Project feasibility analysis toolkit. Evaluate technical feasibility, resource requirements, market viability, risk factors, and implementation challenges for informed go/no-go decisions on software projects.
Analyzes software project viability across technical, resource, market, operational, and compliance dimensions to inform go/no-go decisions.
/plugin marketplace add flight505/claude-project-planner/plugin install claude-project-planner@claude-project-plannerThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Feasibility analysis is a systematic process for evaluating whether a proposed software project is viable and worth pursuing. Assess technical feasibility, resource requirements, market viability, risk factors, and implementation challenges. Apply this skill to make informed go/no-go decisions before committing resources.
This skill should be used when:
When creating feasibility documents, consider adding diagrams for clarity.
Use the project-diagrams skill to generate:
python .claude/skills/project-diagrams/scripts/generate_schematic.py "diagram description" -o diagrams/output.png
Conduct feasibility analysis systematically through multiple dimensions.
Evaluate whether the project can be built with available technology and expertise.
| Readiness Level | Description | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Mature | Production-proven, widely used | Low |
| Established | Production-ready, growing adoption | Low-Medium |
| Emerging | Early adoption, limited production use | Medium |
| Experimental | Pre-production, research phase | High |
| Theoretical | Conceptual, not yet implemented | Very High |
For each core technology, assess:
Complexity Factors:
| Factor | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integration points | 1-3 | 4-7 | 8+ |
| Data sources | 1-2 | 3-5 | 6+ |
| Custom algorithms | None | Some | Significant |
| Real-time requirements | None | Partial | Critical |
| Scale requirements | <1K users | 1K-100K | >100K |
| Security requirements | Basic | Standard | Stringent |
| Compliance requirements | None | Industry | Regulatory |
Complexity Score: Sum factors and categorize:
Identify and rate (1-5) these risks:
Risk Mitigation Questions:
Evaluate whether required resources (people, time, money) are available.
Required Skills Inventory:
| Skill Area | Required Level | Current Level | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frontend development | |||
| Backend development | |||
| DevOps/Infrastructure | |||
| Database/Data engineering | |||
| Security | |||
| Domain expertise | |||
| Project management |
Levels: None, Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert
Gap Analysis:
Timeline Estimation Factors:
| Factor | Multiplier |
|---|---|
| Clear requirements | 1.0x |
| Partially defined requirements | 1.3x |
| Evolving requirements | 1.5x |
| Experienced team with stack | 1.0x |
| Team learning new technologies | 1.3x |
| Team new to domain | 1.5x |
| Greenfield project | 1.0x |
| Legacy integration | 1.3x |
| Legacy replacement | 1.5x |
Timeline Reality Check:
Cost Categories to Estimate:
cost_categories:
development:
- Personnel (internal team)
- Contractors/consultants
- Training and upskilling
infrastructure:
- Cloud services (compute, storage, networking)
- Development environments
- CI/CD tooling
third_party:
- SaaS subscriptions
- API costs
- Licensing fees
operational:
- Monitoring and observability
- Support tooling
- Security tools
contingency:
- Risk buffer (15-25%)
- Scope buffer (10-20%)
Budget Viability Assessment:
Evaluate whether the project addresses a real market need.
Key Questions:
Competitor Assessment Matrix:
| Competitor | Strengths | Weaknesses | Our Differentiation |
|---|---|---|---|
Competitive Position Questions:
| Timing | Description | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Too early | Market not ready, user education needed | High risk, long runway required |
| Early | Market emerging, first-mover advantage possible | Medium risk, faster execution helps |
| Right time | Market established, clear demand | Lower risk, differentiation critical |
| Late | Market saturated, incumbents entrenched | High risk, disruption required |
Evaluate whether the project can be successfully deployed and operated.
Assess the organization's ability to:
Key Operational Factors:
| Factor | Requirement | Current Capability | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24/7 operations | |||
| Incident response | |||
| User support | |||
| Data backup/recovery | |||
| Security monitoring | |||
| Performance monitoring | |||
| Compliance reporting |
For each required integration:
| System | Integration Type | Complexity | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| API / File / DB / Event | Low/Med/High |
Integration Risk Factors:
Evaluate regulatory, legal, and compliance requirements.
Common Compliance Frameworks:
| Framework | Applicability | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| GDPR | EU personal data | High |
| HIPAA | US healthcare data | Very High |
| SOC 2 | B2B SaaS | Medium-High |
| PCI-DSS | Payment card data | High |
| CCPA | California consumer data | Medium |
Compliance Assessment:
Rate each dimension (1-5):
| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Feasibility | 25% | ||
| Resource Feasibility | 25% | ||
| Market Feasibility | 20% | ||
| Operational Feasibility | 15% | ||
| Legal/Compliance Feasibility | 15% | ||
| Total | 100% |
Score Interpretation:
| Total Score | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| 4.0-5.0 | Strong Go - Proceed with confidence |
| 3.0-3.9 | Conditional Go - Proceed with mitigations |
| 2.0-2.9 | Caution - Address significant concerns first |
| 1.0-1.9 | No Go - Major barriers, reconsider or pivot |
Automatic No-Go Triggers:
Conditional Go Requirements:
For each feasibility dimension:
| Risk | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Score | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If Go:
If No-Go:
Is core technology production-ready?
├── No → Can we use proven alternatives?
│ ├── No → HIGH RISK / Consider No-Go
│ └── Yes → Evaluate alternatives
└── Yes → Do we have required expertise?
├── No → Can we hire/train in time?
│ ├── No → MEDIUM-HIGH RISK
│ └── Yes → Add to resource plan
└── Yes → Are there integration risks?
├── Yes → Prototype integrations early
└── No → LOW TECHNICAL RISK
Is budget sufficient for scope?
├── No → Can scope be reduced?
│ ├── No → No-Go or find additional funding
│ └── Yes → Reprioritize features
└── Yes → Is team available?
├── No → Can we hire in time?
│ ├── No → Extend timeline or reduce scope
│ └── Yes → Add hiring to plan
└── Yes → Is timeline realistic?
├── No → Negotiate deadline or reduce scope
└── Yes → RESOURCE FEASIBLE
Before completing feasibility analysis:
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.