Claude-Code-Workflow/.claude/workflows/cli-templates/prompts/planning/concept-eval.txt

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.