Strategic Review (Pre-Launch Evaluation)

Systematic quality evaluation before public exposure. This command should be run AFTER the project is functionally complete but BEFORE any public launch (HN, Reddit, blog posts, Product Hunt, etc.).

Purpose

Prevent embarrassing quality gaps from undermining a strong project. A single broken demo, unclear README, or poor-quality generated output can kill launch momentum permanently.

Phase 1: Load Context

1. Read .ideas/brainstorm-expansion.md if it exists — understand strategic goals
2. Read .ideas/execution-plan.md if it exists — understand quality audit findings
3. Read README.md — evaluate first-impression quality
4. Read core outputs — whatever the project generates, evaluate the output quality
5. Run tests if a test suite exists — verify everything passes

Phase 2: Output Quality Evaluation

Score every generated/public output on these dimensions:

Evaluation Rubric (apply to each output)

Dimension	Score (1-5)	Weight	Criteria
Accuracy		25%	Does the output correctly represent reality? No hallucinations, wrong data, or stale info?
Completeness		20%	Does it cover all cases? What percentage of the domain is captured?
Usefulness		25%	Does it actually help the user accomplish their goal better than alternatives?
Format Quality		15%	Is it well-structured, consistent, readable, properly formatted?
Freshness		15%	Is the data current? Are there stale references or outdated information?

Scoring Guide

• 5: Exceptional — better than hand-crafted alternatives
• 4: Good — minor gaps, clearly useful
• 3: Adequate — functional but could be better
• 2: Below average — notable gaps or issues
• 1: Poor — needs significant rework

For each output, document:

#### [Output Name]
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Accuracy | [1-5] | [specific examples] |
| Completeness | [1-5] | [what's missing] |
| Usefulness | [1-5] | [compared to what alternative?] |
| Format Quality | [1-5] | [specific issues] |
| Freshness | [1-5] | [stale items found] |
| **Weighted Total** | **[/5]** | |

**Top 3 improvements needed:**
1. [specific, actionable improvement]
2. [specific, actionable improvement]
3. [specific, actionable improvement]

Phase 3: Cross-Output Consistency

If the project generates multiple outputs (e.g., plugins for different CLIs):

1. Variance analysis: Score all outputs, identify highest and lowest quality
2. Systematic bias: Does the system favor certain input types over others?
3. Edge cases: What happens with unusual inputs (very large, very small, empty, exotic)?

Output Format

### Cross-Output Consistency

| Output | Accuracy | Completeness | Usefulness | Format | Freshness | Total |
|--------|----------|-------------|------------|--------|-----------|-------|
| [output 1] | [score] | ... | ... | ... | ... | [weighted] |
| [output 2] | [score] | ... | ... | ... | ... | [weighted] |
| ...

**Best**: [which and why]
**Worst**: [which and why]
**Systematic bias**: [if any detected]
**Edge case gaps**: [if any found]

Phase 4: README Conversion Audit

The README is the #1 conversion surface. Evaluate:

Element	Present?	Score (1-5)	Notes
Hook/tagline	Yes/No		Does it grab attention in 5 seconds?
Problem statement	Yes/No		Is the pain point immediately clear?
Solution	Yes/No		Is the value prop obvious?
Demo GIF/video	Yes/No		Does it show the magic in <30 seconds?
Badges	Yes/No		License, CI, version, downloads, language
Quick start (< 3 commands)	Yes/No		Can someone try it in 60 seconds?
Comparison with alternatives	Yes/No		Why this over existing solutions?
Stats/proof	Yes/No		Numbers that prove it works
Installation	Yes/No		Clear, copy-pasteable
Examples	Yes/No		Real-world use cases
Architecture	Yes/No		For those who want to understand internals
Contributing guide	Yes/No		Path for community involvement
License	Yes/No		Clear and visible
Author/credits	Yes/No		Who built this

README Score Card

• Elements present: [X/14]
• Average quality: [X/5]
• Estimated visitor→star conversion: [X%] (industry avg: 2-3%)
• Top 3 improvements for conversion:
  1. [specific improvement]
  2. [specific improvement]
  3. [specific improvement]

Phase 5: DX (Developer Experience) Audit

Test the actual user journey. Actually run commands, don't just describe them.

Installation Flow

1. Can a new user install in <60 seconds? Try it: run pip install or the documented method.
2. Are there hidden dependencies? Check pyproject.toml/requirements for completeness.
3. Do error messages guide toward resolution? Run with bad input and check stderr.
4. Does --help work and make sense? Run it.
5. Does --version work? Run it.

First-Use Flow

1. Can a new user get value in <5 minutes?
2. Is there a "hello world" example?
3. Are common mistakes handled gracefully?
4. Is output clear and well-formatted?

Score

Dimension	Score (1-5)	Issues Found
Installation ease
Time to first value
Error handling quality
Help text quality
Output quality

Phase 5b: Code Quality Spot-Check

Read 3-5 core source files and look for actual bugs:

• Dead code / no-op functions
• Thread safety issues
• Broken configuration (TOML/JSON/YAML syntax, wrong paths)
• Runtime output captured as data (error messages as descriptions, warnings as content)
• Hardcoded values that should be configurable

Report findings with specific file:line references. This is NOT a full audit — it's a spot-check to catch the most embarrassing issues before a public audience sees the code.

Phase 6: Security & Trust Audit

Before public launch, verify:

Check	Status	Notes
No hardcoded secrets in repo	PASS/FAIL
Subprocess execution is safe	PASS/FAIL	Check for command injection vectors
Dependencies are minimal/audited	PASS/FAIL
License is clear	PASS/FAIL
Author attribution is correct	PASS/FAIL
No accidental PII in outputs	PASS/FAIL
.gitignore covers sensitive files	PASS/FAIL

Phase 7: Competitive Positioning Check

Quick validation that the project's positioning holds up:

1. Search for competitors: Search GitHub, Google, and HN for similar projects launched in the last 6 months
2. Feature comparison: Does the project still have unique advantages?
3. Messaging check: Is the positioning still accurate and differentiated?
4. Timing check: Is this the right moment to launch? Any upcoming events (conferences, product launches) that could amplify or compete?

Phase 8: Launch Readiness Scorecard

Final Go/No-Go Assessment

Category	Score (1-5)	Weight	Weighted
Output quality		25%
README/docs quality		20%
Developer experience		20%
Security/trust		15%
Competitive positioning		10%
Test coverage		10%
TOTAL			[/5]

Decision Matrix

• 4.0+: GREEN — Launch confidently
• 3.0-3.9: YELLOW — Launch with noted improvements planned
• 2.0-2.9: RED — Fix critical issues before launching
• <2.0: STOP — Not ready for public exposure

Action Items Before Launch

Numbered list of specific, prioritized improvements. Flag any that are BLOCKERS (must fix) vs NICE-TO-HAVE (fix if time).

Phase 9: Save Output

1. Save to .ideas/evaluation-results.md
2. If overall score is YELLOW or RED, create .ideas/launch-blockers.md with just the blocking items

Output Structure

# [Project] -- Strategic Review (Pre-Launch Evaluation)

**Date:** [today]
**Overall Score:** [X/5] — [GREEN/YELLOW/RED]
**Recommendation:** [Launch / Fix then launch / Not ready]

---

## 1. Output Quality Evaluation
[per-output scoring tables]

## 2. Cross-Output Consistency
[variance analysis]

## 3. README Conversion Audit
[element checklist + score card]

## 4. Developer Experience Audit
[installation + first-use flow]

## 5. Security & Trust Audit
[checklist]

## 6. Competitive Positioning
[search results + comparison]

## 7. Launch Readiness Scorecard
[go/no-go table + decision]

## 8. Action Items
### Blockers (MUST fix)
[numbered list]

### Improvements (SHOULD fix)
[numbered list]

### Nice-to-Have (CAN fix)
[numbered list]

Quality Criteria

The output document MUST:

• Score every public output individually (not just overall)
• Include specific evidence for each score (not just numbers)
• Provide actionable improvements (not vague "make it better")
• Include competitive search results (what actually exists today)
• Have a clear GO/NO-GO recommendation
• Separate BLOCKER vs NICE-TO-HAVE improvements
• Be brutally honest — this is a private document

Important Notes

• This review should find problems. If everything scores 5/5, the review wasn't thorough enough. No project is perfect.
• Focus on what a FIRST-TIME VISITOR sees. You already know the project; they don't. Evaluate through fresh eyes.
• The goal is not to delay launch indefinitely. It's to fix the 3-5 things that would undermine an otherwise strong launch.
• If the project genuinely isn't ready, say so. Better to delay than to waste a HN front-page opportunity on a half-baked demo.