research-assessment

name	research-assessment
description	Use this skill when evaluating research projects, POCs, experiments, or prototypes for production readiness. Provides the "What Did We Prove?" framework, production readiness checklist, and gap analysis matrix for systematic research evaluation.
version	0.1.0

Research Assessment

Systematically evaluate research artifacts to determine production readiness.

When to Use

• Evaluating a POC before committing to production build
• Assessing what an experiment actually proved vs assumed
• Identifying gaps between prototype and production requirements
• Creating readiness checklists for stakeholder review
• Analyzing ADRs for implementation implications

Core Framework: "What Did We Prove?"

Before planning production work, separate fact from assumption:

Validated (Evidence Exists)

Claims with concrete evidence:

• Test results that passed
• Benchmarks with data
• User feedback collected
• Integration confirmed working

Assumed (No Direct Test)

Claims we believe but haven't verified:

• "It should scale" (but no load test)
• "Users will want this" (but no validation)
• "Security is fine" (but no audit)

Unknown (Gap)

Things we don't know:

• Untested edge cases
• Unexplored failure modes
• Missing requirements

Production Readiness Checklist

Score each criterion 1-10:

Criterion	Weight	Questions to Ask
Core hypothesis validated	20%	Did the experiment prove what we set out to prove?
Performance benchmarks	15%	Do we have latency, throughput, resource usage data?
Security considerations	15%	Have we identified and addressed security risks?
Scalability tested	10%	Will it work at 10x, 100x current scale?
Error handling	10%	What happens when things fail?
Observability	10%	Can we monitor and debug in production?
Documentation	10%	Could someone else take this over?
Knowledge transfer	10%	Is knowledge spread across the team?

Scoring Guide:

• 8-10: Production-ready with minor polish
• 6-7: Needs targeted work in specific areas
• 4-5: Significant gaps requiring substantial effort
• 1-3: Research phase, not ready for production planning

Gap Analysis Matrix

Use this template to map what's proven vs unknown:

Domain	Proven	Assumed	Unknown
Functionality	Feature X works	Feature Y will work similarly	Edge case behavior
Performance	100ms p50 latency	Will scale linearly	Performance under load
Security	Auth works	No vulnerabilities	Penetration test results
Scalability	Works for 100 users	Will work for 10K	Actual breaking point
Operations	Can deploy manually	Automation will work	Rollback procedure
Integration	API contract defined	Will integrate smoothly	Error handling at boundaries

Red Flags Checklist

Watch for these patterns that indicate low readiness:

• Happy path only - no error handling
• Hardcoded values that need configuration
• "TODO" comments for critical functionality
• No tests or only manual testing
• Single contributor (bus factor = 1)
• Missing logging/monitoring hooks
• No documentation of design decisions
• Untested third-party dependencies
• Security considerations deferred
• No rollback or recovery plan

Output Template

# Research Assessment: [Project Name]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: what this is, key finding, readiness score]

## What Did We Prove?

### Validated Hypotheses
- **[Hypothesis]**: [Evidence] (Confidence: High/Medium/Low)

### Key Findings
1. [Finding with evidence]

## Production Readiness: X/10

| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Core hypothesis | X | |
| Performance | X | |
| Security | X | |
| Scalability | X | |
| Error handling | X | |
| Observability | X | |
| Documentation | X | |
| Knowledge transfer | X | |

## Gap Analysis

| Domain | Proven | Assumed | Unknown |
|--------|--------|---------|---------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Risks & Technical Debt
- [Item with severity]

## Recommended Next Steps
1. [Action]

Progressive Validation Ramp

Before investing in production readiness, projects must pass increasingly rigorous gates. Apply the "80% of experiments should fail" philosophy:

Gate	Kill Rate	Key Question
Idea → Internal Build	~40%	Is the problem real and worth solving?
Internal → Private Preview	~30%	Have we built something worth testing externally?
Private → Public Preview	~30%	Are external users getting value?
Public → GA	~10%	Are we ready to bet the company reputation?

See references/graduation-criteria.md for detailed gate requirements.

References

See references/ for:

• readiness-criteria.md - Detailed scoring rubrics
• common-gaps.md - Typical gaps by project type
• graduation-criteria.md - Gate criteria and kill decisions (GitHub Next patterns)
• rfc-templates.md - Google, Uber, Sourcegraph RFC formats

See examples/ for:

• poc-assessment-example.md - Vector Search POC with full "What Did We Prove?" framework
• gate-review-example.md - Internal Build → Private Preview graduation checklist