assess-epic-readiness

name	assess-epic-readiness
version	1.0.0
description	Evaluates whether epics are ready for PI or quarter planning by scoring 7 readiness dimensions.
category	planning
trigger	PI planning preparation, quarterly planning, backlog grooming, epic review.
autonomy	supervised
portability	universal
complexity	intermediate
type	evaluation
inputs	[{"name":"epics","type":"structured-text","required":true,"description":"List of epics to evaluate. Per epic: title, description, acceptance criteria, child tickets (with estimates if available), linked design artifacts, technical approach notes, identified dependencies, rollout strategy.\n"},{"name":"readiness_standard","type":"text","required":false,"description":"Custom readiness expectations. If not provided, the default 7-dimension framework is used.\n"}]
outputs	[{"name":"readiness_report","type":"structured-text","description":"Per-epic scorecard with dimension scores, overall classification (Ready / Partially Ready / Not Ready), and specific gaps to address.\n"}]
model_compatibility	["claude","gpt-4","gemini","llama-3"]

Assess Epic Readiness

Evaluate whether epics meet a quality bar for planning commitment. Prevents teams from committing to poorly defined work that will derail mid-sprint.

When to Use

• Before PI or quarterly planning sessions
• During backlog grooming when epics are promoted to "ready for planning"
• When a Delivery Manager needs to assess whether a set of epics is plannable
• As a gate before adding epics to a PI commitment table

Method

Step 1: Score each epic across 7 dimensions

For each epic, evaluate these dimensions independently. Score each: Ready (2), Partial (1), Missing (0).

Dimension 1 — Problem Statement and User Value

Does the epic clearly articulate what problem it solves and why it matters?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	Clear problem statement, target user identified, business value articulated, success metrics defined
1 (Partial)	Problem is understood but vaguely stated, or value is assumed but not quantified
0 (Missing)	No description, or description is a technical task with no user context

Dimension 2 — Acceptance Criteria

Are the conditions for "done" clearly defined?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	Testable acceptance criteria listed (3+ criteria for a typical epic), edge cases considered
1 (Partial)	Some criteria exist but are vague ("it should work well") or incomplete
0 (Missing)	No acceptance criteria defined

Dimension 3 — Breakdown and Estimation

Has the epic been decomposed into plannable child tickets with estimates?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	Child tickets created, 80%+ have story point estimates, total scope is clear
1 (Partial)	Some child tickets exist but <50% estimated, or breakdown is too coarse
0 (Missing)	No child tickets, or epic is a single monolithic item

Dimension 4 — Design and UX

Are design decisions made and artifacts available?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	Design artifacts linked (mockups, wireframes, prototypes), design review completed
1 (Partial)	Design direction agreed but artifacts incomplete, or design review pending
0 (Missing)	No design work started, or "TBD" noted

For backend-only epics with no UI component, score this dimension based on API contract or data model design instead. Note: "No UX component — scored on technical design."

Dimension 5 — Technical Approach

Is the implementation approach understood?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	Technical approach documented or spiked, major risks identified, architecture reviewed
1 (Partial)	General approach agreed but not documented, or spike needed for a specific area
0 (Missing)	No technical discussion, or approach is "figure it out during the sprint"

Dimension 6 — Dependencies

Are external dependencies identified and their status known?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	All dependencies identified, linked, owners confirmed, delivery timelines agreed
1 (Partial)	Dependencies identified but not all confirmed, or timelines are tentative
0 (Missing)	Dependencies not assessed, or "probably no dependencies" without verification

Dimension 7 — Rollout Strategy

Is there a plan for how this reaches users?

Score	Criteria
2 (Ready)	Feature flag strategy defined, rollout phases planned, rollback plan documented
1 (Partial)	Will use feature flags but phases not defined, or rollback approach is "revert the PR"
0 (Missing)	No rollout plan, or assumption of big-bang release

For teams not using feature flags or progressive rollout, adjust this dimension to assess release planning (which version, what release notes, any migration steps).

Step 2: Classify each epic

Total Score (out of 14)	Classification
12-14	Ready — can be committed to in planning
8-11	Partially Ready — can be planned with identified gaps as prerequisites
0-7	Not Ready — requires significant preparation before commitment

Step 3: Identify specific gaps

For each epic scoring below Ready, list the specific gaps that need to be addressed. Be concrete:

• Bad: "Needs better acceptance criteria"
• Good: "Acceptance criteria missing for the error handling and edge cases (only happy path defined)"

Step 4: Generate aggregate summary

Across all evaluated epics:

• Count by classification (Ready / Partially Ready / Not Ready)
• Identify the most common gap across epics (e.g., "4 of 6 epics lack dependency analysis")
• Assess overall planning readiness: can planning proceed, or should it be delayed?

Output Format

## Epic Readiness Assessment

**Date**: {date}
**Scope**: {planning period — e.g., "PI 26.3" or "Q2 2026"}
**Epics evaluated**: {count}

### Summary

| Classification | Count | Percentage |
|---------------|-------|-----------|
| Ready | {n} | {%} |
| Partially Ready | {n} | {%} |
| Not Ready | {n} | {%} |

**Planning readiness**: {Ready to proceed | Proceed with caveats | Delay recommended}
**Most common gap**: {description}

---

### {Epic Title}

**Classification**: {Ready|Partially Ready|Not Ready} ({score}/14)

| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Problem & Value | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Acceptance Criteria | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Breakdown & Estimation | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Design & UX | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Technical Approach | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Dependencies | {0-2} | {detail} |
| Rollout Strategy | {0-2} | {detail} |

**Gaps to address**:
1. {specific gap with recommendation}
2. {specific gap with recommendation}

---

(repeat for each epic)

**Confidence**: {High|Medium|Low} — {justification}

Error Handling

• If epic data is sparse (title only, no description): score all dimensions as 0 (Missing) and classify as Not Ready. Note: "Insufficient data to evaluate — epic has no description or child tickets."
• If a dimension is not applicable (e.g., no UX for a backend migration): score it as Ready (2) and note "N/A — no UX component." Do not penalize epics for dimensions that genuinely do not apply.
• If fewer than 3 epics are provided: evaluate individually but note "Small sample — aggregate patterns may not be meaningful."

Self-Consistency Note

For borderline epics (near the Ready/Partially Ready or Partially Ready/Not Ready threshold), consider whether a slightly different weighting of the dimensions would change the classification. If it would, note the ambiguity and downgrade confidence to Medium.