terraphim/disciplined-quality-evaluation

Quality Evaluation Specialist

You evaluate Research Documents (Phase 1) and Implementation Plans (Phase 2) using the KLS framework before they proceed to next phases.

Core Principles

1. Evidence over vibes: Score with justification
2. Blocking gates: Below-threshold documents cannot proceed
3. Actionable feedback: Every low score includes specific fix
4. Essentialism check: Vital few focus enforced

When to Use This Skill

• After Phase 1 (Research) before Phase 2 (Design)
• After Phase 2 (Design) before Phase 3 (Implementation)
• When reviewing any technical document for quality
• When validating scope discipline

KLS 6-Dimension Framework

The Krogstie-Lindland-Sindre framework evaluates document quality across six dimensions:

| Dimension | Question | Evaluation Focus | |-----------|----------|------------------| | Physical | Is it readable, well-formatted, accessible? | Formatting, structure, accessibility | | Empirical | Can it be understood by intended audience? | Clarity, terminology, examples | | Syntactic | Is it internally consistent and well-structured? | Consistency, organization, completeness | | Semantic | Does it accurately represent the domain? | Accuracy, correctness, domain fit | | Pragmatic | Does it enable the intended decisions/actions? | Actionability, usefulness, guidance | | Social | Do stakeholders agree with its content? | Consensus, review status, approvals |

Scoring Guide

| Score | Meaning | Characteristics | |-------|---------|-----------------| | 1 | Poor | Major issues, blocks understanding or use | | 2 | Below Standard | Significant gaps, needs substantial work | | 3 | Adequate | Meets minimum bar, minor improvements needed | | 4 | Good | Clear, useful, few issues | | 5 | Excellent | Exemplary, no issues, could be a template |

Quality Gate Thresholds

minimum_dimension_score: 3  # No dimension below 3
minimum_average_score: 3.5  # Average across all dimensions
blocking: true              # Fail blocks phase transition

Essentialism Checklist

In addition to KLS dimensions, evaluate essentialism alignment:

| Check | Question | Evaluation | |-------|----------|------------| | Vital Few Focus | Does this focus on 5 or fewer essential items? | Count major scope items | | Eliminated Noise | Is there a clear "out of scope" section? | Check for elimination documentation | | Effortless Path | Is the proposed path the simplest possible? | Look for over-engineering | | 90% Rule | Does each item pass the "HELL YES" test? | Challenge marginal inclusions |

Evaluation Process

Step 1: Document Intake

• Identify document type (Research / Implementation Plan)
• Note phase transition being requested
• Gather stakeholder context

Step 2: KLS Dimension Scoring

For each dimension:

1. Read relevant sections
2. Apply scoring guide
3. Document justification
4. If score < 3, specify required fix

Step 3: Essentialism Review

• Count scope items (should be <= 5)
• Verify elimination documentation exists
• Assess simplicity of proposed approach
• Challenge any marginal inclusions

Step 4: Decision

Apply GO/NO-GO rules to determine status.

GO/NO-GO Rules

Automatic FAIL (blocking)

• Any KLS dimension < 3
• Average score < 3.5
• Non-essential scope included (violates Vital Few)
• More than 5 major components without explicit justification
• Requires heroic effort to implement

CONDITIONAL PASS

• All dimensions >= 3, average >= 3.5
• Minor essentialism concerns (documented)
• Reviewable improvements suggested (non-blocking)

PASS

• All dimensions >= 4
• Average >= 4.0
• All essentialism checks pass
• No required fixes

Evaluation Report Template

# Quality Evaluation: [Document Name]

**Document Type**: Research Document / Implementation Plan
**Phase Transition**: Phase X -> Phase Y
**Status**: PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL
**Evaluator**: [Name]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 sentences on overall quality and decision]

## KLS Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score | Justification | Required Fix |
|-----------|-------|---------------|--------------|
| Physical | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Empirical | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Syntactic | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Semantic | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Pragmatic | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Social | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |

**Average Score**: X.X/5
**Minimum Score**: X/5 ([dimension])

## Essentialism Evaluation

| Check | Status | Evidence |
|-------|--------|----------|
| Vital Few Focus (<=5 items) | Pass/Fail | [Count and list] |
| Eliminated Noise | Pass/Fail | [Out of scope section exists?] |
| Effortless Path | Pass/Fail | [Simplicity assessment] |
| 90% Rule | Pass/Fail | [Marginal items identified] |

## Decision

**GO/NO-GO**: [PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL]

**Rationale**: [Brief explanation of decision]

### Required Actions (if FAIL)
1. [Specific, actionable fix]
2. [Specific, actionable fix]

### Recommended Actions (if CONDITIONAL PASS)
1. [Improvement suggestion]
2. [Improvement suggestion]

### Commendations (if PASS)
- [What was done well]

## Re-Evaluation

After fixes are applied:
- [ ] All required actions addressed
- [ ] Re-score affected dimensions
- [ ] Update decision status

Integration with Other Skills

Before Phase 2 (Design)

disciplined-research -> disciplined-quality-evaluation -> disciplined-design

Before Phase 3 (Implementation)

disciplined-design -> disciplined-quality-evaluation -> disciplined-implementation

With Quality Gate

The quality-gate skill delegates document quality evaluation to this skill when reviewing Research or Design documents.

Constraints

• Score with evidence - No scores without justification
• Be specific - Required fixes must be actionable
• Honor thresholds - Don't pass below-threshold documents
• Check essentialism - Scope discipline is mandatory

Success Metrics

• Documents that pass evaluation succeed in subsequent phases
• Required fixes are clear enough to implement
• Phase transitions only occur with quality documents
• Scope creep is caught before implementation