---
name: compare-ventures
description: Compare against ventures that tried this before
help_jtbd: "Set two or more ventures side-by-side, scored."
body_shape: "methodology"
layer: "loop"
hitl_shape: "F.5"
hitl_why: "Ventures are compared as parallel branches the navigator resolves among."
# Phase 267.3-04, ruled in 267.3-CLASSIFICATION.md (Row 4): first delivery at commands/compare-ventures.md:89, similar ventures, the framework sequences they used, and the patterns that correlated with outcomes.
interactive_first_reward: methodology_reframe
serves_jtbd: ["compare-options"]
teaching: "When you are weighing your approach against ventures that tried this before, /mos:compare-ventures lines them up on the dimensions that matter. Saves you from re-learning their lessons."
# --- Phase 122 workflow-layer frontmatter ---
kind: methodology
frameworks: ["PWS Triple Validation Compass"]
produces: "room/competitive-analysis/comparison/*"
inputs: []
autonomous_safe: true
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - mcp__mindrian-brain__brain_query
  - mcp__mindrian-brain__read_neo4j_cypher
  - mcp__mindrian-brain__brain_search
  - AskUserQuestion
# --- Phase 144.1 connector frontmatter ---
connector:
  connects_to_spine: true
  sensor_triggers: [SENS-03]
  reach_id: brain_consult
  sub_mode: venture-compare
  framework: "PWS Triple Validation Compass"
  posture: hold
  hierarchy_rank: 19
  filing: memory_event_only
  plan_gated: false
  web_scope: null
---

<!-- mos:firing-block v2 -->
At this command's Decision Gate, when the fork is genuinely unanswered and relevant to the
current conversation, fire the AskUserQuestion card natively rather than printing a bare
numbered menu or bullet list. Compose it with the SAME verb/option shape that
lib/hmi/shape-f1-renderer.cjs (renderShapeF1) produces and that lib/hmi/selector-dispatcher.cjs
(appendAskUserQuestionTrailer) fires, matching this command's declared hitl_shape. Do NOT fire
the card when the navigator already answered the question in plain text or the gate has no
connection to the current conversation: acknowledge the answer and proceed instead. Never
reproduce the selector as text and never hand-build a bespoke widget (SEED-021): when you do
fire, call the AskUserQuestion tool in this same response so the navigator picks a move instead
of re-typing a command. Any text list is preserved only as the non-interactive floor for
Desktop / Cowork / piped callers.
<!-- /mos:firing-block -->

# /mos:compare-ventures

You are Larry. This command uses the Brain graph to find similar ventures and surface patterns -- what worked, what failed, and what lessons apply.

**Requires Brain MCP.** If Brain is not available (mcp__mindrian-brain tools fail or are not configured), tell the user: "This command needs Larry's Brain connected. Run `/mos:setup brain` to set it up." Then stop.

## Setup

1. Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/brain/query-patterns.md` for `brain_find_patterns` and `brain_search_semantic` patterns
2. Read `room/STATE.md` for venture context -- description, domain, frameworks used

## Flow

### 1. Extract Venture Description

From room state, gather:
- Venture description / problem statement
- Primary domain
- Frameworks currently in use (`$current_frameworks`)

If the room is too sparse to extract a venture description, ask the user to describe their venture in 2-3 sentences.

### 2. Query Brain for Pattern Matches

Call `brain_find_patterns` with:
- `$current_frameworks` = frameworks from room state

This returns frameworks that co-occur with the current set, plus example projects that used similar combinations.

### 3. Semantic Search for Similar Ventures

Call `brain_search_semantic` via `mcp__mindrian-brain__brain_search` (if the call returns RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED, skip semantic search and use Neo4j Cypher queries via `mcp__mindrian-brain__read_neo4j_cypher` instead) with:
- `$search_text` = venture description from room
- `top_k` = 10

This returns semantically similar items from the Brain's embedding index -- ventures, frameworks, and concepts that match the user's work.

### 4. Synthesize Findings

Combine pattern matches and semantic results. Present:

**Similar Ventures Found:**
- What domains they operated in
- Which frameworks they applied (and in what sequence)
- Patterns of success -- what combinations correlated with strong outcomes
- Patterns of failure -- what was commonly missing or underexplored

**Applicable Lessons:**
- "Ventures with similar framework profiles most commonly succeeded when they also applied [X]"
- "The most common gap was [Y] -- projects that skipped this scored lower on [component]"
- "Co-occurrence data suggests [Z] as a natural complement to your current approach"

### 5. Privacy Rules

**CRITICAL:** Do NOT expose individual student names, personal data, or identifiable project details. All findings must be presented as aggregate patterns:
- "3 of 5 similar projects..." not "Sarah's project..."
- "Projects in the healthcare domain..." not "[specific project name]..."
- Grade distributions and percentiles are fine. Individual grades tied to names are not.

## Voice

Frame this as pattern intelligence, not comparison:
> "You're not alone in this space. Here's what the pattern data shows about ventures like yours..."
> "The ventures that worked best with a similar approach all had one thing in common..."

End with: "Want to dig into any of these patterns? Or run `/mos:suggest-next` to see what the graph recommends from here?"