--- name: dialogue-assess-phase description: Assess readiness to transition between SDLC phases. Aggregates component assessments and generates PROCEED/PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION/DEFER recommendation. Triggers on "assess phase", "phase readiness", "ready to proceed", "phase transition check", "can we move to phase". allowed-tools: Bash, AskUserQuestion, Read, Glob --- # Dialogue: Phase Readiness Assessment Assess readiness to transition from one SDLC phase to the next. This composite assessment aggregates component assessments and evaluates overall readiness, generating a recommendation that requires human approval. ## Framework Grounding This skill operationalises: - **Phase transitions**: 35-55% information loss at transitions requires explicit checkpoints - **Theory-building**: Validates sufficient understanding exists before proceeding - **STS joint optimisation**: Human approval ensures both technical and social readiness ## When to Use Use this skill at phase transition points: - Phase 1 (Initiation/Conception) → Phase 2 (Planning) - Phase 2 (Planning) → Phase 3 (Analysis/Requirements) - Phase 3 (Analysis/Requirements) → Phase 4 (Design/Architecture) - And so on through Phase 7 (Deployment/Operations) ## Phase Readiness Dimensions The assessment evaluates four readiness dimensions: | Dimension | What It Measures | Key Inputs | |-----------|------------------|------------| | `documentation_readiness` | Are phase artefacts complete? | Required documents exist | | `knowledge_transfer_readiness` | Is knowledge documented/shared? | Theory captured, decisions logged | | `stakeholder_readiness` | Are stakeholders aligned? | Alignment assessment, approvals | | `technical_readiness` | Are technical prerequisites met? | Tests pass, dependencies resolved | ## Recommendation Outcomes | Recommendation | Meaning | Action | |----------------|---------|--------| | `PROCEED` | All dimensions satisfactory | Human approves, transition proceeds | | `PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION` | Minor gaps identified | Human reviews gaps, may proceed with mitigations | | `DEFER` | Significant gaps present | Address blockers before transitioning | ## How to Assess Phase Readiness ### Step 1: Gather Context First, gather information about the current state: ```bash # Check for recent problem framing assessment ls -la ${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR}/.dialogue/logs/assessments/ASSESS-*.yaml | tail -5 # Check for recent daily checks grep -l "assessment_type: DAILY_CHECK" ${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR}/.dialogue/logs/assessments/*.yaml | tail -5 # Check decision log activity ls -la ${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR}/.dialogue/logs/decisions/ | tail -10 ``` ### Step 2: Interactive Assessment Ask the user to evaluate each dimension using AskUserQuestion: 1. **Documentation readiness** (1-5): Are required phase artefacts complete? 2. **Knowledge transfer readiness** (1-5): Is knowledge documented and shared? 3. **Stakeholder readiness** (1-5): Are stakeholders aligned on proceeding? 4. **Technical readiness** (1-5): Are technical prerequisites met? Then ask: 5. What is the current phase? (1-7) 6. What is the target phase? (2-7) 7. Are there any blockers? (optional free text) 8. Are there any risks to proceeding? (optional free text) ### Step 3: Reference Component Assessments If available, reference recent component assessments: - Problem framing assessment ID (if exists) - Stakeholder alignment assessment ID (if exists, from FW-041) - TTKM assessment ID (if exists, from FW-041) - Recent daily check IDs ### Step 4: Log the Assessment ```bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/dialogue-assess-phase/scripts/log-assess-phase.sh \ \ \ \ \ [problem_framing_ref] [blockers] [risks] ``` ### Parameters | Parameter | Values | Description | |-----------|--------|-------------| | `assessor` | `ai:claude` or `human:` | Who performed the assessment | | `current_phase` | `1-7` | Current SDLC phase | | `target_phase` | `2-7` | Target phase (must be > current) | | `documentation_readiness` | `1-5` | Documentation completeness | | `knowledge_transfer_readiness` | `1-5` | Knowledge sharing quality | | `stakeholder_readiness` | `1-5` | Stakeholder alignment | | `technical_readiness` | `1-5` | Technical prerequisites | | `problem_framing_ref` | string (optional) | ASSESS-... ID of framing assessment | | `blockers` | string (optional) | Blocking issues (comma-separated) | | `risks` | string (optional) | Identified risks (comma-separated) | | `context` | string (optional) | Situational context | | `tags` | string (optional) | Comma-separated categorisation tags | ## Recommendation Logic The script computes a recommendation based on dimension scores: ``` Average score = (doc + knowledge + stakeholder + technical) / 4 If average >= 4.0 AND no blockers AND problem_framing exists: → PROCEED Else if average >= 3.0 AND blockers are manageable: → PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION Else: → DEFER ``` **Special conditions:** - Missing problem framing assessment: Maximum recommendation is PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION - Any dimension score of 1: Forces DEFER - Blockers present: Maximum recommendation is PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION ## DEFER Remediation Guidance When the recommendation is DEFER, the assessment includes a `defer_guidance` block that provides actionable remediation advice based on two factors: ### Factor 1: Phase Tacit Percentage The current phase's information composition determines remediation character: | Phase | Tacit % | Remediation Character | |-------|---------|----------------------| | 1. Initiation | 75% | Primarily dialogue-based | | 2. Planning | 55% | Dialogue-dominant | | 3. Requirements | 50% | Balanced | | 4. Design | 40% | Balanced, slightly artifact-weighted | | 5. Implementation | 35% | Artifact-dominant | | 6-7. Testing/Ops | 30% | Primarily artifact/process | ### Factor 2: Gap Dimension The lowest-scoring dimension identifies what type of gap to address: | Gap | Meaning | Natural Remediation | |-----|---------|---------------------| | `documentation` | Artifacts incomplete | Review/create documents | | `knowledge` | Tacit understanding not shared | Dialogue, pairing, mentoring | | `stakeholder` | Alignment issues | Facilitation, workshops | | `technical` | Blockers, dependencies | Technical resolution | ### Recommended Approach The combination produces a `recommended_approach`: - **DIALOGUE**: High-tacit phase or knowledge/stakeholder gaps → convene sessions, elicit understanding - **MIXED**: Medium-tacit phase or mixed gaps → balance dialogue with artifact work - **ARTIFACT**: Low-tacit phase with documentation/technical gaps → focus on specifications, resolution ### Example DEFER Output ```yaml defer_guidance: primary_gap: knowledge primary_gap_score: 2 secondary_gaps: [] phase_tacit_percentage: 75 recommended_approach: DIALOGUE specific_actions: - "Conduct knowledge transfer sessions with domain experts" - "Pair with experienced team members" - "Facilitate stakeholder interviews to capture tacit understanding" restart_point: phase: 1 phase_name: "Initiation/Conception" focus: "Address knowledge gaps before re-assessing" ``` ## Human Approval Workflow Phase transitions require human approval: 1. AI presents assessment summary with recommendation 2. Human reviews: - Component assessment references - Dimension scores and rationale - Identified blockers and risks 3. Human decides: approve, approve with conditions, or defer 4. Decision is logged with approval metadata ### Example Approval Flow ``` AI: Phase readiness assessment complete. Current Phase: 1 (Problem Definition) Target Phase: 2 (Requirements) Dimension Scores: - Documentation: 4/5 (requirements doc drafted) - Knowledge Transfer: 4/5 (decisions logged, theory captured) - Stakeholder: 3/5 (one stakeholder pending review) - Technical: 5/5 (no blockers) Component Assessments: - Problem Framing: ASSESS-20260122-140000 (5/6, confidence 4) Blockers: None Risks: Stakeholder review may surface new requirements Recommendation: PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION Do you approve proceeding to Phase 2? [Options: Approve / Approve with conditions / Defer] User: Approve with conditions - complete stakeholder review within 48 hours AI: Approved with conditions. Logging the decision... [Logs DEC-... with approval and conditions] Phase transition approved. Moving to Phase 2 (Planning). Condition: Complete stakeholder review within 48 hours. ``` ## Output The script returns the generated assessment ID (e.g., `ASSESS-20260122-150000`). The assessment is stored in `.dialogue/logs/assessments/` and creates: - Assessment YAML file with full readiness data - Context graph node (ARTIFACT with artifact_type: ASSESSMENT) - CREATED edge from assessor to assessment - ASSESSES edges to referenced component assessments ## Example Direct Invocation ```bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/dialogue-assess-phase/scripts/log-assess-phase.sh \ "human:pidster" \ 1 2 \ 4 4 3 5 \ "ASSESS-20260122-140000" \ "" \ "Stakeholder review may surface new requirements" ``` ## Phase-Specific Considerations ### Phase 1 → 2 (Initiation/Conception → Planning) Critical inputs: - Problem framing assessment (strongly encouraged) - Stakeholder alignment on business case - Strategic rationale documented ### Phase 2 → 3 (Planning → Analysis/Requirements) Critical inputs: - Project plan and resource allocations - Risk register established - Governance structure defined ### Phase 3 → 4 (Analysis/Requirements → Design/Architecture) Critical inputs: - Requirements documented and reviewed - Stakeholders approved requirements - Key technical constraints identified ### Phase 4 → 5 (Design/Architecture → Implementation/Construction) Critical inputs: - Architecture decisions documented (ADRs) - Technical feasibility validated - Performance/scalability requirements addressed ### Later Phases Similar patterns—each transition validates that: 1. Phase artefacts are complete 2. Knowledge is captured and shared 3. Stakeholders are aligned 4. Technical prerequisites are met ## Schema Reference See [Assessment Schema](../dialogue-daily-check/schema.md) for the complete PHASE_READINESS response schema and validation rules.