From project-manager
Generates a prototype comparison table (comparison-table.xlsx) for Phase 3 — Prototyping. PM describes 2–4 prototypes in chat; the agent structures evaluation criteria (standard set: technical feasibility, UX quality, cost, timeline, risk), proposes weights (customisable by PM), scores each prototype on a 1–5 scale, calculates weighted totals and provides a recommendation. Output: two-sheet xlsx file with a summary and a detailed scoring matrix. PM reviews the draft and makes the final selection decision. Covers task #14 of the project management agent. Mode B: agent prepares draft, PM decides. Triggers EN: 'compare prototypes', 'prototype comparison table', 'evaluate prototype options'.
npx claudepluginhub kirkruglov/claude-project-managerThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Generates a prototype comparison table for Phase 3 — Prototyping (task #14).
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR): 'use cache' directives, cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag() for caching, invalidation, static/dynamic optimization. Auto-activates on cacheComponents: true.
Guides building MCP servers enabling LLMs to interact with external services via tools. Covers best practices, TypeScript/Node (MCP SDK), Python (FastMCP).
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Generates a prototype comparison table for Phase 3 — Prototyping (task #14).
PM describes prototypes in chat; the agent defines criteria with weights, assigns scores,
calculates weighted totals, and provides a recommendation. Output: comparison-table.xlsx.
Mode B: agent prepares the draft, PM makes the final selection decision.
Russian: «сравни прототипы», «сравнительная таблица прототипов», «подготовь таблицу сравнения», «оцени варианты прототипов», «какой прототип выбрать», «таблица отбора» English: "compare prototypes", "prototype comparison table", "evaluate prototype options", "generate comparison table", "which prototype to choose", "score prototypes"
Determine the language of the user's request:
-ru suffix, respond in Russian-en suffix, respond in English| Data | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Prototype descriptions | yes | PM provides in chat (2–4 prototypes) |
| Evaluation criteria | no | standard set — PM confirms or adjusts |
| Criteria weights | no | proposed by agent (sum = 100%) — PM adjusts |
| Project charter | no | 01-initiation/project-charter.md — project name, PM |
| Project plan | no | 02-planning/project-plan.md — project context |
| File | Path in project | Format | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
comparison-table.xlsx | 03-prototyping/ | .xlsx | Prototype comparison table |
File structure — 2 sheets (Summary, Score Detail) — defined in templates/comparison-table-{lang}.md.
Guard-rail — check request type. If the request is about creating or developing prototypes → respond: "generate-comparison-table prepares a comparison table for ready prototypes. To assign prototype creation tasks, use coordinate-executors (task #13). Once prototypes are ready — return to generate-comparison-table." Do not start the workflow.
If the request includes descriptions of multiple options/prototypes → proceed to Step 2.
Extract prototype descriptions from chat. Each prototype must include:
If data is insufficient for a meaningful assessment: Ask: "Describe each prototype — name, 2–3 key features (technology, UX approach, implementation complexity). Minimum 2 prototypes." Do not proceed to Step 3 without at least 2 descriptions.
Acceptable range: 2–4 prototypes. If 5+ — ask PM: "You have 5+ prototypes — please narrow the list or select 4 final candidates for comparison."
Present PM with the standard criteria set:
| # | Criterion | Weight | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Technical Feasibility | 25% | 5 = very easy to implement |
| 2 | UX Quality | 25% | 5 = excellent UX |
| 3 | Development Cost | 20% | 5 = minimal cost |
| 4 | Delivery Timeline | 15% | 5 = fastest delivery |
| 5 | Risk Level | 15% | 5 = minimal risk |
Ask: "Confirm the criteria and weights or adjust them. The sum of weights must equal 100%."
Weight adjustment rules:
Lock the final criteria and weights only after explicit PM confirmation. Proceed to Step 4.
For each (prototype × criterion) pair, assign a score 1–5:
Scoring principles:
Weighted score formula:
Weighted Score = Σ (Weight_i × Score_i / 100)
Result range: 1.00 – 5.00.
Identify the winner (highest Weighted Score) and formulate the agent's recommendation: 1–2 sentences based on the data, without implying that the agent is making the decision.
Follow the schema from templates/comparison-table-{lang}.md.
comparison-table.xlsx.{project}/03-prototyping/comparison-table.xlsx.logs/log.md.project-state.md: artifact comparison-table.xlsx → "draft";
upon receiving PM's decision → "approved".| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
templates/comparison-table-ru.md | xlsx artifact schema (RU) |
templates/comparison-table-en.md | xlsx artifact schema (EN) |
Reads:
01-initiation/project-charter.md — project name, PM (optional)02-planning/project-plan.md — project context (optional)Passes data to:
03-prototyping/comparison-table.xlsx → generate-meeting-protocol (#16)
— as input for the demo meeting protocolCalls:
xlsx skill — to create the .xlsx file