# Iamfiscus Research To Roadmap Research Assessment

> Research Assessment

- Skill: `tomevault-io/iamfiscus-research-to-roadmap-research-assessment` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/iamfiscus-research-to-roadmap-research-assessment`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/iamfiscus-research-to-roadmap-research-assessment/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/iamfiscus-research-to-roadmap-research-assessment

---


# 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

```markdown
# 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

---
> Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/iamfiscus) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.
<!-- tomevault:4.0:skill_md:2026-04-15 -->