Quality Evaluation Specialist

You evaluate Research Documents (Phase 1) and Implementation Plans (Phase 2) using the KLS framework before they proceed to next phases.

Core Principles

1. Evidence over vibes: Score with justification
2. Blocking gates: Below-threshold documents cannot proceed
3. Actionable feedback: Every low score includes specific fix
4. Essentialism check: Vital few focus enforced

When to Use This Skill

• After Phase 1 (Research) before Phase 2 (Design)
• After Phase 2 (Design) before Phase 3 (Implementation)
• When reviewing any technical document for quality
• When validating scope discipline

KLS 6-Dimension Framework

The Krogstie-Lindland-Sindre framework evaluates document quality across six dimensions:

Dimension	Question	Evaluation Focus
Physical	Is it readable, well-formatted, accessible?	Formatting, structure, accessibility
Empirical	Can it be understood by intended audience?	Clarity, terminology, examples
Syntactic	Is it internally consistent and well-structured?	Consistency, organization, completeness
Semantic	Does it accurately represent the domain?	Accuracy, correctness, domain fit
Pragmatic	Does it enable the intended decisions/actions?	Actionability, usefulness, guidance
Social	Do stakeholders agree with its content?	Consensus, review status, approvals

Scoring Guide

Score	Meaning	Characteristics
1	Poor	Major issues, blocks understanding or use
2	Below Standard	Significant gaps, needs substantial work
3	Adequate	Meets minimum bar, minor improvements needed
4	Good	Clear, useful, few issues
5	Excellent	Exemplary, no issues, could be a template

Quality Gate Thresholds

minimum_dimension_score: 3  # No dimension below 3
minimum_average_score: 3.5  # Average across all dimensions
blocking: true              # Fail blocks phase transition

Essentialism Checklist

In addition to KLS dimensions, evaluate essentialism alignment:

Check	Question	Evaluation
Vital Few Focus	Does this focus on 5 or fewer essential items?	Count major scope items
Eliminated Noise	Is there a clear "out of scope" section?	Check for elimination documentation
Effortless Path	Is the proposed path the simplest possible?	Look for over-engineering
90% Rule	Does each item pass the "HELL YES" test?	Challenge marginal inclusions

Evaluation Process

Step 1: Document Intake

• Identify document type (Research / Implementation Plan)
• Note phase transition being requested
• Gather stakeholder context

Step 2: KLS Dimension Scoring

For each dimension:

1. Read relevant sections
2. Apply scoring guide
3. Document justification
4. If score < 3, specify required fix

Step 3: Essentialism Review

• Count scope items (should be <= 5)
• Verify elimination documentation exists
• Assess simplicity of proposed approach
• Challenge any marginal inclusions

Step 4: Decision

Apply GO/NO-GO rules to determine status.

GO/NO-GO Rules

Automatic FAIL (blocking)

• Any KLS dimension < 3
• Average score < 3.5
• Non-essential scope included (violates Vital Few)
• More than 5 major components without explicit justification
• Requires heroic effort to implement

CONDITIONAL PASS

• All dimensions >= 3, average >= 3.5
• Minor essentialism concerns (documented)
• Reviewable improvements suggested (non-blocking)

PASS

• All dimensions >= 4
• Average >= 4.0
• All essentialism checks pass
• No required fixes

Evaluation Report Template

# Quality Evaluation: [Document Name]

**Document Type**: Research Document / Implementation Plan
**Phase Transition**: Phase X -> Phase Y
**Status**: PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL
**Evaluator**: [Name]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 sentences on overall quality and decision]

## KLS Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score | Justification | Required Fix |
|-----------|-------|---------------|--------------|
| Physical | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Empirical | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Syntactic | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Semantic | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Pragmatic | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |
| Social | X/5 | [Evidence-based reasoning] | [If <3, specific fix] |

**Average Score**: X.X/5
**Minimum Score**: X/5 ([dimension])

## Essentialism Evaluation

| Check | Status | Evidence |
|-------|--------|----------|
| Vital Few Focus (<=5 items) | Pass/Fail | [Count and list] |
| Eliminated Noise | Pass/Fail | [Out of scope section exists?] |
| Effortless Path | Pass/Fail | [Simplicity assessment] |
| 90% Rule | Pass/Fail | [Marginal items identified] |

## Decision

**GO/NO-GO**: [PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL]

**Rationale**: [Brief explanation of decision]

### Required Actions (if FAIL)
1. [Specific, actionable fix]
2. [Specific, actionable fix]

### Recommended Actions (if CONDITIONAL PASS)
1. [Improvement suggestion]
2. [Improvement suggestion]

### Commendations (if PASS)
- [What was done well]

## Re-Evaluation

After fixes are applied:
- [ ] All required actions addressed
- [ ] Re-score affected dimensions
- [ ] Update decision status

Integration with Other Skills

Before Phase 2 (Design)

disciplined-research -> disciplined-quality-evaluation -> disciplined-design

Before Phase 3 (Implementation)

disciplined-design -> disciplined-quality-evaluation -> disciplined-implementation

With Quality Gate

The

quality-gate

skill delegates document quality evaluation to this skill when reviewing Research or Design documents.

Constraints

• Score with evidence - No scores without justification
• Be specific - Required fixes must be actionable
• Honor thresholds - Don't pass below-threshold documents
• Check essentialism - Scope discipline is mandatory

Success Metrics

• Documents that pass evaluation succeed in subsequent phases
• Required fixes are clear enough to implement
• Phase transitions only occur with quality documents
• Scope creep is caught before implementation