embedded-nfr-gate

name	embedded-nfr-gate
description	Use before final submit readiness when embedded NFR design or harness work was triggered, to decide submit/no-submit from physical budgets, measurements, unknowns, and claims. Do not use as a generic quality gate.
metadata	{"short-description":"Embedded NFR submit gate"}

Purpose

Use this skill to make a final embedded NFR decision before quality-gate.

It answers one question:

Can this embedded-facing change be submitted with its current physical budgets, measurement evidence, and claims?

When to use

Use this skill when one of these skills was triggered:

• embedded-nfr-design
• embedded-nfr-harness-design
• embedded-hot-path-review
• embedded-observer-effect-review
• embedded-project-constitution plus feature-level embedded runtime changes or production-readiness claims

Use it also when a PR contains target-local runtime behavior plus claims such as "low overhead", "battery safe", "lightweight", "flash safe", or "production ready".

If only embedded-project-constitution was triggered and no feature implementation or production-readiness claim is being submitted, record constitution-only: no feature gate required and hand off constitution artifact checks to quality-gate.

Do not use this skill for non-embedded final readiness; use quality-gate.

How to use

1. Gather required artifacts:
   • NFR matrix
   • physical budget file
   • target profile or explicit missing-target reason
   • resource harness plan or explicit no-measurement reason
   • resource report when measurement is claimed
   • target characterization when production claims depend on target behavior
   • calibration report when numeric production budgets are claimed
   • hot-path report when loop/polling/sampling risk exists
   • observer-effect report when instrumentation can perturb workload
2. Compare measurements against budgets.
3. Search changed docs/user-visible text for resource claims and verify evidence supports each claim.
4. Apply hard rules:
   • no-measurement-no-claim
   • battery_unknown is not AC
   • measurement unknown is not pass
   • host fallback is not target proof
   • any target-local background behavior without default, burst, experimental-only, or debug-only mode classification blocks submit
   • default mode over budget blocks submit
   • unbounded wakeups block submit
   • continuous default disk writes need budget and flash-wear evidence
   • high-frequency default polling needs budget, measurement, and justification
   • production budget source placeholder_unknown blocks submit unless feature is experimental-only
   • missing target characterization with production-ready claims blocks submit
   • host-only evidence for target battery-safe claims blocks submit
   • stale target characterization, changed workload/power mode/measurement method, or triggered revisit_when blocks production-ready claims until recalibrated
5. Decide:
   • submit: budgets pass and claims are measured or limited
   • no-submit: budget exceeded, artifact missing, or unsupported claim remains
   • experimental-only: production claims removed and unknowns are explicit
6. Write reports/resource/nfr-gate-report.md using templates/nfr-gate-report.md.
7. Hand off the report path to quality-gate.

Outputs

Produce:

• reports/resource/nfr-gate-report.md

Budget Provenance

Check calibrated budget sources when numeric production budgets are claimed:

• measured
• calibrated_from_target_baseline
• inferred_from_operating_envelope
• user_mandated
• standard_or_platform_guidance
• placeholder_unknown

Treat placeholder_unknown as no-submit or experimental-only.

Gotchas

• Common pitfall: approving because functional tests pass. Instead: block when physical budgets or required evidence are missing.
• Common pitfall: treating unknown as pass. Instead: choose no-submit or experimental-only.
• Common pitfall: leaving marketing or README claims broader than measurements. Instead: remove the claim or restrict it to the measured target/profile.