Simulate the VC partner meeting that discusses your pitch after you leave the room — four partner archetypes debate, then write the internal verdict memo. Use when asked how will VCs discuss my pitch, simulate the partner meeting, stress-test my fundraise, or what happens after the pitch. Produces the meeting transcript, the internal fund/pass/track memo, and a debrief listing which objections are fixable before the real meeting.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use vc-partner-meeting to simulate a VC partner meeting for [pitch details including business, stage, traction, team, market, raise, valuation, and known objections], producing an evidence-grounded four-partner transcript, an internal FUND/TRACK/PASS memo, and a debrief that ranks fixable objections without inventing missing numbers.
Required inputs
[pitch details including business, stage, traction, team, market, raise, valuation, and known objections]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: vc-partner-meetingdescription: "Simulate the VC partner meeting that discusses your pitch after you leave the room — four partner archetypes debate, then write the internal verdict memo. Use when asked how will VCs discuss my pitch, simulate the partner meeting, stress-test my fundraise, or what happens after the pitch. Produces the meeting transcript, the internal fund/pass/track memo, and a debrief listing which objections are fixable before the real meeting."
VC Partner Meeting Skill
The most important meeting of your fundraise is one you're not in. This skill runs it early: four partners who just watched your pitch debate it the way funds actually do — pattern-matching, fund math, and all — then commit a verdict to the internal memo.
What This Skill Produces
The transcript — four partner archetypes discussing your company, each in a distinct voice
The internal memo — the fund/pass/track verdict with the reasoning a fund would actually write down
The debrief — out of character: objections ranked by fixability before your real meeting
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
The pitch — deck text, memo, or a summary of the business (stage, traction, team, market, raise amount, valuation ask)
The fund context (optional) — fund size and stage focus; default to a $300M multi-stage fund if absent
Known objections (optional) — what pushback the user has already heard
Framework: The Four Partners
Each speaks at least twice; they must disagree somewhere — real partner meetings are arguments:
Partner
What they weigh
Their failure mode (include it)
The Champion
Why this could be huge; founder quality
Falls in love, discounts risk
The Skeptic
Why this dies: competition, moat, timing
Kills things that later win
The Pattern-Matcher
"This looks like X in 2021" — comps, cautionary tales
Fights the last war
The Fund-Math Partner
Can THIS check return the fund? Ownership, entry price, follow-on reserve
Passes on great-but-small
Verdicts: FUND (term sheet path) · TRACK (specific milestone named — "come back at $1M ARR") · PASS (real reason, not the polite one).
Ground every argument in the supplied facts; where the pitch is silent, the partners should notice the silence — that is realistic — rather than invent numbers.
Output Format
Partner Meeting: [Company] — [date]
Simulation — a plausible adversarial reading, not a prediction or investment advice.
Transcript
[Natural discussion, 12–20 exchanges. Interruptions, references to the deck's actual numbers, at least one genuine disagreement that doesn't fully resolve.]
Internal Memo
Verdict: FUND / TRACK / PASS
One-line thesis or anti-thesis: …
What we'd need to believe: 3 bullets
Deal terms discussed: ownership target, price reaction
If TRACK: the named milestone. If PASS: the real reason vs. what the associate will email the founder.
Debrief — out of character
Objection raised
Fixable before the real meeting?
How
One paragraph: the single strongest move before pitching for real.
Quality Checks
All four archetypes speak with distinguishable voices and at least one real disagreement
Every numeric claim in the transcript comes from the pitch or is flagged as a partner's assumption
Fund math is actually computed (ownership × plausible exit vs fund size), not gestured at
The PASS reason (if pass) is the true one, and differs from the polite email version
Debrief separates fixable objections from structural ones honestly
Anti-Patterns
Do not pull punches — a meeting where everyone likes the deal is a worthless simulation
Do not let the Champion win by default; the memo verdict must follow the strongest argument
Do not invent traction numbers the pitch didn't claim — partners noticing missing numbers IS the feedback
Do not stay in character in the debrief
Do not produce a generic "VCs care about TAM" lecture — every line must be about THIS company