evaluate

name	evaluate
description	Evaluate technologies and competitive developments against Genesis architecture
consumer	cc_background_research
phase	6
skill_type	workflow

Evaluate

Purpose

Assess a technology, tool, article, or competitive development for relevance to Genesis. Produce a structured evaluation with clear recommendations.

When to Use

• New tool or library surfaces that might replace or augment a Genesis component.
• Competitive product launches or updates (e.g., Cursor Automations, Devin).
• User shares an article or resource for assessment.
• Surplus compute is available and the evaluation queue is non-empty.

Workflow

1. Gather context — Read the target material. If a URL, fetch and summarize. If a concept, research current state.
2. Map to Genesis — Identify which Genesis components or design decisions the target intersects (routing, memory, perception, surplus, etc.).
3. Assess fit — Score along these axes:
   • Capability gap: Does this solve something Genesis lacks?
   • Replacement risk: Could this obsolete a Genesis component?
   • Integration cost: How much work to adopt or adapt?
   • Lock-in risk: Does adopting this violate the flexibility principle?
   • Rigor gap: Where Genesis has an equivalent, is ours as rigorous? "We have X" is not the same as "our X measures effectiveness, handles edge cases, and improves over time." Compare the QUALITY of our implementation against the reference, not just its existence.
   • Overlap Comparison table: When Genesis has a comparable capability, produce the Overlap Comparison table (see Output Format below) instead of prose claims like "we already have this." Required whenever rigor gap is not "N/A — no Genesis equivalent."
4. Recommend — One of: ADOPT, WATCH, IGNORE, ADAPT (take the idea, not the tool). ADAPT is the most common valuable outcome — stealing patterns, measurement approaches, or architectural rigor from a reference without adopting its code.
5. Write output — Structured evaluation in the format below.

Output Format

When invoked from the inbox, follow the output template in INBOX_EVALUATE.md (summary-first, then lens-by-lens). When invoked standalone (e.g., /evaluate), use this structure:

{target title or URL} — {recommendation: ADOPT | WATCH | IGNORE | ADAPT}

Summary

{1-2 paragraphs: what this is, what it means for Genesis, and the key architectural implications. Lead with what matters most. This is a TLDR — if a scoring axis is unremarkable, skip it here.}

Scores: Capability gap: {low|medium|high} · Replacement risk: {low|medium|high} · Integration cost: {low|medium|high} · Lock-in risk: {low|medium|high}

Action items:

• {concrete next step if any}

Recommendation

action: ADAPT              # ADOPT | ADAPT | WATCH | IGNORE
next_step: "One concrete sentence — what specifically to do next"
effort: Small              # Trivial | Small | Medium | Large
scope: V4                  # V4 (current) | V5 (next) | Future | Never
confidence: high           # low | medium | high
architecture_impact: extends  # validates | extends | challenges | irrelevant

Rules:

• REQUIRED on every evaluation. No exceptions.
• The action field must match your recommendation in the Summary.
• next_step must be a single concrete sentence. "Investigate further" is not concrete. "Extract their prompt-versioning schema and compare to genesis.memory.prompt_versions table" is concrete.
• Before rating IGNORE: check if the topic (not just the source) is relevant to any active skill in src/genesis/skills/. A shallow source can raise an important idea. Evaluate the idea, not the container. If the topic matters, research it and rate the underlying concept — even if the source itself is thin.

Overlap Comparison

{INCLUDE ONLY when Genesis has a comparable capability. OMIT entirely when there is no Genesis equivalent. Minimum 3 rows.}

Dimension	Their approach	Our approach	Gap
...	...	...	...

{1-2 sentences synthesizing the table: where we're genuinely ahead, where we're behind, and what the actionable delta is.}

How It Helps

{Direct applicability, ready-to-use tools, validated patterns}

How It Doesn't Help

{Incompatibilities, misalignment, maturity concerns}

How It COULD Help

{Patterns worth stealing, future version ideas, creative applications. Think beyond "adopt this tool" — consider incremental improvements to how we already do something, upgrades to existing approaches, better measurement of something we currently vibes-check, or architectural patterns that would make an existing subsystem more rigorous.}

What to Learn

{Engineering patterns, competitive positioning, design principles.

When Genesis has something comparable, the Overlap Comparison table above IS your primary evidence for this lens — synthesize what the table reveals about our implementation quality. The question is never "do we have something that resembles this?" It's "are we doing this well enough to get the benefits it promises?"

Examples of what "gap" looks like in practice:

• "We have prompts" vs "we have versioned prompts with outcome linkage"
• "We have task tracking" vs "we have verified completion rate metrics"
• "We have memory" vs "we have continuous quality scoring with regression tracking"
• "We have approval gates" vs "we have pass-state gating where the harness verifies independently"

Surface the gap between having a feature and having it work at the level of rigor the reference describes.}

References

• docs/architecture/genesis-v3-vision.md — Core philosophy for fit assessment
• docs/architecture/genesis-v3-gap-assessment.md — Known gaps to check against
• docs/architecture/genesis-v3-autonomous-behavior-design.md — System design