analyze-constraints-readiness
Skill504 starsChanged 50 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Characterize what blocks a research target: readiness dimensions, obstacles, bottlenecks, resource gaps, causal constraints, dependencies, conflicts, removability, and mitigation pathways. Depth selects lightweight triage, readiness assessment, or causal/TOC-style constraint analysis.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engineword for word, first seen Sep 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine★ 505100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository270 other files it gives its agents.
- abstract-structureSkill
- adjudicate-exchangeSkill
- adjust-abstraction-scopeSkill
- adversarial-deliberationSkill
- aggregate-rankingSkill
- analogical-discoverySkill
- analyze-experiment-resultsSkill
- analyze-future-scenariosSkill
- analyze-heterogeneitySkill
- analyze-interventionSkill
- analyze-leaderboard-dynamicsSkill
- analyze-patent-citation-networkSkill
- analyze-scaling-regimeSkill
- analyze-temporal-trajectorySkill
- apply-perturbationSkill
- apply-question-frameworkSkill
- apply-separation-principleSkill
- apply-stage-gateSkill
- apply-veto-filterSkill
- appreciative-reframeSkill
- assess-construct-validitySkill
- assess-evidence-saturationSkill
- assess-goal-feasibilitySkill
- assess-patent-claim-scopeSkill
- assess-patent-legal-statusSkill
- assess-prior-art-and-claimsSkill
- assess-problem-wickednessSkill
- assess-publication-biasSkill
- assess-question-qualitySkill
- assess-ranking-consistencySkill
- assess-readiness-dimensionSkill
- assess-removabilitySkill
- assess-sensitivitySkill
- assess-system-boundarySkill
- assumption-stress-testSkill
- atomize-claimSkill
- atomize-conceptSkill
- attach-evidence-to-relationSkill
- audit-benchmark-validitySkill
- audit-convergence-independenceSkill
- audit-data-contaminationSkill
- audit-explanatory-compressionSkill
- audit-reporting-qualitySkill
- audit-structural-equivalenceSkill
- audit-structure-consistencySkill
- audit-study-validitySkill
- audit-validator-independenceSkill
- biologize-problemSkill
- biomimetic-transferSkill
- build-concept-fanSkill
- build-current-reality-treeSkill
- build-domain-ontologySkill
- build-failure-chainSkill
- build-noncircularity-matrixSkill
- calibrate-adversarial-confidenceSkill
- calibrate-probability-forecastSkill
- canonicalize-entitySkill
- categorize-evidenceSkill
- challenge-assumptionSkill
- characterize-anomalySkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 28
Do not perform called SOP operations inline.
- Distinctive: line 77
Do not label a candidate ready with missing evidence, unclassified hard constraints, or an unbounded resource estimate.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
analyze-constraints-readiness
Purpose
Assess feasibility and readiness by identifying constraints, resources, dependencies, bottlenecks, and maturation gates.
Input contract
mode_contracts:
obstacle-triage: &readiness_input
required: [candidate_or_plan, readiness_dimensions]
optional: [resource_estimates, dependencies, assumptions, target_gates]
constraints: [evidence_must_be_attached_to_each_scored_dimension]
readiness-assessment: *readiness_input
resource-envelope: *readiness_input
causal-constraint-analysis: *readiness_input
maturation-path: *readiness_inputExecution protocol
Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.
- Define candidate, dimensions, hard constraints, and target gates. You MUST load skill
classify-constraintto classify each declared constraint. - Select
obstacle-triage,readiness-assessment,resource-envelope,causal-constraint-analysis, ormaturation-path. - You MUST load skill
score-objectto score the selected dimensions with evidence. You MUST load skillidentify-bottleneckto identify binding constraints and dependencies. - You MUST load skill
assess-removabilityto test whether binding constraints can be removed. You MUST load skilldesign-mitigationto design removal or mitigation paths and return a readiness conclusion. If several feasible responses must be balanced as a joint set, considerportfolio-optimization. If the target goal remains too broad to assess, considerdecompose-research-goal. If external change dominates present readiness, consideranalyze-future-scenarios. If several candidate paths are ready for comparative selection,rank-candidatesmay be the better next tactic.
Mode branches
obstacle-triage: rapidly enumerate and severity-rank the obstacles that could block the target, preserving evidence status for each one. You MUST load skillidentify-obstaclesto enumerate the obstacles. You MUST load skilllist-undesirable-effectsto retain their observed consequences.readiness-assessment: score the required readiness dimensions with supporting evidence and identify the dimensions that keep the target from being ready. You MUST load skillassess-readiness-dimensionto assess every required dimension.resource-envelope: estimate time, cost, and personnel bounds from analogies, then flag low-confidence estimates for investigation. You MUST load skillquantify-resource-gapto quantify the gap. You MUST load skillidentify-critical-chainto expose the binding resource sequence.causal-constraint-analysis: trace how constraints interact through dependencies and conflicts to identify the binding cause rather than only its symptoms. You MUST load skilltrace-causal-chainto trace constraint propagation. You MUST load skillextract-core-conflictto isolate the core conflict. You MUST load skillchallenge-assumptionto test the assumptions that sustain it.maturation-path: sequence stage gates and milestones that move the target from current readiness to the declared implementation threshold. You MUST load skillproject-future-realityto project the proposed path. You MUST load skillapply-stage-gateto apply its stage gates.
Output contract
mode_contracts:
obstacle-triage: &constraint_output
produces: [constraint_register, bottlenecks, mitigation_paths]
delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]
readiness-assessment:
produces: [readiness_profile, bottlenecks]
delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]
resource-envelope:
produces: [resource_envelope, bottlenecks, mitigation_paths]
delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]
causal-constraint-analysis: *constraint_output
maturation-path:
produces: [readiness_profile, resource_envelope, stage_gates, mitigation_paths]
delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions, recommended_jumps]Thresholds and quality gates
- Feasibility, maturity, constraint, resource, and maturation gates use declared dimension/evidence/constraint coverage ratios; record numerator, denominator, batch increment, stopping reason, and source references.
- Preserve structural requirements: at least one hard constraint, one removal path per removable constraint, explicit stage gates, and a binding-constraint rule relative to the observed score distribution.
- Feasibility dimensions >=5; blockers >=3 per candidate where source protocol applies.
- Maturity diagnosis: >=5 dimensions, >=2 evidence items per dimension, >=1 bottleneck.
- Constraint identification: >=3 constraints per candidate; >=1 hard constraint; >=1 removal path per removable constraint.
- Resource envelope: >=3 dimensions (time, cost, personnel) and >=2 analogies per estimate.
- Maturation path: >=3 stage gates and >=2 milestones per stage.
- Binding constraint threshold: sensitivity score >2* median.
Failure and counterexamples
Do not label a candidate ready with missing evidence, unclassified hard constraints, or an unbounded resource estimate. A conflict with no manageable injection remains blocked.
Provenance map
26 architecture old entries; readiness, feasibility, resource, obstacle, dependency, sensitivity, and maturation families are merged by mode. Missing aliases are listed in log.
Legacy context checkpoint / Delta notes
Append dimension scores/evidence, constraint IDs, bottleneck rationale, resources, gates, and unresolved conflicts.
Preserved source criteria ledger
| source | source line | kind | source criterion | ||||
| feasibility-assessment | 42 | numeric-table | \ | maturity-diagnosis \ | Assess current readiness using TRL 9-level, NASSS 7-dimension, and Innovation Readiness Level frameworks \ | ||
| feasibility-assessment | 75 | numeric | \ | Dimensions assessed \ | >= 5 (technical, market, regulatory, resource, organizational) \ | ||
| feasibility-assessment | 76 | numeric | \ | Blockers identified \ | >= 3 per candidate \ | ||
| feasibility-assessment | 77 | numeric | \ | Estimate precision \ | from +/-30% to +/-10% through iteration \ | ||
| feasibility-assessment | 78 | numeric | \ | Gates evaluated \ | >= 3 stage gates \ | ||
| maturity-diagnosis | 23 | numeric | \ | Dimensions scored \ | >= 5 \ | ||
| maturity-diagnosis | 24 | numeric | \ | Evidence items per dimension \ | >= 2 \ | ||
| maturity-diagnosis | 25 | numeric | \ | Bottlenecks identified \ | >= 1 \ | ||
| maturity-diagnosis | 53 | textual | 1. Identify relevant dimensions for the candidate (minimum: technical, market, regulatory, resource, organizational) | ||||
| maturity-diagnosis | 64 | numeric | overall_readiness: <1-9 TRL scale> | ||||
| constraint-identification | 23 | numeric | \ | Constraints identified \ | >= 3 per candidate \ | ||
| constraint-identification | 24 | numeric | \ | Hard constraints classified \ | >= 1 \ | ||
| constraint-identification | 25 | numeric | \ | Removal paths designed \ | >= 1 per removable constraint \ | ||
| constraint-identification | 58 | numeric | 4. For constraints with removability score > 0.3, design removal-path | ||||
| resource-envelope-estimation | 24 | numeric | \ | Estimate dimensions \ | >= 3 (time, cost, personnel) \ | ||
| resource-envelope-estimation | 25 | numeric | \ | Precision range \ | +/-30% initial, +/-10% refined \ | ||
| resource-envelope-estimation | 26 | numeric | \ | Reference analogies \ | >= 2 per estimate \ | ||
| resource-envelope-estimation | 58 | numeric | 3. Identify >= 2 analogous projects and extract their actual resource consumption | ||||
| resource-envelope-estimation | 61 | numeric | 6. Flag any estimates with confidence < 0.5 for further investigation | ||||
| comparative-feasibility-ranking | 16 | textual | Purpose: Produce a defensible ranking of candidates by feasibility. Uses multi-dimensional radar charts to visualize relative strengths and a weighted feasibility index to collapse multiple dimensions into a single comparable score. | ||||
| comparative-feasibility-ranking | 27 | numeric | \ | Candidates compared \ | >= 2 \ | ||
| comparative-feasibility-ranking | 28 | numeric | \ | Dimensions in radar \ | >= 5 \ | ||
| comparative-feasibility-ranking | 29 | numeric-table | \ | Weight justifications \ | 1 per dimension \ | ||
| comparative-feasibility-ranking | 58 | numeric | 2. Normalize scores to a common scale (1-9 recommended) | ||||
| maturation-pathway-design | 27 | numeric | \ | Stage gates defined \ | >= 3 \ | ||
| maturation-pathway-design | 28 | numeric | \ | Milestones per stage \ | >= 2 \ | ||
| maturation-pathway-design | 29 | numeric-table | \ | Resource estimates per stage \ | 1 per stage \ | ||
| maturation-pathway-design | 37 | textual | \ | target_readiness \ | object \ | Required maturity for implementation \ | |
| maturation-pathway-design | 62 | textual | 2. Define target readiness required for implementation | ||||
| maturation-pathway-design | 76 | textual | target_readiness: <required score> | ||||
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 23 | textual | 3. Bottleneck Identification - Analyze the radar for dimensions significantly below the mean or below required thresholds. Deploy bottleneck-identification SOP on the radar data. | ||||
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 29 | numeric-table | \ | dimension-assessment \ | 1 \ | Score a single readiness dimension \ | |
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 30 | numeric-table | \ | radar-synthesis \ | 2 \ | Combine scores into radar chart data \ | |
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 31 | numeric-table | \ | bottleneck-identification \ | 3 \ | Identify limiting dimensions \ | |
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 39 | numeric | - Each dimension should have at least 2 evidence items supporting the score | ||||
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 41 | textual | ## Minimum Yield | ||||
| multi-dimensional-readiness-scan | 43 | numeric | - Complete radar with >= 5 dimensions scored | ||||
| constraint-drilling | 26 | numeric | 4. Removal Path Design - For constraints with removability > 0.3, design concrete steps to remove or mitigate them. Deploy removal-path SOP for each removable constraint. | ||||
| constraint-drilling | 32 | numeric-table | \ | constraint-identification-sop \ | 1 \ | Discover constraints using structured methods \ | |
| constraint-drilling | 33 | numeric-table | \ | constraint-classification \ | 2 \ | Categorize constraints by type \ | |
| constraint-drilling | 34 | numeric-table | \ | removability-assessment \ | 3 \ | Score removability of each constraint \ | |
| constraint-drilling | 35 | numeric-table | \ | removal-path \ | 4 \ | Design removal steps and timeline \ | |
| constraint-drilling | 42 | numeric | - Stage 4 only runs for constraints with removability score > 0.3 | ||||
| constraint-drilling | 45 | textual | ## Minimum Yield | ||||
| constraint-drilling | 47 | numeric | - Classified constraint list with >= 3 constraints identified | ||||
| constraint-drilling | 49 | numeric | - Removal paths for all constraints scoring removability > 0.3 | ||||
| staged-gate-evaluation | 19 | textual | 1. Gate Criteria Definition - Define what must be true for a candidate to pass each gate. Deploy gate-criteria-definition SOP for each stage gate. | ||||
| staged-gate-evaluation | 29 | numeric-table | \ | gate-criteria-definition \ | 1 \ | Define criteria and pass thresholds \ | |
| staged-gate-evaluation | 30 | numeric-table | \ | gate-judgment \ | 2 \ | Evaluate and render verdict \ | |
| staged-gate-evaluation | 31 | numeric-table | \ | feasibility-synthesis \ | 3 \ | Synthesize into final recommendation \ | |
| staged-gate-evaluation | 35 | numeric | - Stage 1 should define >= 3 gates (e.g., concept feasibility, technical feasibility, implementation readiness) | ||||
| staged-gate-evaluation | 42 | textual | ## Minimum Yield | ||||
| constraint-analysis | 44 | textual | ## HARD-GATE | ||||
| constraint-analysis | 46 | textual | Before entering this campaign, the following must be true: | ||||
| constraint-analysis | 78 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||
| constraint-analysis | 94 | textual | ## Minimum Yield | ||||
| constraint-analysis | 97 | numeric | - At least 1 binding constraint identified and characterized | ||||
| constraint-analysis | 100 | numeric | - No unresolved conflicts between top-3 constraints | ||||
| resource-constraint | 63 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||
| assumption-constraint | 55 | numeric | - Top-5 fragile assumptions with validation paths | ||||
| assumption-constraint | 58 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||
| dependency-constraint | 60 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||
| conflict-resolution | 66 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||
| constraint-tree-building | 25 | textual | - Minimum 5 UDEs for a meaningful tree | ||||
| constraint-tree-building | 42 | numeric | - When to escalate: If >10 UDEs found, prioritize top-5 by severity before tracing | ||||
| constraint-tree-building | 43 | textual | - Quality gate: Every causal link must have a BECAUSE clause (the underlying assumption) | ||||
| sensitivity-ranking | 25 | textual | - Express gaps in comparable units where possible | ||||
| sensitivity-ranking | 43 | numeric | - When to skip: If only 1-2 constraints exist, ranking is trivial | ||||
| sensitivity-ranking | 44 | numeric | - Threshold: Constraints with sensitivity score >2* the median are "binding" | ||||
| constraint-breaking | 26 | textual | - If constraint is not a dilemma, reframe: "We need X" vs "We cannot have X because Y" | ||||
| constraint-breaking | 29 | numeric | - Input: all assumptions from the EC (typically 8-15 assumptions across 4 arrows) | ||||
| constraint-breaking | 35 | textual | - Injection must be: specific, actionable, within our control, and testable | ||||
| constraint-breaking | 36 | numeric | - Generate 2-3 candidate injections | ||||
| constraint-breaking | 43 | textual | - What conditions (prerequisites) must hold? |
Context checkpoint / Delta notes
Append dimension scores/evidence, constraint IDs, bottleneck rationale, resources, gates, and unresolved conflicts. | constraint-breaking | 54 | numeric | - Success criterion: At least one injection that resolves the conflict with <=2 manageable side effects |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

