Five worked path portfolios

Five illustrative products placed in real venues under real rules, with a contribution, a test, and a stop condition for each, plus a worksheet for your own.

A path portfolio is a short list of places where one specific product could be useful: usually three to five paths, each earning its place with a real venue, a current rule, a contribution that works before any ask, and a bounded test with a stop condition. At least one line is "not here."

The five portfolios below are illustrative. The products are hypothetical; the venues, rules, and submission routes are real and were checked on 26 August 2026. Fit judgments, contributions, thresholds, and stop conditions are inferences to test, not reports of completed campaigns. Rules change, so recheck every source before acting. Each example shows all five path jobs plus one place to avoid. A real portfolio picks fewer.

API Drift Guard — developer tool

Product (illustrative): An open-source GitHub Action that fails CI when an OpenAPI change silently breaks existing clients. Audience: Staff engineers and platform teams maintaining public or internal APIs. Starting evidence required: Three repositories with a recent contract-break incident, a working public Action, and a maintainer who can support issues. Confidence (from the research): Medium. The venues fit the artifact; problem incidence hasn't been measured.

ANCHOR · GitHub Marketplace

• Why here: Developers already install tools into repository workflows, and GitHub publishes a formal listing route.
• Rule that applies: Anyone may publish an Action from a public, single-action repository with root metadata, a unique name, accepted terms, and two-factor authentication. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A free Action, a five-minute sample repository, explicit permissions, version pinning, and failure messages that show the breaking operation.
• Ask & disclosure: The repository names the maintainer and any paid hosted tier. No install is needed to read the code.
• Test & stop condition: Continue if 20 repositories complete a CI run and five keep it enabled for four weeks. Stop and interview if installs happen but nobody keeps the check.
• Fit: strong — a documented route; the open question is problem incidence, not permission.

LEARNING · Stack Overflow

• Why here: Maintainers ask concrete OpenAPI compatibility questions there.
• Rule that applies: Affiliated answers need disclosure, must solve the question, and can't make most of your participation about the product. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Answer a few existing compatibility questions completely, including a native CLI or manual solution. Mention the Action only when it removes a real step.
• Ask & disclosure: "I maintain this Action" beside the link. No gated examples or copy-pasted answers.
• Test & stop condition: Cap at five answers. Continue only if users ask implementation questions or reproduce the issue. Stop immediately if a moderator removes an answer or the link isn't necessary.
• Fit: conditional — permitted only while every answer stands without the product.

COMPOUNDING · DEV Community

• Why here: DEV's guidance favors information over promotion, and a reproducible teardown is information.
• Rule that applies: Information should outweigh promotion; low-quality promotional material may be downranked. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: "Three OpenAPI changes our compatibility test caught," with fixtures, failure output, and code before the product mention.
• Ask & disclosure: Affiliation stated at the top. The full lesson lives on DEV; the repo is optional.
• Test & stop condition: Continue only if readers run the fixtures or contribute cases. Stop if traffic is high but qualified repo use stays at zero after two posts.
• Fit: strong — the format matches the venue's stated preference; the risk is drifting into release notes.

LEVERAGE · Show HN

• Why here: Show HN exists for things people can try.
• Rule that applies: Show HN requires something people can try; HN rejects vote solicitation and generated or AI-edited submissions. · Show HN, guidelines · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: One factual, personal launch with the working repository, a concrete failure example, tradeoffs, and known limitations.
• Ask & disclosure: The maintainer stays for questions and criticism. No email gate, booster comments, or coordinated votes.
• Test & stop condition: One launch only. Success is technical feedback, retained repo use, or contributors, not rank. Don't repost if the response is quiet.
• Fit: conditional — sanctioned, but one attempt, and acceptance isn't guaranteed.

OWNED · GitHub Discussions in the project's repository

• Why here: Maintainers set the contribution rules in their own repository.
• Rule that applies: GitHub's community-management docs let maintainers set local contribution expectations and enforce a code of conduct. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A "contract-break clinic" category: users submit a redacted before/after schema and get a public minimal reproduction. Accepted cases become credited regression fixtures.
• Ask & disclosure: Contributors opt in to publication and confirm no confidential schema. Commercial support stays out of diagnosis threads.
• Test & stop condition: Continue if three distinct maintainers contribute reusable cases per quarter. Pause new submissions if response time exceeds seven days.
• Fit: strong — you own the rules; the cost is maintainer time.

AVOID · GitHub Community programming-help discussions

• Why not: That area explicitly excludes project self-promotion.
• Rule that applies: The programming-help discussion rules exclude project self-promotion and advertising. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: None. Don't seed "help" questions or promote the Action there.
• Ask & disclosure: None.
• Test & stop condition: None. The negative recommendation is the output.
• Fit: not recommended — the rule is explicit.

Why it holds together: Every public contribution is inspectable code or a complete answer. Marketplace discovery compounds; discussion stays inside a repository the maintainer is responsible for.

Support-quality calibration — B2B SaaS

Product (illustrative): A SaaS tool that samples support tickets, helps managers calibrate quality reviews, and tracks coaching follow-through. Audience: Heads of customer support with 10–100 agents using Zendesk or Intercom. Starting evidence required: Five support leaders who already run manual calibration and one production-safe integration. Confidence (from the research): Medium-low until managers prove willing to share workflow context and the tool meets marketplace security requirements.

ANCHOR · Zendesk Marketplace

• Why here: The work happens inside Zendesk; a reviewed listing puts the tool where the work is.
• Rule that applies: Public and integration apps are reviewed against authentication, header, security, branding, disclosure, and submission requirements; preview apps may be limited to selected customers. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A preview integration that imports a permissioned sample, produces a calibration packet, and discloses exactly which Zendesk data it accesses and why.
• Ask & disclosure: Invite five consenting design partners to the non-discoverable preview. State price, retention, and deletion behavior before access.
• Test & stop condition: Publish publicly only after four of five teams complete two calibration cycles and security review passes. Stop if managers won't repeat the workflow without founder facilitation.
• Fit: conditional — a formal route; security review and repeat use are unproven.

LEARNING · Support Driven

• Why here: An explicit partner and sponsor route exists, and the events are described as community-first.
• Rule that applies: Support Driven publishes a partner/sponsor route for its events. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A paid, operator-approved roundtable on calibration disagreement. Publish an anonymized rubric and aggregate notes back to attendees regardless of product interest.
• Ask & disclosure: Sponsor and vendor role are prominent. No attendee-list extraction; no product demo in the peer discussion unless the organizer schedules it.
• Test & stop condition: Proceed only with written organizer approval and at least eight opted-in practitioners. Stop if the requested format is mainly lead capture.
• Fit: conditional — depends on organizer approval and a teaching format.

COMPOUNDING · CX Accelerator #Resources channel

• Why here: The public channel list names a place for resources and a separate one for amplification, with facilitators enforcing guidelines.
• Rule that applies: #Resources is designated for discussing CX resources and #PleaseShareThis for amplification. A public channel list isn't permission to join or post. · source · Direct rule; member rules unverified · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: After joining legitimately, ask a facilitator whether an ungated QA-calibration spreadsheet with methodology belongs in #Resources. Post only after approval; answer adaptation questions.
• Ask & disclosure: Disclose authorship; keep the spreadsheet usable without the SaaS. Don't DM downloaders.
• Test & stop condition: No action until current member rules and facilitator permission are verified. Continue only if practitioners reuse or improve the rubric.
• Fit: conditional — the research calls this low-confidence; permission rests with a facilitator.

LEVERAGE · Intercom App Store and Technology Partner Program

• Why here: A second reviewed marketplace reaches the other half of the audience.
• Rule that applies: Intercom reviews public apps; the partner program requires an approved app, a compliant listing, and a start guide. · review, partner program · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A reviewed Intercom app plus a public start guide showing a complete calibration cycle on a synthetic ticket set.
• Ask & disclosure: Describe partnership status accurately. No implied endorsement beyond the actual tier.
• Test & stop condition: Apply after the Zendesk test. Continue if integration-sourced teams activate at a predeclared rate. Stop if maintenance exceeds qualified use.
• Fit: conditional — sequenced behind the anchor; requirements can change.

OWNED · Customer education email

• Why here: A permissioned list is where the team sets the format; the constraint is law, not a moderator.
• Rule that applies: Commercial email needs accurate headers, sender identity with a physical address, and a working opt-out. · FTC CAN-SPAM guide · Direct rule; US guidance only · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A monthly "calibration case" on synthetic or permissioned data, with the scoring disagreement and coaching decision exposed.
• Ask & disclosure: Separate product notices from commercial education. Honor opt-outs. Never add community members without consent.
• Test & stop condition: Continue if readers use the rubric or request a calibration session. Stop if the list grows through imports rather than informed subscription.
• Fit: strong — you control the venue and the rule is clear.

AVOID · r/smallbusiness

• Why not: Every action the product could take there is on the banned list.
• Rule that applies: A moderator removal notice, captured only as a snippet, bars promotion, lead generation, unsolicited instruction, and pain-point extraction in ordinary posts. Live status must be rechecked. · source · Direct rule, snippet-only; treat as Unknown until rechecked · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: None. No fake question about support quality, no pain-point asks, no profile funnel.
• Ask & disclosure: None.
• Test & stop condition: Read public discussions only as low-confidence language context. Never treat members as a lead list.
• Fit: not recommended — the captured rule bars every action the product could take.

Why it holds together: The integration is useful where the work happens; practitioner learning uses an explicit partner route; the rubric stays valuable without the SaaS.

Low-FODMAP meal planner — consumer app

Product (illustrative): A meal-planning and symptom-journal app for adults on a clinician-guided low-FODMAP diet. It doesn't diagnose or prescribe. Audience: Adults newly asked by a clinician or registered dietitian to run a structured elimination and reintroduction process. Starting evidence required: Clinical review, licensed food data, privacy design, and evidence that users need planning rather than another food lookup tool. Confidence (from the research): Low until clinical and data constraints are resolved. Community promotion is especially sensitive here.

ANCHOR · Apple App Store

• Why here: The sanctioned route, and its health rules set the bar the product must clear first.
• Rule that applies: Apple applies extra health and privacy rules, rejects misleading medical claims and discovery manipulation, and says apps should direct users to a doctor before medical decisions. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A privacy-minimal app with clinician-reviewed onboarding, clear non-diagnostic boundaries, data deletion, and a working free plan.
• Ask & disclosure: The listing names the evidence source and subscription price. No "cure," guaranteed symptom, or unsupported safety claim.
• Test & stop condition: Don't launch until clinical and privacy review passes. Continue if users complete a clinician-aligned planning cycle. Stop if use clusters around self-diagnosis despite warnings.
• Fit: conditional — gated on clinical and privacy review.

LEARNING · The app's own beta waitlist and consent flow

• Why here: Usability research belongs in a consent flow you own, not a patient support community.
• Rule that applies: Commercial follow-up must meet FTC email requirements. · source · Direct rule; US guidance only · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Ten compensated usability sessions on meal planning and journal burden, with the protocol reviewed by a registered dietitian and the synthesis returned to participants.
• Ask & disclosure: Separate research consent from marketing consent. Allow withdrawal. Collect no unnecessary health details.
• Test & stop condition: Continue if at least six participants complete the core plan without clinical misunderstanding. Pause if the product changes treatment decisions or participants expect diagnosis.
• Fit: conditional — owned and consented, but only once the reviewed protocol exists.

COMPOUNDING · App Store featuring nominations

• Why here: A sanctioned submission to Apple's editorial team for noteworthy launches and updates.
• Rule that applies: App Store Connect provides a featuring-nomination route for noteworthy launches or updates. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Nominate a clinically reviewed "reintroduction week" feature with accessibility, privacy, and user-control detail, not a generic launch pitch.
• Ask & disclosure: Represent the release accurately. Never manipulate ratings or discovery.
• Test & stop condition: Submit once the feature is live and used. Treat selection as editorial upside, not an acquisition forecast.
• Fit: conditional — sanctioned, but selection is the editor's decision.

LEVERAGE · r/FODMAPS weekly self-promotion thread

• Why here: An indexed weekly thread describes a designated self-promotion route, the one sanctioned place in a patient community.
• Rule that applies: An indexed weekly thread describes a designated app/website self-promotion route. Verify the thread and rule are live before using it. · source · Direct rule, snippet-only; treat as Unknown until rechecked · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: In a freshly verified thread only, share a complete, ungated one-week planning worksheet reviewed by a dietitian. Invite feedback on usability, not symptoms or treatment.
• Ask & disclosure: State founder affiliation, reviewer credentials, pricing, and data use. Don't repost in the main feed or message commenters.
• Test & stop condition: One post after live verification, then wait a full cycle. Continue only if moderators leave it up and relevant users test the workflow. Stop on removal or any safety concern.
• Fit: conditional — seen only as a cached snippet; confirm it's live first.

OWNED · Opt-in resource library and email

• Why here: Guides for the clinician relationship belong on a surface you govern.
• Rule that applies: Governed by the app's disclosed privacy policy and applicable email law; the research's only cited email-law source is the FTC CAN-SPAM guide · Direct rule; US guidance only · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Plain-language guides on preparing for a dietitian visit, planning a reintroduction week, and exporting a journal for a clinician.
• Ask & disclosure: No medical outcome promises. Sources and review dates stay visible.
• Test & stop condition: Retire content when the evidence source or reviewer is stale. Success is completed planning or export, not pageviews.
• Fit: conditional — owned, but only as good as the clinical review behind each guide.

AVOID · r/FoodAllergies

• Why not: Promotion, research, app testing, and generated posts are all barred.
• Rule that applies: A moderator update, captured only as a snippet and not live-loaded, bars commercial spam, research, surveys/app testing, and AI-generated posts. · source · Direct rule, snippet-only; treat as Unknown until rechecked · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: None. Don't promote, recruit, test, or paste generated advice there, even if members share dietary needs.
• Ask & disclosure: None.
• Test & stop condition: "Not here" pending a fresh live rule check or direct moderator clarification.
• Fit: not recommended — every action the product could take is on the banned list.

Why it holds together: Reviewed store and designated-thread routes, health decisions left with clinicians, and safety and privacy treated as prerequisites rather than fine print.

The first 90 days as an engineering manager — paid course and newsletter

Product (illustrative): A cohort course plus weekly newsletter for experienced developers entering their first management role. Audience: Engineers with five or more years of experience who will manage a team within six months. Starting evidence required: Instructor management experience, five role-transition interviews, and a free artifact that demonstrates teaching quality. Confidence (from the research): Medium. Sanctioned editorial and marketplace paths exist, but instructor credibility has to be established.

ANCHOR · LeadDev editorial contribution

• Why here: LeadDev asks for practical lessons and honest stories that help engineering leaders.
• Rule that applies: Article ideas go through LeadDev's editorial process; the page asks for practical lessons and honest stories for engineering leaders. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Pitch a complete field report, "The first five 1:1 mistakes I made and the repair script for each," plus an ungated 1:1 agenda.
• Ask & disclosure: The course appears in the author bio only as editors permit. The article must work without enrolling.
• Test & stop condition: Submit one strong pitch. Continue only if accepted or invited to revise. Don't republish a rejection as a link drop in LeadDev spaces.
• Fit: conditional — a real route, but acceptance is the editor's call.

LEARNING · Five consented interviews from existing relationships

• Why here: Interviewees come from the instructor's own relationships and newsletter opt-ins, not a community that bans surveys.
• Rule that applies: not established in the research — no venue rule governs a consented conversation with people you already know.
• Contribution: Ask about the first month, decisions that felt irreversible, and what existing management content failed to prepare them for. Return an anonymized summary.
• Ask & disclosure: No surprise sales close. Ask separately whether they want course updates.
• Test & stop condition: Advance only if at least four of five describe a recurring job the instructor can credibly teach. Stop or narrow if the problems are company-specific.
• Fit: strong — no permission problem; the test decides whether there's a course to build.

COMPOUNDING · DEV Community

• Why here: DEV rewards informational material over promotional articles.
• Rule that applies: Information should outweigh promotion; low-quality promotional material may be downranked. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Stand-alone manager worksheets with worked examples. Each post teaches one decision and links to the course only in a disclosed footer.
• Ask & disclosure: State instructor affiliation. No fake student story, revenue headline, or gated answer.
• Test & stop condition: Publish two posts. Continue if readers save or use the worksheet or join the opt-in list. Stop if the only response is peer applause.
• Fit: strong — the format matches the venue's preference; the stop condition handles applause without use.

LEVERAGE · Maven

• Why here: Maven reviews public course listings, so an accepted listing is itself a credibility check.
• Rule that applies: Public course listings are reviewed for topic fit, page quality, instructor credentials, policies, and traction requirements. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A narrowly scoped cohort with a complete syllabus, instructor evidence, a project, refund and cancellation terms, and one free Lightning Lesson or equivalent demand artifact.
• Ask & disclosure: Make instructor experience and course outcome precise. Don't imply Maven approval before acceptance.
• Test & stop condition: Apply only after ten qualified interest confirmations. Run one cohort. Continue if participants complete the project and report the promised outcome.
• Fit: conditional — sequenced behind demand evidence and Maven's review.

OWNED · Newsletter on Buttondown or another permissioned email provider

• Why here: A weekly note to a permissioned list is where the audience relationship lives.
• Rule that applies: Commercial messages remain subject to FTC CAN-SPAM guidance: accurate headers, sender identity and address, and a working opt-out. · Buttondown, FTC guide · Direct rule; US guidance only · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: A weekly "manager decision note": situation, options, chosen action, result, and limit. Archive it publicly for non-subscribers.
• Ask & disclosure: Clear sender identity and unsubscribe. No imported coworker lists.
• Test & stop condition: Continue at a sustainable cadence only if replies yield real management questions. Reduce frequency if production crowds out course delivery.
• Fit: strong — owned and permissioned; the limit is the instructor's time.

AVOID · r/ExperiencedDevs

• Why not: An indexed rule post restricts surveys and advertisements and requires established participation.
• Rule that applies: A rule post, captured only as a snippet, restricts surveys and advertisements and describes an established-participation requirement. Not a live rule check. · source · Direct rule, snippet-only; treat as Unknown until rechecked · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: None as promotion. Don't recruit interviews, advertise, or cross-post without fresh verification. A founder who's already a qualified member may answer ordinary questions without a product link.
• Ask & disclosure: None unless current rules or moderators explicitly approve a community-specific contribution.
• Test & stop condition: Default "not here." Reading doesn't grant outreach permission.
• Fit: not recommended — membership isn't permission.

Why it holds together: Editorial acceptance and reusable teaching artifacts establish competence before the paid cohort. The audience relationship becomes permissioned email, not repeated community promotion.

Austin residential energy auditor — local services business

Product (illustrative): A certified independent professional performing Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) audits for Austin homeowners. Audience: Owners and listing agents handling the sale of a qualifying Austin home. Starting evidence required: Required certification, Austin Energy orientation, insurance and ethical compliance, and service-area capacity. Confidence (from the research): High for venue and rule fit; the city provides a formal qualification and directory path. Demand volume and unit economics are untested.

ANCHOR · Austin Energy ECAD Energy Professionals List

• Why here: The city publishes the list of qualified auditors; that carries more intent than any founder channel.
• Rule that applies: Inclusion requires RESNET or BPI certification, orientation, program compliance, and ethical conduct. Austin Energy explicitly does not endorse listed vendors. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: Qualify, join the official list, and publish complete service area, turnaround, price range, credentials, and a sample deliverable on your own page.
• Ask & disclosure: Say "listed," never "endorsed by Austin Energy."
• Test & stop condition: A prerequisite, not an experiment. Don't market ECAD audits before qualification. Track qualified inquiries and completed audits, not directory impressions.
• Fit: strong — a formal municipal route; the research rates venue fit high.

LEARNING · Nextdoor Business Page

• Why here: Nextdoor's August 2026 policy routes business promotion through a Business Page and permits expert advice, events, and polls.
• Rule that applies: Business promotion must come from a free Business Page, not a personal neighbor account; business guidance permits expert advice, events, and polls. · policy, business guidance · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: From a verified Business Page, an annotated "Does this Austin home need ECAD?" decision tree and one scheduled public Q&A. A poll only to choose the next guide, never to collect leads.
• Ask & disclosure: Owner identity and business relationship visible. No unsolicited DMs or personal-account promotion.
• Test & stop condition: One guide and Q&A in the service radius. Continue monthly only if neighbors ask relevant questions. Stop if reported, duplicative, or mostly outside the service area.
• Fit: strong — a current rule names the sanctioned format; local enforcement still applies.

COMPOUNDING · Google Business Profile reviews

• Why here: Honest reviews after real work are the sanctioned way to build local proof.
• Rule that applies: Businesses may ask for honest reviews but may not offer incentives, gate reviews, or selectively solicit positive ones. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: After every completed audit, the same neutral review link and a plain explanation of what a useful review can cover. Reply factually to positive and negative reviews.
• Ask & disclosure: No discount, gift, contest, employee review, or request to change a negative review.
• Test & stop condition: Monitor request completion, but never make rating the technician's target. Stop the flow if it can't be sent uniformly.
• Fit: strong — permitted while the request is uniform and unincentivized.

LEVERAGE · Austin Energy Green Building Professionals Directory

• Why here: A second city directory, only for auditors who also perform qualifying green-building ratings.
• Rule that applies: Listing requires a completed rating; residential listings expire after two years and are not endorsements. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: If the auditor performs qualifying ratings, complete the work and maintain an accurate specialist listing. Give real-estate partners a co-branded ECAD preparation checklist.
• Ask & disclosure: Separate ECAD certification from Green Building qualification. Disclose referral arrangements.
• Test & stop condition: Pursue only if the additional service is real, not for a badge. Continue if partner referrals produce qualified local audits. Renew only with current work.
• Fit: conditional — only if the second service is real.

OWNED · Local ECAD eligibility checker

• Why here: Homeowners need the civic requirement explained, and the city's public status portal makes an owned guide possible.
• Rule that applies: Austin Energy's public ECAD status portal and ordinance criteria are the rule source. Don't scrape or imply access to nonpublic city data. · source · Direct rule · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: An ungated address-status link, eligibility decision tree, document checklist, price range, and calendar.
• Ask & disclosure: Cite Austin Energy as the rule source and show a "verify on city portal" link.
• Test & stop condition: Measure completed eligibility checks to booked qualified audits. Correct the guide whenever the city page changes. Stop paid promotion if capacity creates unacceptable delays.
• Fit: strong — owned, and it explains the exact requirement that triggers the purchase.

AVOID · r/smallbusiness

• Why not: Promotion, lead generation, market research, and unsolicited instruction are all barred.
• Rule that applies: A moderator removal notice, captured only as a snippet, bars business promotion, lead generation, market research, and unsolicited instructional posts. Live status must be rechecked. · source · Direct rule, snippet-only; treat as Unknown until rechecked · checked 2026-08-26
• Contribution: None. Don't post the checklist there, ask owners about audit "pain points," or answer with a profile funnel.
• Ask & disclosure: None without fresh rule verification.
• Test & stop condition: Default negative recommendation for promotion.
• Fit: not recommended — the captured rule bars each action this business would take.

Why it holds together: Formal local eligibility and directories carry more intent and trust than broad founder channels. The contribution explains a confusing civic requirement; proof comes from completed work and genuine reviews.

Do it yourself

The method is small enough to run with a rule page, your customer evidence, and a pencil. The labels on the worked paths (anchor, learning, compounding, leverage, owned) name the distinct job each path does in a portfolio. You don't need all five. You do need every part below for each path you keep.

The five parts of a path

• The ground — a real route. A named community, marketplace, editorial desk, integration ecosystem, partner route, or owned channel where the audience already has the relevant job. "Developer communities" is not a route.
• The soil report — permission evidence. The direct rule, submission route, or owner guidance; what it applies to; when you checked it; what remains unknown. A cached copy from three weeks ago is not a current rule.
• The seed — a contribution before the ask. One answer, tool, guide, integration, dataset, event, or service action that's useful even if nobody clicks through.
• The season — a bounded experiment. Who does what, what affiliation is disclosed, what gets measured after attention, and the condition that says continue, change, or stop.
• The weeds — a negative path. At least one place or tactic to avoid, written as plainly as the paths you keep.

For each path, also record the audience and job, why it fits and what's uncertain, the evidence label and fit reason, and the permitted ask with its disclosure or the words "no ask."

The five evidence labels

• Direct rule. Published by the platform, community, marketplace, editor, or venue owner. Show source, scope, and checked date.
• Observed practice. A recent example of what the venue accepted or rejected. Context, never stronger than a current explicit rule.
• Reported outcome. A first-party or independent account of what happened. Keep the denominator, time window, confidence, and causal limits.
• Inference. Your reasoned recommendation from the available evidence. Labeled as judgment, not fact.
• Unknown. Missing, contradictory, stale, paywalled, or permission-dependent evidence. Unknown never quietly becomes a strong fit.

A checked date isn't a guarantee. Recheck the source immediately before acting.

The measurement ladder

A reply is not a customer. Measure the sequence.

1. Contribution. Was the answer, artifact, or event useful in context?
2. Qualified response. Did the right people ask a substantive question, use the artifact, or visit with intent?
3. First success. Did they reach the product's promised useful moment?
4. Return. Did they come back, retain, refer, or deepen use?
5. Business result. Did the path contribute to a sale, partnership, or a decision that saved work?

Name the smallest signal worth learning from and the evidence that would end the test. Silence is data. Removal is a stop. Polite applause without use is not product-market fit.

Stop conditions: three examples

1. A rule or moderator trigger. "Cap at five relevant answers. Stop immediately if a moderator removes an answer or the link isn't necessary."
2. Activity without use. "Stop if traffic is high but qualified repo use stays at zero after two posts."
3. A time box with a threshold. "Publish the ungated checklist in the sanctioned resources thread. Continue after three qualified uses; stop after 30 days with none."

Decide the number and the deadline before you post, not after.

Blank worksheet

Copy the table. One column per path; the last column is the place you won't go.

A blank row after honest effort is information. A path with no rule you can cite, no contribution that stands alone, or no stop condition you'd honor hasn't earned its place.

What a portfolio is for

The point isn't to find more conversations. It's to make fewer, better-supported participation decisions, and to be willing to write "not here" next to a place everyone else is posting in. Three paths you can defend, one you're still verifying, and one you've ruled out is a complete result. So is a portfolio that says the credible move right now is learning or owned work, not a community at all. Not here is a result. Not yet is a result. Both cost less than months spent in the wrong place.