agentleFS
PthahnixPthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/skills/analyze-constraints-readiness/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not perform called SOP operations inline.

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not label a candidate ready with missing evidence, unclassified hard constraints, or an unbounded resource estimate.

    line 77

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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_input

Execution protocol

Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.

  1. Define candidate, dimensions, hard constraints, and target gates. You MUST load skill classify-constraint to classify each declared constraint.
  2. Select obstacle-triage, readiness-assessment, resource-envelope, causal-constraint-analysis, or maturation-path.
  3. You MUST load skill score-object to score the selected dimensions with evidence. You MUST load skill identify-bottleneck to identify binding constraints and dependencies.
  4. You MUST load skill assess-removability to test whether binding constraints can be removed. You MUST load skill design-mitigation to design removal or mitigation paths and return a readiness conclusion. If several feasible responses must be balanced as a joint set, consider portfolio-optimization. If the target goal remains too broad to assess, consider decompose-research-goal. If external change dominates present readiness, consider analyze-future-scenarios. If several candidate paths are ready for comparative selection, rank-candidates may 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 skill identify-obstacles to enumerate the obstacles. You MUST load skill list-undesirable-effects to 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 skill assess-readiness-dimension to assess every required dimension.
  • resource-envelope: estimate time, cost, and personnel bounds from analogies, then flag low-confidence estimates for investigation. You MUST load skill quantify-resource-gap to quantify the gap. You MUST load skill identify-critical-chain to 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 skill trace-causal-chain to trace constraint propagation. You MUST load skill extract-core-conflict to isolate the core conflict. You MUST load skill challenge-assumption to 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 skill project-future-reality to project the proposed path. You MUST load skill apply-stage-gate to 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

sourcesource linekindsource criterion
feasibility-assessment42numeric-table\maturity-diagnosis \Assess current readiness using TRL 9-level, NASSS 7-dimension, and Innovation Readiness Level frameworks \
feasibility-assessment75numeric\Dimensions assessed \>= 5 (technical, market, regulatory, resource, organizational) \
feasibility-assessment76numeric\Blockers identified \>= 3 per candidate \
feasibility-assessment77numeric\Estimate precision \from +/-30% to +/-10% through iteration \
feasibility-assessment78numeric\Gates evaluated \>= 3 stage gates \
maturity-diagnosis23numeric\Dimensions scored \>= 5 \
maturity-diagnosis24numeric\Evidence items per dimension \>= 2 \
maturity-diagnosis25numeric\Bottlenecks identified \>= 1 \
maturity-diagnosis53textual1. Identify relevant dimensions for the candidate (minimum: technical, market, regulatory, resource, organizational)
maturity-diagnosis64numericoverall_readiness: <1-9 TRL scale>
constraint-identification23numeric\Constraints identified \>= 3 per candidate \
constraint-identification24numeric\Hard constraints classified \>= 1 \
constraint-identification25numeric\Removal paths designed \>= 1 per removable constraint \
constraint-identification58numeric4. For constraints with removability score > 0.3, design removal-path
resource-envelope-estimation24numeric\Estimate dimensions \>= 3 (time, cost, personnel) \
resource-envelope-estimation25numeric\Precision range \+/-30% initial, +/-10% refined \
resource-envelope-estimation26numeric\Reference analogies \>= 2 per estimate \
resource-envelope-estimation58numeric3. Identify >= 2 analogous projects and extract their actual resource consumption
resource-envelope-estimation61numeric6. Flag any estimates with confidence < 0.5 for further investigation
comparative-feasibility-ranking16textualPurpose: 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-ranking27numeric\Candidates compared \>= 2 \
comparative-feasibility-ranking28numeric\Dimensions in radar \>= 5 \
comparative-feasibility-ranking29numeric-table\Weight justifications \1 per dimension \
comparative-feasibility-ranking58numeric2. Normalize scores to a common scale (1-9 recommended)
maturation-pathway-design27numeric\Stage gates defined \>= 3 \
maturation-pathway-design28numeric\Milestones per stage \>= 2 \
maturation-pathway-design29numeric-table\Resource estimates per stage \1 per stage \
maturation-pathway-design37textual\target_readiness \object \Required maturity for implementation \
maturation-pathway-design62textual2. Define target readiness required for implementation
maturation-pathway-design76textualtarget_readiness: <required score>
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan23textual3. 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-scan29numeric-table\dimension-assessment \1 \Score a single readiness dimension \
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan30numeric-table\radar-synthesis \2 \Combine scores into radar chart data \
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan31numeric-table\bottleneck-identification \3 \Identify limiting dimensions \
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan39numeric- Each dimension should have at least 2 evidence items supporting the score
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan41textual## Minimum Yield
multi-dimensional-readiness-scan43numeric- Complete radar with >= 5 dimensions scored
constraint-drilling26numeric4. 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-drilling32numeric-table\constraint-identification-sop \1 \Discover constraints using structured methods \
constraint-drilling33numeric-table\constraint-classification \2 \Categorize constraints by type \
constraint-drilling34numeric-table\removability-assessment \3 \Score removability of each constraint \
constraint-drilling35numeric-table\removal-path \4 \Design removal steps and timeline \
constraint-drilling42numeric- Stage 4 only runs for constraints with removability score > 0.3
constraint-drilling45textual## Minimum Yield
constraint-drilling47numeric- Classified constraint list with >= 3 constraints identified
constraint-drilling49numeric- Removal paths for all constraints scoring removability > 0.3
staged-gate-evaluation19textual1. 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-evaluation29numeric-table\gate-criteria-definition \1 \Define criteria and pass thresholds \
staged-gate-evaluation30numeric-table\gate-judgment \2 \Evaluate and render verdict \
staged-gate-evaluation31numeric-table\feasibility-synthesis \3 \Synthesize into final recommendation \
staged-gate-evaluation35numeric- Stage 1 should define >= 3 gates (e.g., concept feasibility, technical feasibility, implementation readiness)
staged-gate-evaluation42textual## Minimum Yield
constraint-analysis44textual## HARD-GATE
constraint-analysis46textualBefore entering this campaign, the following must be true:
constraint-analysis78textual## Budget Gate
constraint-analysis94textual## Minimum Yield
constraint-analysis97numeric- At least 1 binding constraint identified and characterized
constraint-analysis100numeric- No unresolved conflicts between top-3 constraints
resource-constraint63textual## Budget Gate
assumption-constraint55numeric- Top-5 fragile assumptions with validation paths
assumption-constraint58textual## Budget Gate
dependency-constraint60textual## Budget Gate
conflict-resolution66textual## Budget Gate
constraint-tree-building25textual- Minimum 5 UDEs for a meaningful tree
constraint-tree-building42numeric- When to escalate: If >10 UDEs found, prioritize top-5 by severity before tracing
constraint-tree-building43textual- Quality gate: Every causal link must have a BECAUSE clause (the underlying assumption)
sensitivity-ranking25textual- Express gaps in comparable units where possible
sensitivity-ranking43numeric- When to skip: If only 1-2 constraints exist, ranking is trivial
sensitivity-ranking44numeric- Threshold: Constraints with sensitivity score >2* the median are "binding"
constraint-breaking26textual- If constraint is not a dilemma, reframe: "We need X" vs "We cannot have X because Y"
constraint-breaking29numeric- Input: all assumptions from the EC (typically 8-15 assumptions across 4 arrows)
constraint-breaking35textual- Injection must be: specific, actionable, within our control, and testable
constraint-breaking36numeric- Generate 2-3 candidate injections
constraint-breaking43textual- 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 |

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.