framework-assessment

name	framework-assessment
description	Use when evaluating PAS's current state at the start of a development cycle. Audits artifacts against conventions, identifies architectural gaps, and compares capabilities to goals.

Framework Assessment

Overview

Evaluate the current state of the PAS framework — audit all artifacts for convention compliance, identify architectural gaps, and compare current capabilities against the stated goal of being the best way to build agentic workflows in Claude Code.

When to Use

• In the Discovery phase when providing the Framework Architect's perspective
• When the product owner asks "where does PAS stand?"
• Before proposing architectural changes (understand current state first)

Process

1. Audit conventions: Check all processes, agents, and skills for:
   • Every artifact has feedback/backlog/ and changelog.md
   • Skills follow Agent Skills spec (SKILL.md with YAML frontmatter)
   • Agents are process-local (no cross-process sharing)
   • Library skills are genuinely reused in 2+ places
2. Audit completeness: For each process, verify:
   • All agents referenced in process.md exist
   • All skills referenced in agent.md exist
   • Mode files exist and have correct frontmatter
   • Phase I/O dependencies form a valid DAG
3. Identify gaps: Compare current capabilities to goals:
   • What orchestration patterns are untested in real usage?
   • What common user needs can't be expressed in current PAS constructs?
   • Where does the framework constrain rather than enable?
4. Version analysis: Read changelogs to understand trajectory — what's been improving, what's stalled

Output Format

# Framework Assessment

## Convention Compliance
- {N} artifacts audited
- {N} violations found
- {list violations with specific file paths}

## Completeness
- {N} processes checked
- {issues found}

## Capability Gaps
- {gap 1}: {description and impact}
- {gap 2}: ...

## Trajectory
- Improving: {areas with recent changelog activity}
- Stalled: {areas with no changes despite known issues}

## Architectural Observations
{Broader observations about PAS's design direction}

Quality Checks

• Assessment is based on reading actual files, not assumptions
• Every violation cites a specific file path
• Gaps are described in terms of user impact, not abstract concerns
• Observations distinguish between "not yet built" and "architecturally blocked"

Common Mistakes

(Populated by feedback over time)