Feature Review Skill for Claude

Table of Contents

• Philosophy
• When to Use
• When NOT to Use
• Quick Start
• 1. Inventory Current Features
• 2. Score and Classify
• 3. Generate Suggestions

Verification

Run make test-feature-review to verify scoring logic after changes.

• 4. Upload to GitHub
• Workflow
• Phase 1: Feature Discovery (feature-review:inventory-complete))
• Phase 2: Classification (feature-review:classified))
• Phase 3: Scoring (feature-review:scored))
• Phase 4: Tradeoff Analysis (feature-review:tradeoffs-analyzed))
• Phase 5: Gap Analysis & Suggestions (feature-review:suggestions-generated))
• Phase 6: GitHub Integration (feature-review:issues-created))
• Configuration
• Configuration File
• Guardrails
• Required TodoWrite Items
• Integration Points
• Output Format
• Feature Inventory Table
• Suggestion Report
• Feature Suggestions
• High Priority (Score > 2.5))
• Related Skills
• Reference

Feature Review

Review implemented features and suggest new ones using evidence-based prioritization. Create GitHub issues for accepted suggestions.

Philosophy

Feature decisions rely on data. Every feature involves tradeoffs that require evaluation. This skill uses hybrid RICE+WSJF scoring with Kano classification to prioritize work and generates actionable GitHub issues for accepted suggestions.

When To Use

• Roadmap reviews (sprint planning, quarterly reviews).
• Retrospective evaluations.
• Planning new development cycles.

When NOT To Use

• Emergency bug fixes.
• Simple documentation updates.
• Active implementation (use scope-guard).

Quick Start

1. Inventory Current Features

Discover and categorize existing features:

/feature-review --inventory

2. Score and Classify

Evaluate features against the prioritization framework:

/feature-review

3. Generate Suggestions

Review gaps and suggest new features:

/feature-review --suggest

4. Research-Enriched Scoring

Use tome plugin to adjust scores with external evidence:

/feature-review --research

5. Upload to GitHub

Create issues for accepted suggestions:

/feature-review --suggest --create-issues

Workflow

Phase 1: Feature Discovery (feature-review:inventory-complete)

Identify features by analyzing:

• Code artifacts: Entry points, public APIs, and configuration surfaces.
• Documentation: README lists, CHANGELOG entries, and user docs.
• Git history: Recent feature commits and branches.

Output: Feature inventory table.

Phase 2: Classification (feature-review:classified)

Classify each feature along two axes:

Axis 1: Proactive vs Reactive

| Type | Definition | Examples |

|------|------------|----------|

| Proactive | Anticipates user needs. | Suggestions, prefetching. |

| Reactive | Responds to explicit input. | Form handling, click actions. |

Axis 2: Static vs Dynamic

| Type | Update Pattern | Storage Model |

|------|---------------|---------------|

| Static | Incremental, versioned. | File-based, cached. |

| Dynamic | Continuous, streaming. | Database, real-time. |

See classification-system.md for details.

Phase 3: Scoring (feature-review:scored)

Apply hybrid RICE+WSJF scoring:

Feature Score = Value Score / Cost Score

Value Score = (Reach + Impact + Business Value + Time Criticality) / 4
Cost Score = (Effort + Risk + Complexity) / 3

Adjusted Score = Feature Score * Confidence

Scoring Scale: Fibonacci (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13).

Thresholds:

• > 2.5: High priority.
• 1.5 - 2.5: Medium priority.
• < 1.5: Low priority.

See scoring-framework.md for the framework.

See multi-metric-evaluation-methodology.md

when one model is not enough: it covers how to combine

RICE, WSJF, and Kano, where each model fits, and how to

reconcile conflicting signals.

Phase 4: Tradeoff Analysis (feature-review:tradeoffs-analyzed)

Evaluate each feature across quality dimensions:

| Dimension | Question | Scale |

|-----------|----------|-------|

| Quality | Does it deliver correct results? | 1-5 |

| Latency | Does it meet timing requirements? | 1-5 |

| Token Usage | Is it context-efficient? | 1-5 |

| Resource Usage | Is CPU/memory reasonable? | 1-5 |

| Redundancy | Does it handle failures gracefully? | 1-5 |

| Readability | Can others understand it? | 1-5 |

| Scalability | Will it handle 10x load? | 1-5 |

| Integration | Does it play well with others? | 1-5 |

| API Surface | Is it backward compatible? | 1-5 |

See tradeoff-dimensions.md for criteria.

Phase 4.5: Research Enrichment (feature-review:research-enriched)

Triggered by: --research flag. Requires tome plugin.

Use tome's multi-source research to adjust scoring factors

with external evidence. This phase runs between tradeoff

analysis and gap analysis.

• Dispatch research: For each feature, construct

research topics and dispatch tome channels (code-search,

discourse, papers, triz) in parallel.

• Synthesize findings: Merge results across channels

using tome:synthesize.

• Calculate deltas: Map findings to scoring factor

adjustments using channel-to-factor mapping.

• Apply deltas: Adjust initial scores by research

deltas, clamp to Fibonacci scale, respect max_delta.

• Present evidence: Show adjustment table with

evidence sources and rationale.

See research-enrichment.md

for the full enrichment protocol, delta calculation, and

graceful degradation behavior.

Graceful degradation: If tome is not installed, prints

a warning and proceeds with initial scores unchanged.

Phase 5: Gap Analysis & Suggestions (feature-review:suggestions-generated)

• Identify gaps: Missing Kano basics.
• Surface opportunities: High-value, low-effort features.
• Flag technical debt: Features with declining scores.
• Recommend actions: Build, improve, deprecate, or maintain.

Phase 6: GitHub Integration (feature-review:issues-created)

• Generate issue title and body from suggestions.
• Apply labels (feature, enhancement, priority/*).
• Link to related issues.
• Confirm with user before creation.

Deferred capture for high-scoring suggestions:

After the user confirms which suggestions to act on, any

high-scoring suggestion (score > 2.5) that is not acted on

should be preserved as a deferred item.

Run once per skipped high-scoring suggestion:

python3 scripts/deferred_capture.py \
  --title "<suggestion title>" \
  --source feature-review \
  --context "RICE score: <score>. <description>"

This runs automatically without prompting the user.

Suggestions with scores of 2.5 or below do not need

to be captured.

Configuration

Feature-review uses opinionated defaults but allows customization.

Configuration File

Create .feature-review.yaml in project root:

# .feature-review.yaml
version: 1.9.3

# Scoring weights (must sum to 1.0)
weights:
  value:
    reach: 0.25
    impact: 0.30
    business_value: 0.25
    time_criticality: 0.20
  cost:
    effort: 0.40
    risk: 0.30
    complexity: 0.30

# Score thresholds
thresholds:
  high_priority: 2.5
  medium_priority: 1.5

# Tradeoff dimension weights (0.0 to disable)
tradeoffs:
  quality: 1.0
  latency: 1.0
  token_usage: 1.0
  resource_usage: 0.8
  redundancy: 0.5
  readability: 1.0
  scalability: 0.8
  integration: 1.0
  api_surface: 1.0

See configuration.md for options.

Guardrails

These rules apply to all configurations:

• Minimum dimensions: Evaluate at least 5 tradeoff dimensions.
• Confidence requirement: Review scores below 50% confidence.
• Breaking change warning: Require acknowledgment for API surface changes.
• Backlog limit: Limit suggestion queue to 25 items.

Required TodoWrite Items

• feature-review:inventory-complete
• feature-review:classified
• feature-review:scored
• feature-review:tradeoffs-analyzed
• feature-review:research-enriched (if --research)
• feature-review:suggestions-generated
• feature-review:issues-created (if requested)

Integration Points

• imbue:scope-guard: Provides Worthiness Scores for suggestions.
• sanctum:do-issue: Prioritizes issues with high scores.
• superpowers:brainstorming: Evaluates new ideas against existing features.
• tome:research: Multi-source research for score enrichment (optional, --research).

Output Format

Feature Inventory Table

| Feature | Type | Data | Score | Priority | Status |
|---------|------|------|-------|----------|--------|
| Auth middleware | Reactive | Dynamic | 2.8 | High | Stable |
| Skill loader | Reactive | Static | 2.3 | Medium | Needs improvement |

Research-Enriched Table (with --research)

| Feature | Type | Score | Adj. | Priority | Evidence |
|---------|------|-------|------|----------|----------|
| Auth    | R/D  | 2.8   | 3.1  | High     | 3 sources |
| Loader  | R/S  | 2.3   | 2.3  | Medium   | none      |

## Research Evidence

### Code Search (GitHub)
- 12 implementations, avg 340 stars
- **Reach**: +1 (broad adoption)

### Discourse (HN/Reddit)
- 47 mentions, 78% positive
- **Impact**: +1 (strong demand)

Suggestion Report

## Feature Suggestions

### High Priority (Score > 2.5)

1. **[Feature Name]** (Score: 2.7)
   - Classification: Proactive/Dynamic
   - Value: High reach
   - Cost: Moderate effort
   - Recommendation: Build in next sprint

Related Skills

• imbue:scope-guard: Prevent overengineering.
• sanctum:pr-review: Code-level review (different scope: this

skill prioritizes feature ideas, pr-review reviews diffs).

Reference

• scoring-framework.md: RICE+WSJF hybrid.
• classification-system.md: Axes definition.
• tradeoff-dimensions.md: Quality attributes.
• research-enrichment.md: tome-driven score deltas, channel-to-factor mapping, graceful degradation.
• multi-metric-evaluation-methodology.md: Combining RICE, WSJF, and Kano when no single model suffices.
• configuration.md: Customization options.

Exit Criteria

• [ ] All 7 TodoWrite phases completed in order through

feature-review:issues-created; each phase marked complete

before the next begins

• [ ] Every scored feature has a numeric Adjusted Score on the

Fibonacci scale and a Priority label (High/Medium/Low) matching

the configured thresholds (default: >2.5 High, 1.5-2.5 Medium)

• [ ] Any suggestion with score >2.5 not acted on is captured via

scripts/deferred_capture.py --source feature-review without

prompting the user

• [ ] GitHub issues created only after user confirmation; each issue

includes the feature, enhancement, and priority/* labels

and a link to related issues where applicable