-Egg / Cold-Start Diagnosis

Evaluate launch feasibility — most platforms die here.

• Which side is harder to acquire and why
• Cold-start strategy fit: Single-side first / Subsidize one side / Come for the tool, stay for the network / Constrained launch (narrow geo or niche) / Marquee supply seeding
• Minimum viable liquidity: What's the smallest unit of supply+demand that creates a working market?
• Critical mass risk: Rate the difficulty of reaching the tipping point (Low / Medium / High / Severe)

Step 4: Monetization Model Evaluation

Assess whether the proposed monetization extracts value without breaking the network.

• Model fit by platform type: Validate the chosen model (take rate / subscription / listing / ads / SaaS layer) against the platform type and value exchange
• Take rate sustainability: Is the proposed rate defensible against disintermediation? (High-value, repeat-trust transactions tolerate higher take rates; low-frequency, high-trust ones invite leakage)
• Monetize the right side: Which side is less price-sensitive and should bear the cost? Does the model align?
• Disintermediation risk: Can the two sides transact off-platform after matching? Rate the leakage exposure and identify what keeps the transaction on-platform (payments, trust, recurring matching, workflow lock-in)
• Pricing power trajectory: Does pricing power grow with the network or stay flat?

Step 5: Competitive Moat & Defensibility

Score moat durability (Durable / Moderate / Fragile).

• Multi-homing risk: How easily can users participate on competing platforms simultaneously? (Low switching cost + easy multi-homing = fragile moat)
• Switching costs: What accrues to users that makes leaving costly (reputation, history, integrations, data)?
• Winner-take-all vs. fragmented dynamics: Assess whether this market tips to one winner (high network effects + low multi-homing + low differentiation) or supports multiple players
• Defensibility stack: Beyond network effects — brand, data, embedded workflow, regulatory, supply exclusivity
• Incumbent threat: Can an adjacent platform with existing distribution bolt this on?

Step 6: Scalability & Unit Economics

Evaluate whether the model scales profitably.

• Marginal cost curve: Does cost-to-serve approach zero per incremental transaction, or does each unit carry meaningful variable cost (logistics, trust/safety, support)?
• Trust & safety scaling cost: Higher-stakes transactions carry rising moderation/fraud/insurance costs that compress margins at scale
• Geographic/category expansion cost: Does the model replicate cheaply or require rebuilding liquidity each market?
• Contribution margin trajectory: Does it improve with scale (true platform leverage) or stay flat/decline?

Step 7: Verdict & Scorecard

Produce a 1–5 score per dimension and a composite verdict.

• Composite verdict: Strong platform / Conditional / Weak — pipeline in disguise / Not viable
• Top 3 risks ranked by severity, each with a specific mitigation
• The one question that, if answered wrong, kills the model

Output Format

• Structure: Seven sections following the steps; scorecard as a table; risks as a ranked list
• Length: 1,000–1,400 words
• Format: Structured analysis with bolded sub-labels, one scorecard table, one ranked risk list
• Sections: Platform classification → Network effects → Cold-start diagnosis → Monetization → Moat → Scalability → Verdict & scorecard
• Tone: Strategy partner — analytical, opinionated, willing to call a platform a disguised pipeline; no hedging on the final verdict

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

• [ ] Platform type is explicitly classified and the pseudo-platform check is applied
• [ ] Cross-side network effects are assessed separately from same-side effects (not conflated)
• [ ] Disintermediation/leakage risk is addressed in the monetization section with a specific mechanism that keeps transactions on-platform
• [ ] Multi-homing and switching costs are both evaluated in the moat section
• [ ] All five scorecard dimensions have a 1–5 score with rationale (no blanks)
• [ ] A clear composite verdict is given and the top 3 risks are ranked by severity, not listed arbitrarily

Notes

• The most common failure mode is a linear business calling itself a platform — if there's no cross-side value creation, treat it as a pipeline and say so directly.
• Cold-start risk and disintermediation kill more platforms than competition does; weight them heavily in conditional verdicts.
• High network-effect scores mean little if multi-homing is trivial — a strong engine with a fragile moat compounds value for competitors too.
• If the user is at the idea stage, the verdict should emphasize the cold-start and monetization risks; if scaling, emphasize moat durability and unit-economics trajectory.

How to use this skill

This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.

Installing in Claude Code:

• ~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)
• <your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)

Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.

Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:

1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
2. Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits

For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills