mirror of
https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow.git
synced 2026-02-14 02:42:04 +08:00
128 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
128 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
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.
|