# Complexity Assessment > Use when assessing task complexity, determining workflow depth, asking "how complex is this?", "should I use a worktree?", "is this a big change?", or sizing work before planning. Analyzes 7 dimensions (scope, integration, infrastructure, knowledge, risk, testing, decomposability) to return SIMPLE, STANDARD, or COMPLEX tier with confidence scoring. Includes intent confirmation gating and review agent selection hints for consensus-review integration. - Skill: `tomevault-io/complexity-assessment` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/complexity-assessment` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/complexity-assessment/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/complexity-assessment --- # Complexity Assessment Evaluate task complexity before planning to ensure appropriate workflow depth and artifact structure. ## Contextd Integration If contextd MCP is available: - `memory_search` to find similar past assessments - `memory_record` for tier recommendations with rationale - `memory_outcome` to track assessment accuracy over time - `branch_create/return` for isolated assessment If contextd is NOT available: - Assessment runs inline (still works) - No persistence of tier decisions - No historical comparison available ## When to Use This skill is called by `/brainstorm` Phase 2 to determine: - Question depth (SIMPLE: 3-5, STANDARD: 8-12, COMPLEX: 15+) - GitHub artifact structure (single issue vs epic + sub-issues vs project board) - Worktree recommendation - Context branch budget allocation --- ## 7 Dimensions Assess each dimension and aggregate to determine tier: ### 1. Scope **Question:** How many files will be touched? | Files | Score | Indicator | |-------|-------|-----------| | 1-2 | 1 | Single component, localized change | | 3-10 | 2 | Multiple components, cross-cutting | | 10+ | 3 | System-wide, architectural change | ### 2. Integration **Question:** What external dependencies are involved? | Dependencies | Score | Indicator | |--------------|-------|-----------| | None | 1 | Self-contained, no external calls | | 1-2 APIs/services | 2 | Moderate integration work | | 3+ APIs/services | 3 | Complex orchestration required | ### 3. Infrastructure **Question:** Are config/infra changes required? | Changes | Score | Indicator | |---------|-------|-----------| | None | 1 | Code-only change | | Config files | 2 | Environment variables, feature flags | | New infra | 3 | Database, Docker, cloud resources | ### 4. Knowledge **Question:** What domain expertise is required? | Expertise | Score | Indicator | |-----------|-------|-----------| | Familiar patterns | 1 | Standard CRUD, common patterns | | Some research | 2 | New library, unfamiliar domain | | Deep expertise | 3 | Security, performance, compliance | ### 5. Risk **Question:** What's the blast radius if something goes wrong? | Risk | Score | Indicator | |------|-------|-----------| | Low | 1 | Easily reversible, non-critical path | | Medium | 2 | User-facing, requires testing | | High | 3 | Data integrity, security, payments | ### 6. Testing (New) **Question:** What testing effort is required? | Testing | Score | Indicator | |---------|-------|-----------| | Minimal | 1 | Unit tests only, existing patterns | | Moderate | 2 | Integration tests, new test fixtures | | Extensive | 3 | E2E tests, performance tests, security audits | ### 7. Decomposability (New) **Question:** Can this task be split into independent units? | Decomposability | Score | Indicator | |-----------------|-------|-----------| | Easily decomposable | 1 | Clear subtasks, no shared state | | Partially decomposable | 2 | Some dependencies between subtasks | | Monolithic | 3 | Tightly coupled, must be done together | --- ## Risk Multipliers Apply these multipliers to the base score when present: | Factor | Multiplier | When to Apply | |--------|------------|---------------| | Security-sensitive | 1.2x | Auth, encryption, user data, API keys | | Data migration | 1.3x | Schema changes, data transformations | | Breaking changes | 1.2x | API changes, deprecated features | | Technical debt | 1.1x | Working in legacy/poorly-tested code | | Time pressure | 1.1x | Urgent deadline, reduced review time | **Calculation:** `adjusted_score = base_score * highest_applicable_multiplier` --- ## Confidence Scoring Every assessment includes a confidence percentage (0-100%): | Confidence | Range | Criteria | |------------|-------|----------| | High | 80-100% | Clear requirements, familiar domain, similar past tasks | | Medium | 50-79% | Some ambiguity, partial familiarity | | Low | 0-49% | Unclear scope, unfamiliar domain, novel problem | **When confidence < 60%:** Use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify ambiguous dimensions before finalizing tier. **Confidence factors:** - Requirements clarity (+/- 20%) - Domain familiarity (+/- 15%) - Historical data available (+/- 15%) - Codebase familiarity (+/- 10%) --- ## Team Velocity Factors Adjust expectations based on team context: | Factor | Impact | Consideration | |--------|--------|---------------| | Team size | +/- 1 tier | Solo dev may need COMPLEX timeline adjustment | | Experience level | +/- 1 dimension score | Junior devs add +1 to Knowledge dimension | | Codebase familiarity | +/- 1 dimension score | New team members add +1 to Scope | | Concurrent priorities | +/- 1 tier | High WIP may require elevated treatment | --- ## Tier Calculation Sum scores across all 7 dimensions (max 21): | Total Score | Tier | Characteristics | |-------------|------|-----------------| | 7-11 | SIMPLE | Quick change, minimal planning needed | | 12-16 | STANDARD | Moderate complexity, structured approach | | 17-21 | COMPLEX | High complexity, extensive planning required | **After multipliers:** Round to nearest integer before tier assignment. --- ## Structured Output Return assessment as JSON for downstream consumption: ```json { "tier": "STANDARD", "confidence": 75, "confidence_justification": "Clear scope but unfamiliar OAuth library", "base_score": 14, "adjusted_score": 16.8, "multipliers_applied": ["security-sensitive"], "dimensions": { "scope": { "score": 2, "rationale": "Auth routes, middleware, user model, frontend" }, "integration": { "score": 2, "rationale": "OAuth provider API" }, "infrastructure": { "score": 2, "rationale": "Environment variables, session config" }, "knowledge": { "score": 2, "rationale": "OAuth2 flow, security best practices" }, "risk": { "score": 3, "rationale": "Security-critical, user data" }, "testing": { "score": 2, "rationale": "Integration tests for OAuth flow" }, "decomposability": { "score": 1, "rationale": "Backend/frontend can be parallelized" } }, "decomposition_suggestions": null, "historical_comparison": "Similar OAuth task took 3 iterations (Issue #45)", "team_velocity_adjustments": null, "integration_hints": { "github_artifact": "epic_with_sub_issues", "context_branch_budget": 8192, "worktree_recommended": true }, "recommended_agents": { "always": ["code-quality-reviewer"], "if_go": ["go-reviewer"], "if_security_sensitive": ["security-reviewer", "vulnerability-reviewer"], "if_api_change": ["user-persona-reviewer", "documentation-reviewer"], "all": false }, "intent_confirmation": { "required": true, "mode": "STANDARD" } } ``` --- ## Tier Implications ### SIMPLE (7-11) - **Questions:** 3-5 quick clarifications - **GitHub:** Single Issue with checklist - **Worktree:** Optional, can work in main - **Review:** Standard consensus review - **Context branch budget:** 4096 tokens - **Testing:** Unit tests, 70%+ coverage on new code ### STANDARD (12-16) - **Questions:** 8-12 detailed questions - **GitHub:** Epic Issue + sub-Issues - **Worktree:** Recommended for isolation - **Review:** Full consensus review - **Context branch budget:** 8192 tokens - **Testing:** Unit + integration tests, 80%+ coverage ### COMPLEX (17-21) - **Questions:** 15+ comprehensive questions - **GitHub:** Epic + sub-Issues + Project board - **Worktree:** Required for isolation - **Review:** Full consensus + additional scrutiny - **Context branch budget:** 16384 tokens - **Testing:** Unit + integration + E2E, 90%+ coverage, security audit --- ## Intent Confirmation Gating After tier determination, include an `intent_confirmation` field in the output to signal the **caller** whether intent confirmation is recommended: | Tier | Recommendation | |------|----------------| | SIMPLE (7-11) | `"intent_confirmation": "none"` - Caller should auto-proceed. | | STANDARD (12-16) | `"intent_confirmation": "standard"` - Caller should invoke intent-confirmation skill. | | COMPLEX (17-21) | `"intent_confirmation": "detailed"` - Caller should invoke intent-confirmation skill in DETAILED mode. | ### Integration Note **This skill does NOT invoke intent-confirmation itself.** It outputs a recommendation that the calling workflow uses to decide whether to invoke intent-confirmation. The typical workflow is: ``` Caller (e.g., /brainstorm, /plan): 1. Invoke complexity-assessment → returns tier + intent_confirmation field 2. If intent_confirmation != "none": → Invoke intent-confirmation skill with the recommended mode → Wait for user confirmation 3. Proceed with execution ``` This avoids a circular dependency between the two skills. ### DETAILED Mode (COMPLEX only) For COMPLEX tasks, the intent preview includes: - Full decomposition plan with subtask dependencies - Risk factors and mitigation strategy - Estimated resource usage (agents, branches, tokens) - Explicit list of files to be modified - User must respond with explicit "Yes" (not just acknowledgment) ### Why Gate on Complexity? - SIMPLE tasks should not slow down developer flow with unnecessary confirmation - STANDARD tasks benefit from a pause to ensure alignment - COMPLEX tasks require explicit buy-in because rollback cost is high - Research (JetBrains NeurIPS 2025) shows observation masking is 52% cheaper than full summarization; confirming intent early avoids wasted work on misunderstood requirements --- ## Review Agent Selection Include a `recommended_agents` field in the structured output based on the assessment. This allows the consensus-review skill to perform adaptive agent selection without re-analyzing the diff. ### Output Field ```json { "recommended_agents": { "always": ["code-quality-reviewer"], "if_go": ["go-reviewer"], "if_security_sensitive": ["security-reviewer", "vulnerability-reviewer"], "if_api_change": ["user-persona-reviewer", "documentation-reviewer"], "all": false } } ``` ### Selection Logic | Tier | `all` | Base Agents | |------|-------|-------------| | SIMPLE | `false` | `["code-quality-reviewer"]` | | STANDARD | `false` | `["code-quality-reviewer"]` + conditional agents | | COMPLEX | `true` | All 6 reviewers (overrides conditional logic) | ### Conditional Agent Triggers These are derived from the dimension scores: | Condition | Trigger | Agents Added | |-----------|---------|--------------| | Risk score >= 2 | Security-sensitive | `security-reviewer`, `vulnerability-reviewer` | | Knowledge score >= 2 AND domain is Go | Go code | `go-reviewer` | | Integration score >= 2 | API changes likely | `user-persona-reviewer`, `documentation-reviewer` | | Infrastructure score >= 2 | Config/infra changes | `security-reviewer` | | Scope score == 3 | System-wide change | All reviewers (`all: true`) | ### Integration with consensus-review The consensus-review skill reads `recommended_agents` from the assessment output: ``` 1. Run complexity-assessment → get tier + recommended_agents 2. Pass recommended_agents to consensus-review adaptive agent selection 3. Consensus-review merges recommended_agents with its own override rules 4. Final agent set = union(recommended_agents, override_agents) ``` --- ## Integration with Other Skills ### github-planning Integration Tier determines GitHub artifact structure: | Tier | Artifact Type | Details | |------|---------------|---------| | SIMPLE | Single Issue | Checklist in body, no sub-issues | | STANDARD | Epic + Sub-Issues | Parent issue links children | | COMPLEX | Epic + Sub-Issues + Project | Board with columns, milestones | ### context-folding Integration Tier determines branch budget: | Tier | Token Budget | Max Depth | |------|--------------|-----------| | SIMPLE | 4096 | 1 level | | STANDARD | 8192 | 2 levels | | COMPLEX | 16384 | 3 levels | --- ## Decomposition Suggestions For COMPLEX tasks (score 17+), provide decomposition suggestions: ```json { "decomposition_suggestions": [ { "subtask": "Backend OAuth integration", "estimated_tier": "STANDARD", "dependencies": [], "can_parallelize": true }, { "subtask": "Frontend auth UI components", "estimated_tier": "SIMPLE", "dependencies": [], "can_parallelize": true }, { "subtask": "Session management middleware", "estimated_tier": "SIMPLE", "dependencies": ["Backend OAuth integration"], "can_parallelize": false } ], "parallelization_potential": "2 of 3 subtasks can run in parallel", "recommended_approach": "Split into 3 issues, assign backend and frontend in parallel" } ``` --- ## Ambiguity Handling When confidence < 60%, use `AskUserQuestion` to clarify: ``` AskUserQuestion( question: "I'm uncertain about the complexity of this task. To provide an accurate assessment, I need clarification on:", options: [ "What external services/APIs will this integrate with?", "Are there existing tests I should reference for patterns?", "What's the expected timeline pressure?", "Are there schema/database changes involved?" ], allow_custom: true ) ``` **After clarification:** Re-score affected dimensions and recalculate tier. --- ## Historical Comparison When contextd is available, search for similar past assessments: ``` # Search for similar tasks mcp__contextd__memory_search( project_id: "", query: "", tags: ["complexity-assessment"] ) ``` Include in output: - Similar past tasks and their actual outcomes - Iteration count (how many rounds to complete) - Assessment accuracy (predicted vs actual complexity) **Example output:** ``` Historical comparison: "Similar OAuth task (Issue #45) was assessed as STANDARD, took 3 iterations to complete. Assessment was accurate." ``` --- ## Contextd Recording Store assessment in contextd with full rationale: ``` mcp__contextd__memory_record( project_id: "", title: "Complexity assessment: ", content: JSON.stringify({ tier: "", confidence: <0-100>, base_score: , adjusted_score: , dimensions: { }, multipliers: [], decomposition: , integration_hints: { } }), outcome: "success", tags: ["complexity-assessment", "", "confidence-"] ) ``` --- ## Example Assessment **Task:** "Add user authentication with OAuth2" | Dimension | Score | Rationale | |-----------|-------|-----------| | Scope | 2 | Auth routes, middleware, user model, frontend components | | Integration | 2 | OAuth provider API integration | | Infrastructure | 2 | Environment variables, session config | | Knowledge | 2 | OAuth2 flow, security best practices | | Risk | 3 | Security-critical, user data | | Testing | 2 | Integration tests for OAuth flow needed | | Decomposability | 1 | Backend/frontend can be parallelized | **Base Score:** 14/21 **Multiplier:** 1.2x (security-sensitive) **Adjusted Score:** 16.8 -> 17 = **COMPLEX** (borderline) **Confidence:** 75% (clear scope, unfamiliar library) **JSON Output:** ```json { "tier": "COMPLEX", "confidence": 75, "confidence_justification": "Clear scope but unfamiliar OAuth library", "base_score": 14, "adjusted_score": 17, "multipliers_applied": ["security-sensitive"], "dimensions": { "scope": { "score": 2, "rationale": "Auth routes, middleware, user model, frontend" }, "integration": { "score": 2, "rationale": "OAuth provider API" }, "infrastructure": { "score": 2, "rationale": "Environment variables, session config" }, "knowledge": { "score": 2, "rationale": "OAuth2 flow, security best practices" }, "risk": { "score": 3, "rationale": "Security-critical, user data" }, "testing": { "score": 2, "rationale": "Integration tests for OAuth flow" }, "decomposability": { "score": 1, "rationale": "Backend/frontend can be parallelized" } }, "decomposition_suggestions": [ { "subtask": "Backend OAuth routes", "estimated_tier": "STANDARD", "can_parallelize": true }, { "subtask": "Frontend auth UI", "estimated_tier": "SIMPLE", "can_parallelize": true } ], "historical_comparison": "Similar OAuth task took 3 iterations (Issue #45)", "integration_hints": { "github_artifact": "epic_with_sub_issues_and_project", "context_branch_budget": 16384, "worktree_recommended": true }, "recommended_agents": { "always": ["code-quality-reviewer"], "if_go": [], "if_security_sensitive": ["security-reviewer", "vulnerability-reviewer"], "if_api_change": ["user-persona-reviewer", "documentation-reviewer"], "all": true }, "intent_confirmation": { "required": true, "mode": "DETAILED" } } ``` --- ## Integration This skill is designed to be called by other commands/skills: ```markdown # In /brainstorm command Phase 2: ## Phase 2: Complexity Assessment (Context Folded) mcp__contextd__branch_create( session_id: "", description: "Assess task complexity", budget: 4096 ) 1. Search contextd for similar past assessments 2. Apply 7-dimension analysis to user's task description 3. Calculate confidence score 4. Apply risk multipliers if applicable 5. Calculate tier based on adjusted score 6. Generate decomposition suggestions if COMPLEX 7. Record assessment in contextd with full JSON mcp__contextd__branch_return( branch_id: "", message: JSON.stringify({ tier: "", confidence: <0-100>, score: "/", key_factors: [""], decomposition: , integration_hints: { github_artifact, context_branch_budget, worktree_recommended } }) ) ``` --- ## Mandatory Checklist **EVERY assessment MUST complete ALL steps:** - [ ] Search contextd for similar past assessments (if available) - [ ] Analyze Scope dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Analyze Integration dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Analyze Infrastructure dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Analyze Knowledge dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Analyze Risk dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Analyze Testing dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Analyze Decomposability dimension with score and rationale - [ ] Calculate base score (sum of 7 dimensions) - [ ] Apply risk multipliers if applicable - [ ] Calculate confidence score with justification - [ ] Determine tier from adjusted score - [ ] Generate decomposition suggestions if COMPLEX - [ ] Include integration hints (github-planning, context-folding) - [ ] Include `recommended_agents` field based on tier and dimension scores - [ ] Include `intent_confirmation` field (required + mode) - [ ] Gate on intent confirmation (STANDARD: show plan; COMPLEX: require explicit "Yes") - [ ] **RECORD to contextd** with full JSON (see Recording section) - [ ] Return structured JSON output **The assessment is NOT complete until contextd recording is done.** --- ## Red Flags - STOP and Reconsider If you're thinking any of these, you're about to violate the skill: | Thought | Reality | |---------|---------| | "This is obviously simple, no need to score" | Score anyway. Intuition misses edge cases. | | "I'll just say STANDARD to be safe" | Calculate the actual score. Don't guess. | | "Recording to contextd is optional" | Recording is MANDATORY. No exceptions. | | "Risk doesn't matter for this task" | Risk ALWAYS matters. Score it. | | "I can skip dimensions for simple tasks" | ALL 7 dimensions. Every time. | | "The user already knows the complexity" | Document for future sessions. Record it. | | "Confidence scoring is extra work" | Confidence enables better decisions. Calculate it. | | "Decomposition is only for COMPLEX" | Consider it for STANDARD too if helpful. | | "Historical comparison is optional" | Past data improves accuracy. Search for it. | | "Intent confirmation slows things down" | It prevents wasted work on misunderstood requirements. | | "I don't need to include recommended_agents" | Downstream consensus-review depends on it. Always include. | | "SIMPLE tasks don't need intent logging" | Log anyway. Calibration data improves future accuracy. | --- ## Common Mistakes | Mistake | Correct Approach | |---------|-----------------| | Inflating simple tasks | Typo fix = SIMPLE. Don't over-engineer. | | Deflating complex tasks | Payment/security = COMPLEX. Don't underestimate. | | Gut-feel tier assignment | Show your math. 7 dimensions, explicit scores. | | Skipping contextd | Recording enables future efficiency. Always record. | | Ignoring high-risk dimensions | Risk=3 deserves attention regardless of total. | | Not applying multipliers | Security/migrations/breaking changes need multipliers. | | Low confidence without clarification | Use AskUserQuestion when confidence < 60%. | | Missing decomposition for COMPLEX | Always suggest how to break down COMPLEX tasks. | | Returning text instead of JSON | Downstream tools expect structured output. | | Skipping intent confirmation for STANDARD | STANDARD requires plan approval before proceeding. | | Not including recommended_agents | consensus-review uses this for adaptive agent selection. | | Setting `all: true` for SIMPLE | Only COMPLEX warrants all 6 reviewers. | --- ## Tracking Assessment Accuracy After task completion, update the original assessment: ``` mcp__contextd__memory_outcome( memory_id: "", outcome: "success|partial|failure", notes: "Predicted STANDARD, actual was COMPLEX due to unexpected API rate limits" ) ``` **Track metrics over time:** - Tier prediction accuracy - Iteration count vs predicted - Common underestimation patterns - Team velocity calibration --- ## Attribution Adapted from Auto-Claude `complexity_assessor.md` by AndyMik90 (MIT). Enhanced with testing dimension, confidence scoring, decomposability analysis, and structured output. See CREDITS.md for full attribution. --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/fyrsmithlabs) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.