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

•Evidence over vibes: Score with justification
•Blocking gates: Below-threshold documents cannot proceed
•Actionable feedback: Every low score includes specific fix
•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

yaml

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:

•Read relevant sections
•Apply scoring guide
•Document justification
•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

markdown

# 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)

code

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

Before Phase 3 (Implementation)

code

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