From refinery
Use when evaluating whether a technical approach is feasible against the current codebase. Use when user says 'analyze feasibility', 'is this feasible', 'evaluar factibilidad', 'technical analysis', or asks whether an approach will work.
npx claudepluginhub weorbitant/workbench-dev --plugin refineryThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/config.yaml`.
Fetches up-to-date documentation from Context7 for libraries and frameworks like React, Next.js, Prisma. Use for setup questions, API references, and code examples.
Retrieves current documentation, API references, and code examples for libraries, frameworks, SDKs, CLIs, and services via Context7 CLI. Ideal for API syntax, configs, migrations, and setup queries.
Uses ctx7 CLI to fetch current library docs, manage AI coding skills (install/search/generate), and configure Context7 MCP for AI editors.
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/config.yaml.
If it does not exist, this skill can still operate on the codebase directly. Log a warning but continue.
No specific config is required — this skill works directly on the codebase.
From $ARGUMENTS, extract the technical approach or ticket reference to evaluate.
If no argument provided, ask the user what they want to assess.
The input can be:
Break down the proposal into concrete technical actions:
Present this breakdown to the user for confirmation before proceeding.
Search package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, Cargo.toml, or equivalent for:
Glob: **/package.json, **/requirements.txt, **/go.mod, **/Cargo.toml, **/pom.xml
Search the codebase for existing patterns:
Module structure — How is the code organized? Does the proposal fit?
src/*/, app/*/, lib/*/Existing patterns — Are there similar implementations?
Configuration patterns — How are configs managed?
ConfigModule, config/, env, settings patternsError handling — What pattern exists?
Testing patterns — How are tests structured?
**/*.test.*, **/*.spec.*, **/__tests__/**For each action in the proposal, assess:
| Acción | Patrón existente | Gap | Esfuerzo estimado |
|---|---|---|---|
| {action} | {existing pattern or "none"} | {what's missing} | {low/medium/high} |
Gaps include:
Evaluate risks on two dimensions:
When multiple approaches exist, present them as options:
━━ OPCIÓN A: {approach_name} ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Pro:
+ {advantage_1}
+ {advantage_2}
Contra:
- {disadvantage_1}
- {disadvantage_2}
Esfuerzo: {low/medium/high}
Riesgo: {low/medium/high}
━━ OPCIÓN B: {approach_name} ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Pro:
+ {advantage_1}
Contra:
- {disadvantage_1}
Esfuerzo: {low/medium/high}
Riesgo: {low/medium/high}
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚙️ FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS: {proposal_summary}
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
━━ VEREDICTO ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
{✅ Factible | ⚠️ Factible con reservas | 🚫 No factible}
{One paragraph explaining the verdict}
━━ DEPENDENCIAS ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Existentes: {list of deps already available}
Necesarias: {list of deps to add}
Conflictos: {list of conflicts, or "Ninguno"}
━━ AJUSTE ARQUITECTÓNICO ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
{Assessment of how well this fits existing patterns}
Patrones relevantes encontrados:
- {pattern_1} en {file_path}
- {pattern_2} en {file_path}
━━ GAPS DE IMPLEMENTACIÓN ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
{gap table from Step 5}
━━ RIESGOS ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Técnicos:
- {risk_1}: {mitigation}
- {risk_2}: {mitigation}
Negocio:
- {risk_1}: {mitigation}
- {risk_2}: {mitigation}
━━ OPCIONES (if applicable) ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
{trade-off comparison from Step 7}
━━ RECOMENDACIÓN ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
{Final recommendation with reasoning}
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━