SiteWarden (working name)
Idea status: Idea stage · Target: an MRR ladder ($1k → $50k) instead of one fixed number · Verdict: No as described. Go small, only as lead-form monitoring for care-plan agencies, with a day-45 kill test · Last updated: 30 Sept 2026
Start here → WHAT-TO-DO-AND-AVOID.md: odds at each MRR level (with conditions, ~15 hrs/week / full-time: $1k ~35% / 50%, $5k ~11% / 19%, $10k ~5% / 10%, $20k ~2% / 4%), 13 do's, 14 avoids, checkpoints.
Where this came from. This idea came from the 30 Sept 2026 micro-SaaS idea catalog, row C2: ../_research/2026-09-30-micro-saas-idea-catalog.md. The catalog flagged it as the most crowded idea on the list. It was not a feature list supplied by a founder, so there's no stated team, price or traction. See analysis/09.
Name. "SiteWarden" is a working name. Check trademark (USPTO, EUIPO) and domain before using it publicly. If the form-monitoring wedge survives the day-45 test, a name that says "forms" or "leads" will sell better than one that says "site".
The idea as catalogued: uptime, SSL-expiry and domain-expiry monitoring with a hosted status page, for agencies that manage many client sites, at a $12–15/month entry price.
Where the assessment ended up: every version of the uptime idea is already sold, cheaply, to exactly this buyer (Oh Dear for agencies, WP Umbrella and ManageWP for WordPress agencies, UptimeRobot and Better Stack for everyone). The one gap found is silent contact-form failure: none of the leaders tests that a lead actually reaches the inbox. That's the recommended wedge. It is small, unproven, and the weakest bet in this portfolio.
Research was run on 30 Sept 2026, with a confidence level on each claim. See research/10-verified-research.md.
Folder layout
sitewarden/
├── WHAT-TO-DO-AND-AVOID.md ← final analysis and decision (read first)
├── README.md ← this index
├── analysis/ ← the investor-style assessment
│ ├── 00-one-page-brief.md
│ ├── 01-verdict.md
│ ├── 02-market-reality-check.md
│ ├── 03-feature-scrutiny.md
│ ├── 04-expanded-feature-catalog.md
│ ├── 05-pre-mortem.md
│ ├── 06-fundability.md
│ ├── 07-gaps.md
│ └── 09-assumptions-and-open-inputs.md
├── plans/ ← execution plans
│ ├── 08-90-day-plan.md
│ └── 11-24-month-gated-roadmap.md
└── research/ ← verified, cited evidence
└── 10-verified-research.md
File numbers match the other ideas in this portfolio, so cross-references like "doc 08" work the same way.
Documents
| # | Document | What it answers |
|---|---|---|
| — | WHAT-TO-DO-AND-AVOID.md | Final decision: MRR ladder, Tier A/B, conditions, customer math, 13 do's, 14 avoids, checkpoints |
| 00 | analysis/00-one-page-brief.md | The whole assessment on one page |
| 01 | analysis/01-verdict.md | MRR ladder for 5 versions of the idea and 2 time commitments, why there's no base rate, Tier A/B, fundable yes/no |
| 02 | analysis/02-market-reality-check.md | Buyer segments, pain scores, competitors and verified prices, vitamin vs painkiller, market size |
| 03 | analysis/03-feature-scrutiny.md | The catalogued features and positioning, classified |
| 04 | analysis/04-expanded-feature-catalog.md | About 40 features agencies ask for, classified and prioritised |
| 05 | analysis/05-pre-mortem.md | Top 3 causes of death, warning signs, fixable? |
| 06 | analysis/06-fundability.md | Invest?, the skeptic's first 5 minutes, proof points, bootstrap vs raise |
| 07 | analysis/07-gaps.md | Gaps to pay, renew and refer, plus data, terms and positioning |
| 08 | plans/08-90-day-plan.md | First 90 days, week by week, sized for limited weekly hours |
| 09 | analysis/09-assumptions-and-open-inputs.md | Assumptions made, and the inputs that would change the verdict |
| 10 | research/10-verified-research.md | Cited research (30 Sept 2026), confidence levels, and what's still unverified |
| 11 | plans/11-24-month-gated-roadmap.md | Month 0–24 phases, gates, revenue path for both time commitments, budget guardrails |
Caveat
Team, location, hours per week and pricing were not provided. The assumptions are in analysis/09. How often contact forms actually fail silently is not known. No verified source was found, and the whole wedge rests on it. The day-30 pilot measures it before anything is built. No form-monitoring tool publishes revenue, so the wedge has no revenue evidence; the revenue evidence in research/10 is for uptime tools, which is the market this assessment advises against entering.