diff --git a/.claude/commands/workflow/concept-eval.md b/.claude/commands/workflow/concept-eval.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cdeec99a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/commands/workflow/concept-eval.md
@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
+---
+name: concept-eval
+description: Evaluate concept planning before implementation with intelligent tool analysis
+usage: /workflow:concept-eval [--tool gemini|codex|both] <input>
+argument-hint: [--tool gemini|codex|both] "concept description"|file.md|ISS-001
+examples:
+  - /workflow:concept-eval "Build microservices architecture"
+  - /workflow:concept-eval --tool gemini requirements.md
+  - /workflow:concept-eval --tool both ISS-001
+allowed-tools: Task(*), TodoWrite(*), Read(*), Write(*), Edit(*), Bash(*), Glob(*)
+---
+
+# Workflow Concept Evaluation Command
+
+## Overview
+Pre-planning evaluation command that assesses concept feasibility, identifies potential issues, and provides optimization recommendations before formal planning begins. **Works before `/workflow:plan`** to catch conceptual problems early and improve initial design quality.
+
+## Core Responsibilities
+- **Concept Analysis**: Evaluate design concepts for architectural soundness
+- **Feasibility Assessment**: Technical and resource feasibility evaluation
+- **Risk Identification**: Early identification of potential implementation risks
+- **Optimization Suggestions**: Generate actionable improvement recommendations
+- **Context Integration**: Leverage existing codebase patterns and documentation
+- **Tool Selection**: Use gemini for strategic analysis, codex for technical assessment
+
+## Usage
+```bash
+/workflow:concept-eval [--tool gemini|codex|both] <input>
+```
+
+## Parameters
+- **--tool**: Specify evaluation tool (default: both)
+  - `gemini`: Strategic and architectural evaluation
+  - `codex`: Technical feasibility and implementation assessment
+  - `both`: Comprehensive dual-perspective analysis
+- **input**: Concept description, file path, or issue reference
+
+## Input Detection
+- **Files**: `.md/.txt/.json/.yaml/.yml` → Reads content and extracts concept requirements
+- **Issues**: `ISS-*`, `ISSUE-*`, `*-request-*` → Loads issue data and requirement specifications
+- **Text**: Everything else → Parses natural language concept descriptions
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+### Evaluation Process
+The command performs comprehensive concept evaluation through:
+
+**0. Context Preparation** ⚠️ FIRST STEP
+- **Documentation loading**: Automatic context gathering based on concept scope
+  - **Always check**: `CLAUDE.md`, `README.md` - Project context and conventions
+  - **For architecture concepts**: `.workflow/docs/architecture/`, existing system patterns
+  - **For specific modules**: `.workflow/docs/modules/[relevant-module]/` documentation
+  - **For API concepts**: `.workflow/docs/api/` specifications
+- **Claude Code Memory Integration**: Access conversation history and previous work context
+  - **Session Memory**: Current session analysis and decisions
+  - **Project Memory**: Previous implementations and lessons learned
+  - **Pattern Memory**: Successful approaches and anti-patterns identified
+  - **Context Continuity**: Reference previous concept evaluations and outcomes
+- **Context-driven selection**: Only load documentation relevant to the concept scope
+- **Pattern analysis**: Identify existing implementation patterns and conventions
+
+**1. Input Processing & Context Gathering**
+- Parse input to extract concept requirements and scope
+- Automatic tool assignment based on evaluation needs:
+  - **Strategic evaluation** (gemini): Architectural soundness, design patterns, business alignment
+  - **Technical assessment** (codex): Implementation complexity, technical feasibility, resource requirements
+  - **Comprehensive analysis** (both): Combined strategic and technical evaluation
+- Load relevant project documentation and existing patterns
+
+**2. Concept Analysis** ⚠️ CRITICAL EVALUATION PHASE
+- **Conceptual integrity**: Evaluate design coherence and completeness
+- **Architectural soundness**: Assess alignment with existing system architecture
+- **Technical feasibility**: Analyze implementation complexity and resource requirements
+- **Risk assessment**: Identify potential technical and business risks
+- **Dependency analysis**: Map required dependencies and integration points
+
+**3. Evaluation Execution**
+Based on tool selection, execute appropriate analysis:
+
+**Gemini Strategic Analysis**:
+```bash
+~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper -p "
+PURPOSE: Strategic evaluation of concept design and architecture
+TASK: Analyze concept for architectural soundness, design patterns, and strategic alignment
+CONTEXT: @{CLAUDE.md,README.md,.workflow/docs/**/*} Concept requirements and existing patterns | Previous conversation context and Claude Code session memory for continuity and pattern recognition
+EXPECTED: Strategic assessment with architectural recommendations informed by session history
+RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt) | Focus on strategic soundness and design quality | Reference previous evaluations and lessons learned
+"
+```
+
+**Codex Technical Assessment**:
+```bash
+codex --full-auto exec "
+PURPOSE: Technical feasibility assessment of concept implementation
+TASK: Evaluate implementation complexity, technical risks, and resource requirements
+CONTEXT: @{CLAUDE.md,README.md,src/**/*} Concept requirements and existing codebase | Current session work context and previous technical decisions
+EXPECTED: Technical assessment with implementation recommendations building on session memory
+RULES: $(cat ~/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt) | Focus on technical feasibility and implementation complexity | Consider previous technical approaches and outcomes
+" -s danger-full-access
+```
+
+**Combined Analysis** (when --tool both):
+Execute both analyses in parallel, then synthesize results for comprehensive evaluation.
+
+**4. Optimization Recommendations**
+- **Design improvements**: Architectural and design optimization suggestions
+- **Risk mitigation**: Strategies to address identified risks
+- **Implementation approach**: Recommended technical approaches and patterns
+- **Resource optimization**: Efficient resource utilization strategies
+- **Integration suggestions**: Optimal integration with existing systems
+
+## Implementation Standards
+
+### Evaluation Criteria ⚠️ CRITICAL
+Concept evaluation focuses on these key dimensions:
+
+**Strategic Evaluation (Gemini)**:
+1. **Architectural Soundness**: Design coherence and system integration
+2. **Business Alignment**: Concept alignment with business objectives
+3. **Scalability Considerations**: Long-term growth and expansion potential
+4. **Design Patterns**: Appropriate use of established design patterns
+5. **Risk Assessment**: Strategic and business risk identification
+
+**Technical Assessment (Codex)**:
+1. **Implementation Complexity**: Technical difficulty and effort estimation
+2. **Technical Feasibility**: Availability of required technologies and skills
+3. **Resource Requirements**: Development time, infrastructure, and team resources
+4. **Integration Challenges**: Technical integration complexity and risks
+5. **Performance Implications**: System performance and scalability impact
+
+### Evaluation Context Loading ⚠️ CRITICAL
+Context preparation ensures comprehensive evaluation:
+
+```json
+// Context loading strategy for concept evaluation
+"context_preparation": {
+  "required_docs": [
+    "CLAUDE.md",
+    "README.md"
+  ],
+  "conditional_docs": {
+    "architecture_concepts": [
+      ".workflow/docs/architecture/",
+      "docs/system-design.md"
+    ],
+    "api_concepts": [
+      ".workflow/docs/api/",
+      "api-documentation.md"
+    ],
+    "module_concepts": [
+      ".workflow/docs/modules/[relevant-module]/",
+      "src/[module]/**/*.md"
+    ]
+  },
+  "pattern_analysis": {
+    "existing_implementations": "src/**/*",
+    "configuration_patterns": "config/",
+    "test_patterns": "test/**/*"
+  },
+  "claude_code_memory": {
+    "session_context": "Current session conversation history and decisions",
+    "project_memory": "Previous implementations and lessons learned across sessions",
+    "pattern_memory": "Successful approaches and anti-patterns identified",
+    "evaluation_history": "Previous concept evaluations and their outcomes",
+    "technical_decisions": "Past technical choices and their rationale",
+    "architectural_evolution": "System architecture changes and migration patterns"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Analysis Output Structure
+
+**Evaluation Categories**:
+```markdown
+## Concept Evaluation Summary
+
+### ✅ Strengths Identified
+- [ ] **Design Quality**: Well-defined architectural approach
+- [ ] **Technical Approach**: Appropriate technology selection
+- [ ] **Integration**: Good fit with existing systems
+
+### ⚠️ Areas for Improvement
+- [ ] **Complexity**: Reduce implementation complexity in module X
+- [ ] **Dependencies**: Simplify dependency management approach
+- [ ] **Scalability**: Address potential performance bottlenecks
+
+### ❌ Critical Issues
+- [ ] **Architecture**: Conflicts with existing system design
+- [ ] **Resources**: Insufficient resources for proposed timeline
+- [ ] **Risk**: High technical risk in component Y
+
+### 🎯 Optimization Recommendations
+- [ ] **Alternative Approach**: Consider microservices instead of monolithic design
+- [ ] **Technology Stack**: Use existing React patterns instead of Vue
+- [ ] **Implementation Strategy**: Phase implementation to reduce risk
+```
+
+## Document Generation & Output
+
+**Evaluation Workflow**: Input Processing → Context Loading → Analysis Execution → Report Generation → Recommendations
+
+**Always Created**:
+- **CONCEPT_EVALUATION.md**: Complete evaluation results and recommendations
+- **evaluation-session.json**: Evaluation metadata and tool configuration
+- **OPTIMIZATION_SUGGESTIONS.md**: Actionable improvement recommendations
+
+**Auto-Created (for comprehensive analysis)**:
+- **strategic-analysis.md**: Gemini strategic evaluation results
+- **technical-assessment.md**: Codex technical feasibility analysis
+- **risk-assessment-matrix.md**: Comprehensive risk evaluation
+- **implementation-roadmap.md**: Recommended implementation approach
+
+**Document Structure**:
+```
+.workflow/WFS-[topic]/.evaluation/
+├── evaluation-session.json        # Evaluation session metadata
+├── CONCEPT_EVALUATION.md          # Complete evaluation results
+├── OPTIMIZATION_SUGGESTIONS.md    # Actionable recommendations
+├── strategic-analysis.md          # Gemini strategic evaluation
+├── technical-assessment.md        # Codex technical assessment
+├── risk-assessment-matrix.md      # Risk evaluation matrix
+└── implementation-roadmap.md      # Recommended approach
+```
+
+### Evaluation Implementation
+
+**Session-Aware Evaluation**:
+```bash
+# Check for existing sessions and context
+active_sessions=$(find .workflow/ -name ".active-*" 2>/dev/null)
+if [ -n "$active_sessions" ]; then
+  echo "Found active sessions: $active_sessions"
+  echo "Concept evaluation will consider existing session context"
+fi
+
+# Create evaluation session directory
+evaluation_session="CE-$(date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S)"
+mkdir -p ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session"
+
+# Store evaluation metadata
+cat > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/evaluation-session.json" << EOF
+{
+  "session_id": "$evaluation_session",
+  "timestamp": "$(date -Iseconds)",
+  "concept_input": "$input_description",
+  "tool_selection": "$tool_choice",
+  "context_loaded": [
+    "CLAUDE.md",
+    "README.md"
+  ],
+  "evaluation_scope": "$evaluation_scope"
+}
+EOF
+```
+
+**Tool Execution Pattern**:
+```bash
+# Execute based on tool selection
+case "$tool_choice" in
+  "gemini")
+    echo "Performing strategic concept evaluation with Gemini..."
+    ~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper -p "$gemini_prompt" > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/strategic-analysis.md"
+    ;;
+  "codex")
+    echo "Performing technical assessment with Codex..."
+    codex --full-auto exec "$codex_prompt" -s danger-full-access > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/technical-assessment.md"
+    ;;
+  "both"|*)
+    echo "Performing comprehensive evaluation with both tools..."
+    ~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper -p "$gemini_prompt" > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/strategic-analysis.md" &
+    codex --full-auto exec "$codex_prompt" -s danger-full-access > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/technical-assessment.md" &
+    wait # Wait for both analyses to complete
+
+    # Synthesize results
+    ~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper -p "
+    PURPOSE: Synthesize strategic and technical concept evaluations
+    TASK: Combine analyses and generate integrated recommendations
+    CONTEXT: @{.workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/strategic-analysis.md,.workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/technical-assessment.md}
+    EXPECTED: Integrated evaluation with prioritized recommendations
+    RULES: Focus on actionable insights and clear next steps
+    " > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/CONCEPT_EVALUATION.md"
+    ;;
+esac
+```
+
+## Integration with Workflow Commands
+
+### Workflow Position
+**Pre-Planning Phase**: Use before formal planning to optimize concept quality
+```
+concept-eval → plan → plan-verify → execute
+```
+
+### Usage Scenarios
+
+**Early Concept Validation**:
+```bash
+# Validate initial concept before detailed planning
+/workflow:concept-eval "Build real-time notification system using WebSockets"
+```
+
+**Architecture Review**:
+```bash
+# Strategic architecture evaluation
+/workflow:concept-eval --tool gemini architecture-proposal.md
+```
+
+**Technical Feasibility Check**:
+```bash
+# Technical implementation assessment
+/workflow:concept-eval --tool codex "Implement ML-based recommendation engine"
+```
+
+**Comprehensive Analysis**:
+```bash
+# Full strategic and technical evaluation
+/workflow:concept-eval --tool both ISS-042
+```
+
+### Integration Benefits
+- **Early Risk Detection**: Identify issues before detailed planning
+- **Quality Improvement**: Optimize concepts before implementation planning
+- **Resource Efficiency**: Avoid detailed planning of infeasible concepts
+- **Decision Support**: Data-driven concept selection and refinement
+- **Team Alignment**: Clear evaluation criteria and recommendations
+
+## Error Handling & Edge Cases
+
+### Input Validation
+```bash
+# Validate input format and accessibility
+if [[ -z "$input" ]]; then
+  echo "Error: Concept input required"
+  echo "Usage: /workflow:concept-eval [--tool gemini|codex|both] <input>"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+# Check file accessibility for file inputs
+if [[ "$input" =~ \.(md|txt|json|yaml|yml)$ ]] && [[ ! -f "$input" ]]; then
+  echo "Error: File not found: $input"
+  echo "Please provide a valid file path or concept description"
+  exit 1
+fi
+```
+
+### Tool Availability
+```bash
+# Check tool availability
+if [[ "$tool_choice" == "gemini" ]] || [[ "$tool_choice" == "both" ]]; then
+  if ! command -v ~/.claude/scripts/gemini-wrapper &> /dev/null; then
+    echo "Warning: Gemini wrapper not available, using codex only"
+    tool_choice="codex"
+  fi
+fi
+
+if [[ "$tool_choice" == "codex" ]] || [[ "$tool_choice" == "both" ]]; then
+  if ! command -v codex &> /dev/null; then
+    echo "Warning: Codex not available, using gemini only"
+    tool_choice="gemini"
+  fi
+fi
+```
+
+### Recovery Strategies
+```bash
+# Fallback to manual evaluation if tools fail
+if [[ "$evaluation_failed" == "true" ]]; then
+  echo "Automated evaluation failed, generating manual evaluation template..."
+  cat > ".workflow/.evaluation/$evaluation_session/manual-evaluation-template.md" << EOF
+# Manual Concept Evaluation
+
+## Concept Description
+$input_description
+
+## Evaluation Checklist
+- [ ] **Architectural Soundness**: Does the concept align with existing architecture?
+- [ ] **Technical Feasibility**: Are required technologies available and mature?
+- [ ] **Resource Requirements**: Are time and team resources realistic?
+- [ ] **Integration Complexity**: How complex is integration with existing systems?
+- [ ] **Risk Assessment**: What are the main technical and business risks?
+
+## Recommendations
+[Provide manual evaluation and recommendations]
+EOF
+fi
+```
+
+## Quality Standards
+
+### Evaluation Excellence
+- **Comprehensive Analysis**: Consider all aspects of concept feasibility
+- **Context-Rich Assessment**: Leverage full project context and existing patterns
+- **Actionable Recommendations**: Provide specific, implementable suggestions
+- **Risk-Aware Evaluation**: Identify and assess potential implementation risks
+
+### User Experience Excellence
+- **Clear Results**: Present evaluation results in actionable format
+- **Focused Recommendations**: Prioritize most critical optimization suggestions
+- **Integration Guidance**: Provide clear next steps for concept refinement
+- **Tool Transparency**: Clear indication of which tools were used and why
+
+### Output Quality
+- **Structured Reports**: Consistent, well-organized evaluation documentation
+- **Evidence-Based**: All recommendations backed by analysis and reasoning
+- **Prioritized Actions**: Clear indication of critical vs. optional improvements
+- **Implementation Ready**: Evaluation results directly usable for planning phase
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.claude/commands/workflow/plan.md b/.claude/commands/workflow/plan.md
index 443a34e2..458bf1c1 100644
--- a/.claude/commands/workflow/plan.md
+++ b/.claude/commands/workflow/plan.md
@@ -182,6 +182,33 @@ Flow_control design should follow these principles:
     └── IMPL-002.json
 ```
 
+### IMPL_PLAN.md Structure ⚠️ REQUIRED FORMAT
+
+**File Header** (required)：
+- **Identifier**: Unique project identifier and session ID, format WFS-[topic]
+- **Source**: Input type, e.g. "User requirements analysis"
+- **Analysis**: Analysis document reference
+
+**Summary** (execution overview)：
+- Concise description of core requirements and objectives
+- Technical direction and implementation approach
+
+**Context Analysis** (context analysis)：
+- **Project** - Project type and architectural patterns
+- **Modules** - Involved modules and component list
+- **Dependencies** - Dependency mapping and constraints
+- **Patterns** - Identified code patterns and conventions
+
+**Task Breakdown** (task decomposition)：
+- **Task Count** - Total task count and complexity level
+- **Hierarchy** - Task organization structure (flat/hierarchical)
+- **Dependencies** - Inter-task dependency graph
+
+**Implementation Plan** (implementation plan)：
+- **Execution Strategy** - Execution strategy and methodology
+- **Resource Requirements** - Required resources and tool selection
+- **Success Criteria** - Success criteria and acceptance conditions
+
 
 ## Reference Information
 
diff --git a/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9cfcb1c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+CONCEPT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
+
+## EVALUATION DIRECTIVE
+You are conducting a comprehensive concept evaluation to assess feasibility, identify risks, and provide optimization recommendations before formal implementation planning begins.
+
+## CORE EVALUATION DIMENSIONS
+
+### 1. CONCEPTUAL INTEGRITY
+- **Design Coherence**: Are all components logically connected and consistent?
+- **Requirement Completeness**: Are all necessary requirements identified and defined?
+- **Scope Clarity**: Is the concept scope clearly defined and bounded?
+- **Success Criteria**: Are measurable success criteria clearly established?
+
+### 2. ARCHITECTURAL SOUNDNESS
+- **System Integration**: How well does the concept integrate with existing architecture?
+- **Design Patterns**: Are appropriate and established design patterns utilized?
+- **Modularity**: Is the concept appropriately modular and maintainable?
+- **Scalability**: Can the concept scale to meet future requirements?
+
+### 3. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
+- **Implementation Complexity**: What is the technical difficulty level?
+- **Technology Maturity**: Are required technologies stable and well-supported?
+- **Skill Requirements**: Do we have the necessary technical expertise?
+- **Infrastructure Needs**: What infrastructure changes or additions are required?
+
+### 4. RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
+- **Development Time**: Realistic time estimation for implementation
+- **Team Resources**: Required team size and skill composition
+- **Budget Impact**: Financial implications and resource allocation
+- **Opportunity Cost**: What other initiatives might be delayed or cancelled?
+
+### 5. RISK IDENTIFICATION
+- **Technical Risks**: Technology limitations, complexity, and unknowns
+- **Business Risks**: Market timing, user adoption, and business impact
+- **Integration Risks**: Compatibility and system integration challenges
+- **Resource Risks**: Team availability, skill gaps, and timeline pressures
+
+### 6. DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS
+- **External Dependencies**: Third-party services, libraries, and tools
+- **Internal Dependencies**: Other systems, teams, and organizational resources
+- **Temporal Dependencies**: Sequence requirements and timing constraints
+- **Critical Path**: Essential dependencies that could block progress
+
+## EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
+
+### ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
+Rate each dimension on a scale of 1-5:
+- **5 - Excellent**: Minimal risk, well-defined, highly feasible
+- **4 - Good**: Low risk, mostly clear, feasible with minor adjustments
+- **3 - Average**: Moderate risk, some clarification needed, feasible with effort
+- **2 - Poor**: High risk, significant issues, major changes required
+- **1 - Critical**: Very high risk, fundamental problems, may not be feasible
+
+### RISK CLASSIFICATION
+- **LOW**: Minor issues, easily addressable
+- **MEDIUM**: Manageable challenges requiring attention
+- **HIGH**: Significant concerns requiring major mitigation
+- **CRITICAL**: Fundamental problems threatening concept viability
+
+### OPTIMIZATION PRIORITIES
+- **CRITICAL**: Must be addressed before planning
+- **IMPORTANT**: Should be addressed for optimal outcomes
+- **OPTIONAL**: Nice-to-have improvements
+
+## OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
+
+### EVALUATION SUMMARY
+```markdown
+# Concept Evaluation Summary
+
+## 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, provide:
+1. **Assessment**: Current state evaluation
+2. **Strengths**: What works well in the concept
+3. **Concerns**: Identified issues and risks
+4. **Recommendations**: Specific improvement suggestions
+
+### RISK MATRIX
+```markdown
+| Risk Category | Level | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
+|---------------|-------|--------|-------------------|
+| Technical     | HIGH  | Delays | Proof of concept  |
+| Resource      | MED   | Budget | Phase approach    |
+```
+
+### OPTIMIZATION ROADMAP
+Prioritized list of improvements:
+1. **CRITICAL**: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
+2. **IMPORTANT**: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
+3. **OPTIONAL**: [Issue] - [Recommendation] - [Impact]
+
+## CONTEXT INTEGRATION RULES
+
+### CLAUDE CODE MEMORY INTEGRATION
+- **Session Context**: Reference current conversation history and decisions made
+- **Project Memory**: Leverage knowledge from previous implementations and lessons learned
+- **Pattern Recognition**: Use identified successful approaches and anti-patterns from session memory
+- **Evaluation History**: Consider previous concept evaluations and their outcomes
+- **Technical Evolution**: Build on previous technical decisions and architectural changes
+- **Context Continuity**: Maintain consistency with established project direction and decisions
+
+### EXISTING PATTERNS
+- **Identify**: Find similar implementations in the codebase
+- **Analyze**: Evaluate success/failure patterns
+- **Leverage**: Recommend reusing successful approaches
+- **Avoid**: Flag problematic patterns to avoid
+
+### ARCHITECTURAL ALIGNMENT
+- **Consistency**: Ensure concept aligns with existing architecture
+- **Evolution**: Consider architectural evolution and migration paths
+- **Standards**: Apply established coding and design standards
+- **Integration**: Evaluate integration touchpoints and complexity
+
+### BUSINESS CONTEXT
+- **Strategic Fit**: Alignment with business objectives and priorities
+- **User Impact**: Effect on user experience and satisfaction
+- **Competitive Advantage**: Differentiation and market positioning
+- **Timeline**: Alignment with business timelines and milestones
+
+## QUALITY STANDARDS
+
+### ANALYSIS DEPTH
+- Provide specific examples and evidence
+- Quantify assessments where possible
+- Consider multiple perspectives and scenarios
+- Base recommendations on concrete analysis
+
+### ACTIONABILITY
+- Make recommendations specific and implementable
+- Provide clear next steps and decision points
+- Identify responsible parties and timelines
+- Include success metrics and validation criteria
+
+### OBJECTIVITY
+- Balance optimism with realistic assessment
+- Acknowledge uncertainty and assumptions
+- Present multiple options where applicable
+- Focus on concept improvement rather than criticism
+
+## SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
+
+### INNOVATION PROJECTS
+- Higher tolerance for technical risk
+- Emphasis on learning and experimentation
+- Phased approach with validation milestones
+- Clear success/failure criteria
+
+### CRITICAL BUSINESS PROJECTS
+- Lower risk tolerance
+- Emphasis on reliability and predictability
+- Comprehensive risk mitigation strategies
+- Detailed contingency planning
+
+### INTEGRATION PROJECTS
+- Focus on compatibility and interoperability
+- Emphasis on minimizing system disruption
+- Careful change management planning
+- Rollback and recovery strategies
+
+### GREENFIELD PROJECTS
+- Opportunity for architectural innovation
+- Emphasis on future scalability and flexibility
+- Technology stack selection and standardization
+- Team skill development considerations
+
+## EVALUATION COMPLETION CHECKLIST
+
+- [ ] All six evaluation dimensions thoroughly assessed
+- [ ] Risk matrix completed with mitigation strategies
+- [ ] Optimization recommendations prioritized
+- [ ] Integration with existing systems evaluated
+- [ ] Resource requirements clearly identified
+- [ ] Timeline implications considered
+- [ ] Success criteria and validation metrics defined
+- [ ] Next steps and decision points outlined
+
+## OUTPUT FORMAT
+
+Provide a structured evaluation report that includes:
+1. Executive summary with overall recommendation
+2. Detailed dimension-by-dimension analysis
+3. Risk assessment and mitigation strategies
+4. Prioritized optimization recommendations
+5. Implementation roadmap and next steps
+6. Resource requirements and timeline implications
+
+Focus on providing actionable insights that will improve concept quality and reduce implementation risks during the formal planning phase.
\ No newline at end of file