project-assessment
Skill19 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
WHAT - Interactive project assessment router: define assessment scope and units, collect
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 11
Use this skill when the user asks for a project assessment, maturity assessment, delivery audit, technical assessment, management …
- Distinctive: line 19
Never assign a score without evidence.
- Distinctive: line 20
Keep sensitive details out of reusable artifacts.
- Distinctive: line 21
Do not mention client-specific reference examples or internal audit links in generated outputs.
- Distinctive: line 26
Ask the assessment purpose: baseline, periodic review, due diligence, quality improvement, delivery health check, AI-readiness review, or …
- Distinctive: line 27
Ask the assessment period and target audience.
- Distinctive: line 28
Ask whether the assessment should cover management units, technical units, or both.
- Distinctive: line 29
Ask which repositories, products, squads, platforms, or delivery scopes form each assessment unit.
- Distinctive: line 33
Ask the user where each evidence category lives instead of assuming ClickUp or repository-only evidence.
- Very specific: line 37
If UI depth is required, pair the technical unit assessment with figma / figma-implement-design.
- Very specific: line 38
If repository discovery is required, pair with assistant and the repository-specific rules.
- Distinctive: line 40
Use the 1 to 5 maturity scale from the assessment indicators.
- Distinctive: line 41
Treat score 3 as "defined or partially mature", not as average performance.
- Distinctive: line 51
Ask these before creating the final assessment artifact:
- Distinctive: line 73
Follow-up work item candidates
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Project Assessment (WHAT)
Use this skill when the user asks for a project assessment, maturity assessment, delivery audit, technical assessment, management assessment, quality indicator review, or improvement roadmap.
This is a router skill. Keep it focused on assessment flow, gates, and delegation. Use the unit-specific skills for scoring details.
Default guardrails
- Apply
output-handshakebefore producing any final assessment report, scorecard, action plan, or executive summary: ask where the artifact should live and confirm human review. - Apply
project-assessment-evidencebefore scoring. Evidence may live in repositories, boards, docs, spreadsheets, dashboards, incidents, PRs, meetings, interviews, Slack, emails, or any other project system. Ask the user where to find each source. - Never assign a score without evidence. If evidence is missing, mark the indicator as Not assessed or score it with Low confidence and state the assumption explicitly.
- Keep sensitive details out of reusable artifacts. Redact secrets, credentials, private customer data, and unnecessary personal data.
- Do not mention client-specific reference examples or internal audit links in generated outputs. Use only abstracted patterns.
Assessment flow
- Intake
- Ask the assessment purpose: baseline, periodic review, due diligence, quality improvement, delivery health check, AI-readiness review, or internal audit support.
- Ask the assessment period and target audience.
- Ask whether the assessment should cover management units, technical units, or both.
- Ask which repositories, products, squads, platforms, or delivery scopes form each assessment unit.
- Evidence collection
- Delegate to
project-assessment-evidence. - Build an evidence map before scoring.
- Ask the user where each evidence category lives instead of assuming ClickUp or repository-only evidence.
- Delegate to
- Unit assessment
- For technical workloads, delegate to
technical-unit-assessment. - For project management and delivery scopes, delegate to
management-unit-assessment. - If UI depth is required, pair the technical unit assessment with
figma/figma-implement-design. - If repository discovery is required, pair with
assistantand the repository-specific rules.
- For technical workloads, delegate to
- Consensus and scoring
- Use the 1 to 5 maturity scale from the assessment indicators.
- Treat score 3 as "defined or partially mature", not as average performance.
- Record confidence per score: High, Medium, Low, or Not assessed.
- For subjective indicators, ask who should validate the score and whether weights are needed.
- Findings and action plan
- Summarize strengths, risks, gaps, and opportunities.
- Separate confirmed findings from assumptions and missing evidence.
- Convert recommendations into actionable follow-ups only after user approval, delegating ticket creation to the relevant ticket skill.
Required interactive questions
Ask these before creating the final assessment artifact:
- Where should the final assessment live?
- Who will review and approve it?
- What is the assessment purpose and period?
- Which management units and technical units are in scope?
- Which systems of record should be used for evidence?
- Where are the repositories, docs, boards, diagrams, CI/CD pipelines, dashboards, incident records, meeting notes, decisions, agreements, and stakeholder feedback?
- Which indicators must be skipped, weighted, or treated as out of scope?
- Which people should be interviewed or asked to validate subjective scores?
Outputs
Typical outputs are:
- Assessment plan and scope
- Evidence map
- Unit scorecards
- Findings with evidence links
- Missing evidence register
- Risk and opportunity summary
- Recommendations and action plan
- Follow-up work item candidates
Boundaries
- This skill does not execute ClickUp, Jira, Confluence, GitHub, GitLab, Slack, or repository commands. Delegate HOW to tool skills.
- This skill does not replace project-specific assessment procedures. If an engagement pack or repository defines stricter rules, surface the difference and follow the stricter/project-specific rule.
- This skill does not create tasks or update documents without explicit user approval.
References
references/default-template.md- default assessment report templatereferences/example-platform-assessment.md— example assessment for a platform engineering team with full scorecardproject-assessment-evidence- evidence map and source-by-source intaketechnical-unit-assessment- technical unit indicators and templatemanagement-unit-assessment- management unit indicators and templateoutput-handshake- destination and human reviewassistant- repository discoveryclickup-cli, external Jira/Confluence skills, forge skills, and Slack skills - evidence retrieval or artifact updates after approval
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- frankbria/iris★ 2same name
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 repository106 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- reviewSkill
- mcp-auditSkill
- owasp-agentic-reviewSkill
- supply-chain-auditSkill
- threat-modelingSkill
- architecture-diagramSkill
- c4-modelSkill
- aws-well-architected-reviewSkill
- cloud-design-patternsSkill
- assistantSkill
- dev-companionSkill
- onboardingSkill
- output-handshakeSkill
- pr-fallbackSkill
- projectSkill
- workspace-knowledge-syncSkill
- workspaceSkill
- dbt-validationSkill
- snowflake-validationSkill
- adrSkill
- agreementSkill
- bugSkill
- decision-logSkill
- development-workflowSkill
- epicSkill
- incidentSkill
- management-unit-assessmentSkill
- meeting-minutesSkill
- planningSkill
- prdSkill
- project-assessment-evidenceSkill
- spikeSkill
- taskSkill
- technical-unit-assessmentSkill
- trdSkill
- user-storySkill
- workflow-client-bootstrapSkill
- workflow-generic-projectSkill
- work-itemSkill
- bragSkill
- brag-slimSkill
- design-assessmentSkill
- design-improvementSkill
- figma-code-connect-componentsSkill
- figma-create-design-system-rulesSkill
- figma-create-new-fileSkill
- figma-implement-designSkill
- figmaSkill
- frontend-design-reviewSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- scroll-worldSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
- fix-merge-conflictsSkill
- gh-address-commentsSkill
- gh-contribution-plannerSkill
- gh-fix-ciSkill
- github-cli-workflowSkill
- gitlab-cli-workflowSkill
- worktreeSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

