Conduct comprehensive concept evaluation to assess feasibility, identify risks, and provide optimization recommendations.

## CORE CHECKLIST ⚡
□ Evaluate all 6 dimensions: Conceptual, Architectural, Technical, Resource, Risk, Dependency
□ Provide quantified assessment scores (1-5 scale)
□ Classify risks by severity (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL)
□ Include specific, actionable recommendations
□ Integrate session context and existing patterns

## EVALUATION DIMENSIONS

### 1. Conceptual Integrity
- Design Coherence: Logical component connections
- Requirement Completeness: All requirements identified
- Scope Clarity: Defined and bounded scope
- Success Criteria: Measurable metrics established

### 2. Architectural Soundness
- System Integration: Fit with existing architecture
- Design Patterns: Appropriate pattern usage
- Modularity: Maintainable structure
- Scalability: Future requirement capacity

### 3. Technical Feasibility
- Implementation Complexity: Difficulty level assessment
- Technology Maturity: Stable, supported technologies
- Skill Requirements: Team expertise availability
- Infrastructure Needs: Required changes/additions

### 4. Resource Assessment
- Development Time: Realistic estimation
- Team Resources: Size and skill composition
- Budget Impact: Financial implications
- Opportunity Cost: Delayed initiatives

### 5. Risk Identification
- Technical Risks: Limitations, complexity, unknowns
- Business Risks: Market timing, adoption, impact
- Integration Risks: Compatibility challenges
- Resource Risks: Availability, skills, timeline

### 6. Dependency Analysis
- External Dependencies: Third-party services/tools
- Internal Dependencies: Systems, teams, resources
- Temporal Dependencies: Sequence and timing
- Critical Path: Essential blocking dependencies

## ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

**Scoring Scale** (1-5):
- 5 - Excellent: Minimal risk, well-defined, highly feasible
- 4 - Good: Low risk, mostly clear, feasible
- 3 - Average: Moderate risk, needs clarification
- 2 - Poor: High risk, major changes required
- 1 - Critical: Very high risk, fundamental problems

**Risk Levels**:
- LOW: Minor issues, easily addressable
- MEDIUM: Manageable challenges
- HIGH: Significant concerns, major mitigation needed
- CRITICAL: Fundamental viability threats

**Optimization Priorities**:
- CRITICAL: Must address before planning
- IMPORTANT: Should address for optimal outcomes
- OPTIONAL: Nice-to-have improvements

## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS

### Evaluation Summary
```markdown
## Overall Assessment
- Feasibility Score: X/5
- Risk Level: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL
- Recommendation: PROCEED/PROCEED_WITH_MODIFICATIONS/RECONSIDER/REJECT

## Dimension Scores
- Conceptual Integrity: X/5
- Architectural Soundness: X/5
- Technical Feasibility: X/5
- Resource Assessment: X/5
- Risk Profile: X/5
- Dependency Complexity: X/5
```

### Detailed Analysis
For each dimension:
1. Assessment: Current state evaluation
2. Strengths: What works well
3. Concerns: Issues and risks
4. Recommendations: Specific improvements

### Risk Matrix
| Risk Category | Level | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
|---------------|-------|--------|---------------------|
| Technical     | HIGH  | Delays | Proof of concept    |
| Resource      | MED   | Budget | Phased approach     |

### Optimization Roadmap
1. CRITICAL: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
2. IMPORTANT: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
3. OPTIONAL: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]

## CONTEXT INTEGRATION

**Session Memory**: Reference current conversation, decisions, patterns from session history
**Existing Patterns**: Identify similar implementations, evaluate success/failure, leverage proven approaches
**Architectural Alignment**: Ensure consistency, consider evolution, apply standards
**Business Context**: Strategic fit, user impact, competitive advantage, timeline alignment

## PROJECT TYPE CONSIDERATIONS

**Innovation Projects**: Higher risk tolerance, learning focus, phased approach
**Critical Business**: Lower risk tolerance, reliability focus, comprehensive mitigation
**Integration Projects**: Compatibility focus, minimal disruption, rollback strategies
**Greenfield Projects**: Architectural innovation, scalability, technology standardization

## VERIFICATION CHECKLIST ✓
□ All 6 evaluation dimensions thoroughly assessed with scores
□ Risk matrix completed with mitigation strategies
□ Optimization recommendations prioritized (CRITICAL/IMPORTANT/OPTIONAL)
□ Integration with existing systems evaluated
□ Resource requirements and timeline implications identified
□ Success criteria and validation metrics defined
□ Next steps and decision points outlined

Focus: Actionable insights to improve concept quality and reduce implementation risks.
