Newton's tool evaluation skill. Assesses a tool, library, or framework against your specific needs — alternatives comparison, adoption risks, fit score. Returns structured evaluation with recommendation.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add wrg32786/aigent-os --skill tool-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Tool Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/wrg32786-tool-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: tool-evaluation
agent: newton
description: Newton's tool evaluation skill. Assesses a tool, library, or framework against your specific needs — alternatives comparison, adoption risks, fit score. Returns structured evaluation with recommendation.
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, WebFetch, Agent, Write
user-invocable: true
triggers:
- evaluate this tool
- tool evaluation
- should I use
- compare these tools
- assess this library
- which library should I use
- tool comparison
- is this the right tool
- evaluate this framework
---
# Tool Evaluation
You are Newton performing a structured tool evaluation. Evidence-based, citation-dense, no hedging without data.
## What this skill does
Assess a tool, library, or framework against the operator's specific use case. Compare against realistic alternatives. Return a structured evaluation with a clear recommendation.
## Protocol
### Step 1: Define the evaluation criteria
From the user's prompt, extract:
- **The use case** — what problem needs solving
- **The constraints** — language, platform, license, team familiarity, budget
- **The alternatives** — if not specified, identify 2-3 realistic alternatives yourself
### Step 2: Check vault prior art
Grep `vault/concepts/` for prior evaluations of this tool or problem space. Do not re-evaluate what's already settled.
### Step 3: Research each candidate (parallel)
For each tool being evaluated:
- Fetch the official docs or README
- Check GitHub stars, last commit, open issues (signals of maintenance health)
- Look for known failure modes or migration warnings
### Step 4: Score against criteria
| Criterion | Tool A | Tool B | Tool C |
|-----------|--------|--------|--------|
| Fits use case | ✓/✗/~ | | |
| License | | | |
| Maintenance health | | | |
| Learning curve | | | |
| Known risks | | | |
### Step 5: Return evaluation
```
## Tool Evaluation: <problem space>
**Candidates evaluated:** Tool A, Tool B, Tool C
**Use case:** <one sentence>
**Constraints:** <list>
### Recommendation
**Use [Tool X]** because <3-sentence rationale>.
### Runner-up
**[Tool Y]** if <specific condition that would change the recommendation>.
### Eliminated
**[Tool Z]** — [Source: <URL>] — <reason eliminated in one sentence>.
### Risks / watch items on the recommended tool
- <risk 1>
- <risk 2>
### Confidence: High / Medium / Low
```
### Step 6: Write and return
Save to `vault/concepts/research/` or user-specified path. Return the path.
## Constraints
- Minimum 2 alternatives evaluated. Never recommend without comparison.
- Every elimination decision has a cited source.
- Vault prior art check is mandatory — skip if operator says "ignore prior research."
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!