Dialogue: Problem Framing Assessment

Assess whether a problem is sufficiently well-framed to proceed with implementation. This is a foundational checkpoint that validates understanding before committing to a solution approach.

Framework Grounding

This skill operationalises:

Naur (1985): Theory-building—the problem must be understood before solutions are meaningful
Phase transitions: Quality of Phase 1→2 transition depends on problem clarity
STS Theory: Shared understanding is prerequisite for effective collaboration

Why This Matters

Proceeding with unclear problem framing leads to:

Wasted effort on wrong solutions
Scope creep from undefined boundaries
Unvalidated assumptions causing rework
Stakeholder misalignment discovered late

The framework strongly encourages completing this assessment before Phase 2 work.

When to Use

Use this skill:

Before starting implementation work on a new feature/task
At Phase 1→2 transition points
When revisiting scope after significant requirement changes
As input to phase readiness assessment (dialogue-assess-phase)

Problem Framing Checklist

The assessment covers 6 foundational elements:

Element	Question	Why It Matters
`problem_stated`	Is the problem explicitly stated?	Can't solve what isn't named
`scope_bounded`	Are scope boundaries defined?	Prevents creep, enables estimation
`success_criteria`	Are success criteria measurable?	Defines "done", enables validation
`constraints_identified`	Are constraints documented?	Shapes solution space
`assumptions_explicit`	Are key assumptions stated?	Enables validation, reduces risk
`stakeholders_identified`	Are affected stakeholders identified?	Ensures appropriate input/review

How to Assess Problem Framing

Option 1: Interactive Collection (Recommended)

Ask the user the following questions using AskUserQuestion. Frame this as a problem framing checkpoint.

For each element, ask:

Is the problem explicitly stated? (yes/no)
Are scope boundaries defined? (yes/no)
Are success criteria measurable? (yes/no)
Are constraints documented? (yes/no)
Are key assumptions stated? (yes/no)
Are affected stakeholders identified? (yes/no)

Then ask: 7. Overall confidence in problem framing (1-5) 8. Any gaps or concerns identified? (optional free text)

Option 2: Direct Script Invocation

If you already have the responses:

bash

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/dialogue-assess-framing/scripts/log-assess-framing.sh \
  <assessor> \
  <problem_stated> <scope_bounded> <success_criteria> \
  <constraints_identified> <assumptions_explicit> <stakeholders_identified> \
  <confidence> \
  [phase] [task_ref] [gaps_identified]

Parameters

Parameter	Values	Description
`assessor`	`ai:claude` or `human:<id>`	Who performed the assessment
`problem_stated`	`true` or `false`	Problem is explicitly stated
`scope_bounded`	`true` or `false`	Scope boundaries are defined
`success_criteria`	`true` or `false`	Success criteria are measurable
`constraints_identified`	`true` or `false`	Constraints are documented
`assumptions_explicit`	`true` or `false`	Key assumptions are stated
`stakeholders_identified`	`true` or `false`	Affected stakeholders identified
`confidence`	`1-5`	Overall confidence in framing
`phase`	`1-7` (optional)	Current SDLC phase
`task_ref`	string (optional)	Task reference (e.g., "FW-023")
`gaps_identified`	string (optional)	Any gaps or concerns noted
`context`	string (optional)	Situational context
`tags`	string (optional)	Comma-separated categorisation tags

Interpreting Results

Readiness Indicators

True Count	Confidence	Interpretation
6/6	4-5	Well-framed, proceed with confidence
5-6/6	3-4	Mostly framed, note gaps before proceeding
3-4/6	2-3	Gaps present, address before major work
0-2/6	1-2	Poorly framed, return to problem definition

Critical Elements

Some elements are more critical than others:

problem_stated: Foundational—if false, stop and define the problem
success_criteria: Essential for knowing when you're done
assumptions_explicit: High-risk if false—hidden assumptions cause rework

Recommended Actions by Score

Confirmed	Confidence	Recommendation	Action
6/6	4-5	PROCEED	Proceed to implementation
5-6/6	3-4	PROCEED_WITH_CAUTION	Document gaps, proceed with caution
4-6/6	2-3	ADDRESS_GAPS	Address gaps before significant work
<4/6	<2	RETURN_TO_DEFINITION	Return to problem definition phase

Note: Both confirmed count AND confidence must meet thresholds.

Example Interactive Flow

AI: Before we proceed with implementation, let me run a problem framing check.
    This ensures we have a solid foundation.

[Uses AskUserQuestion with the 6 checklist items + confidence + gaps]

AI: Thanks! Let me log that assessment.

[Invokes log-assess-framing.sh with collected responses]

AI: Problem framing assessment logged as ASSESS-20260122-143000.
    Score: 5/6 elements confirmed, confidence 4/5
    Gap: Constraints not yet documented

    Recommendation: Document known constraints before proceeding.
    This is a minor gap—you can proceed with caution while addressing it.

Example Direct Invocation

bash

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/dialogue-assess-framing/scripts/log-assess-framing.sh \
  "human:pidster" \
  true true true false true true \
  4 \
  2 \
  "FW-023" \
  "Constraints around performance requirements not yet documented"

Output

The script returns the generated assessment ID (e.g., ASSESS-20260122-143000).

The assessment is stored in .dialogue/logs/assessments/ and creates:

Assessment YAML file
Context graph node (ARTIFACT with artifact_type: ASSESSMENT)
CREATED edge from assessor to assessment
ASSESSES edge to task (if task_ref provided)

Integration with Phase Readiness

This assessment is a key input to dialogue-assess-phase. When assessing phase readiness:

If no problem framing assessment exists, the phase readiness skill will flag this
Recent framing assessments (within current phase) are considered
Low framing scores reduce overall phase readiness

Schema Reference

See Assessment Schema for the complete PROBLEM_FRAMING response schema and validation rules.

Search AI Tools

dialogue-assess-framing

Install this agent skill to your Project

SKILL.md