---

name: vc-partner-meeting description: "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

Example Trigger Phrases

• "How will VCs discuss my pitch?"
• "Simulate the partner meeting."
• "Stress-test my fundraise."
• "What happens after the pitch?"