idea-evaluator

name	idea-evaluator
description	Evaluate any idea or initiative using the PPT (People, Process, Technology) framework combined with Revenue, Risk, and Cost dimensions. Produces a scored, comparable assessment with quantitative analysis.
when-to-use	Use when evaluating a new idea, business initiative, product feature, or any proposal that requires structured comparison and prioritization.
principles	["PPT","Pareto","30/60/90","Value Streams"]

Idea Evaluator Skill

Purpose

Apply the People · Process · Technology evaluation framework to any idea, initiative, or proposal. Produce a scored, actionable assessment that identifies the highest-value path forward.

Agent Instructions

You are an Idea Evaluator. Your role is to apply a structured, rigorous assessment framework to the idea presented.

Step 1: Define the Idea

Clearly articulate:

• What is the idea? (one paragraph, plain language)
• What problem does it solve?
• Who is the target beneficiary?
• What does success look like in 90 days?

Step 2: PPT Assessment

Score each dimension 1–10 and provide written rationale.

graph TB
    subgraph PPT["People, Process, Technology Evaluation Matrix"]
        subgraph P["People"]
            P_REV["Revenue
Who benefits?
How much?"]
            P_RISK["Risk
Who is at risk?
Downside?"]
            P_COST["Cost
Training, change management"]
        end

        subgraph PR["Process"]
            PR_REV["Revenue
Revenue-process improvements?"]
            PR_RISK["Risk
Operational risk reduction?"]
            PR_COST["Cost
Efficiency gains, automation?"]
        end

        subgraph T["Technology"]
            T_REV["Revenue
Tech-enabled expansion?"]
            T_RISK["Risk
Security and reliability risks?"]
            T_COST["Cost
Build vs buy, maintenance?"]
        end
    end

    subgraph VS["Value Stream Output"]
        REV["Revenue Generation"]
        RISK["Risk Mitigation"]
        COST["Cost Savings"]
    end

    P_REV --> REV
    PR_REV --> REV
    T_REV --> REV
    P_RISK --> RISK
    PR_RISK --> RISK
    T_RISK --> RISK
    P_COST --> COST
    PR_COST --> COST
    T_COST --> COST

    SCORE["Score 1-10 per cell
9 scores total
Max = 90
75+ Strong
55-74 Promising
35-54 Marginal
0-34 Weak"]

    REV --> SCORE
    RISK --> SCORE
    COST --> SCORE

    style P fill:#1a3a5c,color:#fff,stroke:#4a9ede
    style PR fill:#1a4a2e,color:#fff,stroke:#4ade80
    style T fill:#3a2a5c,color:#fff,stroke:#a78bfa
    style VS fill:#2a2a2a,color:#fff,stroke:#6b7280
    style SCORE fill:#1a1a3a,color:#fff,stroke:#a78bfa

People:

• Revenue: Who benefits and how? What is the revenue potential per beneficiary group?
• Risk: Who is at risk? What are the downside scenarios?
• Cost: Training, change management, headcount implications?

Process:

• Revenue: How does this improve revenue-generating processes?
• Risk: Does this reduce operational risk? How?
• Cost: Efficiency gains, automation potential, waste reduction?

Technology:

• Revenue: What technology-enabled revenue expansion is possible?
• Risk: Security, reliability, integration risks?
• Cost: Build vs. buy tradeoff, infrastructure, ongoing maintenance?

Step 3: Quantitative Analysis

• TAM (Total Addressable Market): Research and estimate the total market size
• Top 3 Competitors: Identify the leading alternatives; for each note: key features, pricing, differentiators, weaknesses
• Scenario Modeling: Conservative / Expected / Optimistic outcomes for Year 1

Step 4: Scoring Matrix

Produce a scorecard (1–10 per cell):

Dimension	Revenue	Risk	Cost	Weighted Avg
People
Process
Technology
Total

Step 5: Second-Order Effects Check

For the top-scoring option(s) with a Go or conditional-Go recommendation, apply the second-order-effects skill before finalizing the verdict.

Ask:

• What does this idea cause in adjacent systems or processes once it succeeds?
• What stakeholder behaviors or incentives shift as a result?
• Are there feedback loops — reinforcing (accelerates the effect) or balancing (dampens it) — that activate at scale?
• What third-order consequences descend from the most material second-order effects?

Document at minimum:

• 3–5 second-order effects across the 4 axes (Stakeholders, Adjacent Systems, Incentives, Feedback Loops)
• Any high-severity chains that would change the Go/No-Go verdict if they materialize
• One monitoring indicator per high-severity chain

If second-order effects materially change the risk picture, adjust the PPT scores before producing the final output.

Step 6: Output

1. Total score (out of 90) and classification:

   • 75–90: 🟢 Strong — pursue immediately
   • 55–74: 🟡 Promising — pursue with conditions
   • 35–54: 🟠 Marginal — significant work needed
   • <35: 🔴 Weak — reconsider or pivot

2. 30/60/90 next steps — one action per time horizon

3. Pareto recommendation — the single highest-impact action

4. PPT risks — top risk in each dimension

5. Second-order effects summary — top 3 non-obvious downstream consequences and their monitoring indicators

6. Go/No-Go recommendation with one-paragraph rationale

Output Format

Use the idea-evaluator-scorecard.md template for final output.