When this skill is invoked:
- •
Read the task description from the argument. If the description is too vague to estimate meaningfully, ask for clarification before proceeding.
- •
Read CLAUDE.md for project context: tech stack, coding standards, architectural patterns, and any estimation guidelines.
- •
Read relevant design documents from
design/gdd/if the task relates to a documented feature or system. - •
Scan the codebase to understand the systems affected by this task:
- •Identify files and modules that would need to change
- •Assess the complexity of those files (size, dependency count, cyclomatic complexity)
- •Identify integration points with other systems
- •Check for existing test coverage in the affected areas
- •
Read past sprint data from
production/sprints/if available:- •Look for similar completed tasks and their actual effort
- •Calculate historical velocity (planned vs actual)
- •Identify any estimation bias patterns (consistently over or under)
- •
Analyze the following factors:
Code Complexity:
- •Lines of code in affected files
- •Number of dependencies and coupling level
- •Whether this touches core/engine code vs leaf/feature code
- •Whether existing patterns can be followed or new patterns are needed
Scope:
- •Number of systems touched
- •New code vs modification of existing code
- •Amount of new test coverage required
- •Data migration or configuration changes needed
Risk:
- •New technology or unfamiliar libraries
- •Unclear or ambiguous requirements
- •Dependencies on unfinished work
- •Cross-system integration complexity
- •Performance sensitivity
- •
Generate the estimate:
markdown
## Task Estimate: [Task Name] Generated: [Date] ### Task Description [Restate the task clearly in 1-2 sentences] ### Complexity Assessment | Factor | Assessment | Notes | |--------|-----------|-------| | Systems affected | [List] | [Core, gameplay, UI, etc.] | | Files likely modified | [Count] | [Key files listed below] | | New code vs modification | [Ratio, e.g., 70% new / 30% modification] | | | Integration points | [Count] | [Which systems interact] | | Test coverage needed | [Low / Medium / High] | [Unit, integration, manual] | | Existing patterns available | [Yes / Partial / No] | [Can follow existing code or new ground] | **Key files likely affected:** - `[path/to/file1]` -- [what changes here] - `[path/to/file2]` -- [what changes here] - `[path/to/file3]` -- [what changes here] ### Effort Estimate | Scenario | Days | Assumption | |----------|------|------------| | Optimistic | [X] | Everything goes right, no surprises, requirements are clear | | Expected | [Y] | Normal pace, minor issues, one round of review feedback | | Pessimistic | [Z] | Significant unknowns surface, blocked for a day, requirements change | **Recommended budget: [Y days]** [If historical data is available: "Based on [N] similar tasks that averaged [X] days actual vs [Y] days estimated, a [correction factor] adjustment has been applied."] ### Confidence: [High / Medium / Low] **High** -- Clear requirements, familiar systems, follows existing patterns, similar tasks completed before. **Medium** -- Some unknowns, touches moderately complex systems, partial precedent from previous work. **Low** -- Significant unknowns, new technology, unclear requirements, or cross-cutting concerns across many systems. [Explain which factors drive the confidence level for this specific task.] ### Risk Factors | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | |------|-----------|--------|------------| | [Specific risk] | [High/Med/Low] | [Days added if realized] | [How to reduce] | | [Another risk] | [Likelihood] | [Impact] | [Mitigation] | ### Dependencies | Dependency | Status | Impact if Delayed | |-----------|--------|-------------------| | [What must be done first] | [Done / In Progress / Not Started] | [How it affects this task] | ### Suggested Breakdown | # | Sub-task | Estimate | Notes | |---|----------|----------|-------| | 1 | [Research / spike] | [X days] | [If unknowns need investigation first] | | 2 | [Core implementation] | [X days] | [The main work] | | 3 | [Integration with system X] | [X days] | [Connecting to existing code] | | 4 | [Testing and validation] | [X days] | [Writing tests, manual verification] | | 5 | [Code review and iteration] | [X days] | [Review feedback, fixes] | | | **Total** | **[Y days]** | | ### Historical Comparison [If similar tasks exist in sprint history:] | Similar Task | Estimated | Actual | Relevant Difference | |-------------|-----------|--------|-------------------| | [Past task 1] | [X days] | [Y days] | [What makes it similar/different] | | [Past task 2] | [X days] | [Y days] | [What makes it similar/different] | ### Notes and Assumptions - [Key assumption that affects the estimate] - [Another assumption] - [Any caveats about scope boundaries -- what is included vs excluded] - [Recommendations: e.g., "Consider a spike first if requirement X is unclear"]
- •Output the estimate to the user with a brief summary: recommended budget, confidence level, and the single biggest risk factor.
Guidelines
- •Always give a range (optimistic / expected / pessimistic), never a single number. Single-point estimates create false precision.
- •The recommended budget should be the expected estimate, not the optimistic one. Padding is not dishonest -- it is realistic.
- •If confidence is Low, recommend a time-boxed spike or prototype before committing to the full estimate.
- •Be explicit about what is included and excluded. Scope ambiguity is the most common source of estimation error.
- •Round to half-day increments. Estimating in hours implies false precision for tasks longer than a day.
- •If the task is too large to estimate confidently (more than 10 days expected), recommend breaking it into smaller tasks and estimating those individually.
- •Do not pad estimates silently. If risk exists, call it out explicitly in the risk factors section so the team can decide how to handle it.