Deep feasibility validation across 7 dimensions by a Council of Seven Sages (Think Tank). Postdoctoral-level research rigor applied to scenario validation. Validates technical claims, quantitative assumptions, systemic risks, technology maturity, infrastructure limits, integration feasibility, and economic viability. Use when validating approved scenarios before roadmap commitment, when stakeholders need confidence in technical achievability, or when "Phase 3b" / "feasibility" / "think tank" / "7 sabios" is mentioned.
From pmnpx claudepluginhub javimontano/mao-pm-apexThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
examples/README.mdexamples/sample-output.htmlexamples/sample-output.mdprompts/metaprompts.mdprompts/use-case-prompts.mdreferences/body-of-knowledge.mdreferences/knowledge-graph.mmdreferences/state-of-the-art.mdSearches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Process documents with Nutrient API: convert formats (PDF, DOCX, XLSX, images), OCR scans (100+ languages), extract text/tables, redact PII, sign, fill forms.
Validates approved modernization scenarios with postdoctoral-level research rigor across 7 dimensions. The Think Tank operates as a council of 7 specialized researchers — each bringing deep expertise in their dimension — who deliberate collectively to produce a feasibility verdict that is evidence-based, not opinion-based.
This is NOT a rubber stamp. This is the last line of defense before committing resources.
If there is no evidence, there is no feasibility. If there is no feasibility, there is no roadmap.
Every claim must carry evidence classified by strength:
Full inventory of claims with evidence strength, cross-validation, and status.
One section per sage: findings, evidence, risks, score 1-5, mitigations.
Dependency graph with failure cascades. Conway's Law assessment diagram.
MUST-DO / SHOULD-DO / COULD-DO with measurable success criteria.
Collective verdict with voting record, conditions, dissenting positions.
Cumulative risk register with Think Tank findings merged.
PHASE 1: INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS (parallel)
→ Each sage analyzes their dimension independently
→ Produces dimensional report with evidence tags
PHASE 2: CROSS-VALIDATION (round-robin)
→ Each report reviewed by at least 2 sages from other dimensions
→ Contradictions, gaps, and blind spots identified
PHASE 3: PLENARY DELIBERATION
→ Presentation of findings with evidence tags
→ Debate on identified contradictions
→ Identification of consensus vs dissent
PHASE 4: VOTE
→ FEASIBLE / FEASIBLE WITH CONDITIONS / NOT FEASIBLE
→ Requires agreement from at least 5 out of 7
→ Dissent documented with complete rationale
PHASE 5: VERDICT
→ Composite score (weighted average of 7 dimensions)
→ Confidence level based on average evidence strength
→ Mandatory conditions and spikes
→ Recommendation: PROCEED / HOLD / PIVOT
| Decision | Enables | Constrains | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full 7-dimension Think Tank | Maximum confidence, postdoc rigor | 3-5 days effort | High-investment transformations |
| 4-dimension fast track (D1+D3+D5+D7) | Focused validation | Misses maturity/integration/stats | Medium projects, time pressure |
| Single-dimension deep dive | Expert-level depth | No systemic view | Targeted validation of specific concern |
| Paper analysis only | Fastest | Lower confidence | Time-constrained, low-risk projects |
| Scenario | Response |
|---|---|
| All 7 sages agree: FEASIBLE | Rare. Document evidence strength. Reduce contingency. |
| 4-3 split vote | Document both positions. Recommend targeted spike for contested dimension. |
| 3 or more sages flag same risk | Automatic BLOCKER. Must-validate before Phase 4. |
| No codebase access | All D1 claims marked [INFERENCIA]. Increase uncertainty. Recommend code access as condition. |
| Vendor refuses to share benchmarks | Flag as [VENDOR-DOC: UNAVAILABLE]. Increase risk score for D4. |
| Conway's Law violation detected | CRITICAL FLAG. Architecture feasible but org structure incompatible. Requires org change or architecture adjustment. |
| Format | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
markdown | Yes | Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient. |
html | On demand | Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact. |
dual | On demand | Both formats. |
Primary: 05b_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{project}.md
| Caso | Estrategia de Manejo |
|---|---|
| No codebase access available for D1 (Research & Technology Readiness) validation | Mark all D1 technical claims as [INFERENCIA]; increase uncertainty margins by 30%; add "codebase access" as a mandatory condition in the verdict; recommend code-level spike as MUST-DO |
| Vendor refuses to share benchmarks or internal documentation for D4 assessment | Flag as [VENDOR-DOC: UNAVAILABLE]; increase D4 risk score by 1 point; recommend independent benchmarking PoC; add vendor transparency as a contractual condition |
| Think Tank vote results in a 4-3 split (minimum 5 required for verdict) | Document both majority and minority positions with full evidence; recommend targeted spike on the contested dimension(s); schedule re-vote after spike results are available |
| All 7 sages agree FEASIBLE with high confidence — unanimous positive verdict | Rare case. Verify evidence strength across all dimensions; reduce contingency budget by 10-15%; document as "high confidence" but maintain standard governance gates |
| Decision | Alternativa Descartada | Justificacion |
|---|---|---|
| Require 5-of-7 sage agreement for a binding verdict | Simple majority (4-of-7) or unanimous (7-of-7) | Simple majority allows too-narrow margins on critical decisions; unanimity is unrealistic for complex multi-dimensional analysis; 5-of-7 ensures strong consensus while allowing productive dissent |
| Cross-validate every finding with at least 2 sages from other dimensions | Allow each sage to work independently without peer review | Independent analysis creates dimensional silos; cross-validation catches blind spots where one dimension's assumption is another dimension's risk |
| Document dissenting positions with equal rigor as majority positions | Suppress minority opinions in favor of clean recommendations | Dissenting sages are often the first to detect risks that the majority overlooks; suppressing dissent reduces the value of the multi-dimensional approach |
| Economic analysis produces FTE-months and magnitude ranges, NEVER prices | Include specific pricing for vendor comparisons | Pricing is volatile, context-dependent, and becomes stale; FTE-months and magnitude ranges provide stable decision inputs that remain valid across geographies and market conditions |
graph TD
subgraph Core["Think Tank of 7 Sages"]
A["Scenario Intake"] --> B["7-Dimension Analysis"]
B --> C["Cross-Validation"]
C --> D["Plenary Deliberation"]
D --> E["Vote & Verdict"]
end
subgraph Dimensions["7 Dimensions"]
B --> D1["D1: Research & Tech Readiness"]
B --> D2["D2: Quantitative Validation"]
B --> D3["D3: Systemic Feasibility"]
B --> D4["D4: Technology Maturity"]
B --> D5["D5: Infrastructure & Hardware"]
B --> D6["D6: Integration Feasibility"]
B --> D7["D7: Economic Feasibility"]
end
subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
F["Approved Scenario"] --> A
G["Prior Phase Artifacts"] --> B
end
subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
E --> H["Feasibility Verdict"]
E --> I["Spike/PoC Catalog"]
E --> J["Updated Risk Register"]
end
subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
K["scenario-analysis"] -.-> F
L["technology-vigilance"] -.-> D4
M["solution-roadmap"] -.-> H
end
05b_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.md05b_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.html{fase}_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx{fase}_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx{fase}_Feasibility_ThinkTank_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx| Dimension | Peso | Criterio |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | Descripcion activa triggers correctos sin falsos positivos |
| Completeness | 25% | Todos los entregables cubren el dominio sin huecos |
| Clarity | 20% | Instrucciones ejecutables sin ambiguedad |
| Robustness | 20% | Maneja edge cases y variantes de input |
| Efficiency | 10% | Proceso no tiene pasos redundantes |
| Value Density | 15% | Cada seccion aporta valor practico directo |
Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension para considerar el skill production-ready.
Autor: Javier Montaño | Ultima actualizacion: 15 de marzo de 2026