Full-cycle feature discovery, evaluation, and prioritization. Builds a persistent knowledge base at .feature-radar/ and runs a 6-phase workflow to recommend what to build next. Modes: full (all phases), quick (scan only), evaluate (prioritize), #N (deep-dive one). MUST use this skill whenever the user asks about feature priorities, roadmaps, what to build, or wants to evaluate/compare feature ideas — even if they don't say "feature radar" explicitly. Use when the user wants to decide what to ...
Pro scans all 5 files and shows the line behind each finding
Scanned 9/29/2026
npx -y skills add runkids/my-skills --skill feature-radar --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Feature Radar?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/runkids-feature-radar)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: feature-radar
description: |
Full-cycle feature discovery, evaluation, and prioritization. Builds a persistent knowledge
base at .feature-radar/ and runs a 6-phase workflow to recommend what to build next.
Modes: full (all phases), quick (scan only), evaluate (prioritize), #N (deep-dive one).
MUST use this skill whenever the user asks about feature priorities, roadmaps, what to build,
or wants to evaluate/compare feature ideas — even if they don't say "feature radar" explicitly.
Use when the user wants to decide what to build next, rank or compare features and backlog
items, plan a roadmap or project direction, reassess deferred or open opportunities, or
mentions the .feature-radar/ directory.
---
# Feature Discovery & Prioritization
## Mode Routing
<HARD-GATE>
Parse the user argument BEFORE any other logic. Determine the mode:
| Argument | Mode | Phases |
|----------|------|--------|
| (none) or `full` | full | 1-6 (all) |
| `quick` | quick | 1-3 only |
| `evaluate` | evaluate | reconciliation → 5-6 (skip 1-3) |
| `#N` (e.g. `#2`) | focus | Read opportunity N → Phase 5 (single item) → Phase 6 |
Route rules:
- **full**: Follow normal workflow (Phase 1-6).
- **quick**: Execute Phase 1-3, then skip to Completion Summary.
- **evaluate**: Run "Subsequent Runs" reconciliation (steps 1-2), then jump directly to Phase 5-6.
- **focus (#N)**: Read `.feature-radar/opportunities/{N}-*.md`. If not found, list available opportunities and ask user to pick. Then run Phase 5 for that single opportunity, followed by Phase 6.
State the detected mode before proceeding: "Mode: {mode}"
</HARD-GATE>
## Bootstrap (First Run)
If `.feature-radar/` does not exist at the project root, create it:
```
.feature-radar/
├── base.md
├── archive/
├── opportunities/
├── specs/
└── references/
```
Then generate `base.md` by completing the following:
<HARD-GATE>
Complete ALL steps before presenting base.md to the user:
1. **Detect stack and architecture** — start from `go.mod`, `package.json`, `Cargo.toml`, `pyproject.toml`, then the code they point to.
2. **Map structure** — identify entry points, core logic, tests, docs, and configuration across the top-level directories.
3. **Extract features** — from exports, commands, API routes, or public functions, described by what the implementation does.
4. **Find inspiration sources** — read README, CONTRIBUTING, docs/ for related projects and communities
5. **Verify with user** — present the generated base.md and ask: "Does this accurately describe your project?"
</HARD-GATE>
After presenting base.md, support iterative refinement per `references/WORKFLOW-PATTERNS.md`.
<HARD-GATE>
Do NOT proceed to the Workflow until the user approves base.md.
</HARD-GATE>
### base.md Template
Generate `base.md` following the structure defined in `references/SPEC.md` (sections 2-5).
Read `references/SPEC.md` first, then fill `{placeholders}` with project-specific analysis.
Key sections to generate:
- **Project Context** — detected language, architecture, key feature areas, core philosophy, inspiration sources
- **Feature Inventory** — implemented features table + value & innovation landscape table
- **Tracking Summary** — counts per category (start at 0)
- **Directory Layout** — tree view
- **Classification Rules** — per references/SPEC.md §3.2-3.5
- **Maintenance Workflow** — feature flow between directories
- **Archive Extraction Checklist** — per references/SPEC.md §4.3
After creating the directory, ask the user:
**"Should I add `.feature-radar/` to `.gitignore`?"**
(Recommended if the tracking data is internal and shouldn't be committed.)
## Subsequent Runs
On subsequent runs (`.feature-radar/` already exists):
1. Read existing `base.md` — do NOT overwrite
2. Run reconciliation per `references/DEEP-READ.md` steps 2-6
3. Proceed to Mode Routing
## Behavioral Directives
<HARD-GATE>
Read and follow `references/DIRECTIVES.md`.
Additional directives for this skill:
- **Do not skip phases outside mode rules** — follow the Mode Routing and Phase execution HARD-GATEs. For conditional phases, state the skip condition check result before deciding to skip.
- **Reconcile on subsequent runs** — see "Subsequent Runs" section above.
</HARD-GATE>
## Workflow
Execute phases in order.
<HARD-GATE>
Phase execution rules (mode-dependent):
**full mode** (default):
- Phase 1-3: ALWAYS execute.
- Phase 4: Skip ONLY if no documentation directory exists.
- Phase 5-6: Skip ONLY if no open opportunities exist.
**quick mode**:
- Phase 1-3: Execute. Stop after Phase 3 → Completion Summary.
**evaluate mode**:
- Phase 1-4: Skip (reconciliation already done in Subsequent Runs).
- Phase 5-6: Execute. Skip ONLY if no open opportunities exist.
**focus mode (#N)**:
- Phase 1-4: Skip.
- Phase 5: Evaluate the single targeted opportunity only.
- Phase 6: Propose for that opportunity only.
</HARD-GATE>
### Phase 1: Scan & Classify
1. Read source files (feature ideas, user feedback, ecosystem observations, creative proposals, issue trackers)
2. Cross-reference each entry against the codebase
3. Classify:
- **Done / Covered / Rejected / N/A** → archive
- **Open / Partially Done** → opportunity
- **Cross-cutting pattern** → specs
- **External observation** → references
**Checkpoint**: Present classification results using this format, then ask "Continue to Phase 2?"
```
Phase 1 complete:
| Classification | Count | Items |
|---------------|-------|-------|
| Archive | {n} | {list} |
| Opportunity | {n} | {list} |
| Spec | {n} | {list} |
| Reference | {n} | {list} |
```
### Phase 2: Archive Completed Features
For each archive candidate:
1. Create `archive/{nn}-{slug}.md`
2. Run the **Archive Extraction Checklist** (mandatory):
- Extract learnings → `specs/`
- Derive new opportunities → `opportunities/`
- Update references → `references/`
- Update ecosystem trends → `specs/ecosystem-trends.md`
3. Mark the entry as processed in the source (strikethrough + status)
### Phase 3: Organize Open Opportunities
1. Create `opportunities/{nn}-{slug}.md`
2. Assess **Impact** and **Effort** realistically
3. Write an honest "Our Position" — do we actually want this?
**Checkpoint**: Present opportunities using this format, then ask "Continue to Phase 4?"
```
Phase 3 complete: {n} opportunities organized
| # | Opportunity | Impact | Effort | Our Position |
|---|------------|--------|--------|-------------|
| {nn} | {title} | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | {1-line stance} |
```
### Phase 4: Gap Analysis
Find implemented features that docs don't mention:
1. Scan documentation for coverage of implemented features
2. For each gap: which feature, which page should cover it, standalone guide or section
### Phase 5: Evaluate & Prioritize
| Criterion | Question |
|-----------|----------|
| **Real user demand** | Are users actually asking for this? |
| **Value uplift** | Does this meaningfully improve the user experience or unlock new possibilities? |
| **Innovation potential** | Does this introduce a creative breakthrough or unique approach? |
| **Effort / impact ratio** | Is the cost justified by the benefit? |
| **Architectural fit** | Does it align with our core philosophy? |
| **Ecosystem timing** | Is the ecosystem ready? |
Rank into tiers:
- **Build next**: High value + strong demand or innovation potential + reasonable effort
- **Build soon**: Good value + moderate demand
- **Monitor**: Low demand or premature
- **Skip**: Conflicts with philosophy or negligible value
**Checkpoint**: Present tier ranking using this format, then ask "Continue to Phase 6 (Propose)?"
```
Phase 5 complete:
| Tier | # | Opportunity | Demand | Value | Innovation | Effort/Impact | Fit | Timing |
|------|---|------------|--------|-------|------------|--------------|-----|--------|
| Build next | {nn} | {title} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} |
| Build soon | ... | | | | | | |
| Monitor | ... | | | | | | |
| Skip | ... | | | | | | |
```
### Phase 6: Propose & Decide
For each "Build next" feature (top 1-3), present a proposal card:
```
### {nn}. {Title}
**Pitch**: {One paragraph — what value does this create?}
**Effort**: {N days} — {brief justification}
**Key decisions**:
- {decision 1}
- {decision 2}
```
After all cards, ask: **"Should we enter plan mode for [feature]?"**
## Completion Summary
Follow the template in `references/DIRECTIVES.md`, with skill name "Complete" and an additional line:
`Top recommendation: {feature name} — {one-line pitch}`
## Guardrails
- **Don't copy blindly.** Evaluate fit with YOUR architecture and users, not someone else's.
- **Don't overcount.** 1 issue with no comments = weak signal.
- **Don't undercount.** Multiple independent asks = strong signal.
- **Chase value, not features.** Ask "what problem does this solve?" before "what does this do?"
- **Be honest about effort.** Low < 1 day. Medium 1-3 days. High 1+ week.
- **Challenge deferred items.** "Deferred" ≠ "forever" — re-evaluate each session.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!