Overview

/presales-assess is a production command in the Presales category of the Prismatic Platform that performs comprehensive technical assessment of presales opportunities and cases. The command evaluates the technical feasibility, architecture alignment, implementation complexity, and risk profile of a prospect's requirements against the Prismatic Platform's capabilities, producing a structured assessment that informs go/no-go decisions, resource planning, and proposal scoping.

The technical assessment engine operates by mapping prospect requirements to platform capabilities, identifying gaps that would require custom development, estimating implementation effort based on complexity analysis, and evaluating technical risks that could impact delivery timelines or solution quality. The assessment considers the full spectrum of technical factors: infrastructure requirements, integration complexity, data migration challenges, performance constraints, security requirements, and compliance obligations.

This command operates under the L2+ authority level and is executed by the technical-assessor agent. It is part of the platform's 216-command slash command registry, built on the AIAD (Autonomous Intelligence Agent Design) standard. The technical assessor agent has deep knowledge of the platform's architecture, capabilities, and limitations, enabling accurate feasibility analysis without requiring manual engineering review for initial assessments.

Within the presales workflow, /presales-assess typically follows /presales-analyze, which extracts requirements from source documents, and precedes /presales-price, which uses the technical assessment to estimate implementation costs. The assessment output serves as the technical foundation for the entire proposal, ensuring that commitments made in the proposal are technically achievable within the stated constraints.

Architecture

The technical assessment architecture implements a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that analyzes opportunities across several independent assessment axes.

Opportunity Requirements
        │
        v
  Requirement Parser
  (Structured extraction from analysis output)
        │
        ├──> Capability Matcher ────> Gap Analysis
        │    (Platform features     (Custom dev needs,
        │     vs requirements)       integration effort)
        │
        ├──> Complexity Analyzer ──> Effort Estimation
        │    (Architecture fit,      (Person-days,
        │     integration depth)      phases, timeline)
        │
        ├──> Risk Evaluator ───────> Risk Register
        │    (Technical, delivery,   (Scored, mitigated,
        │     dependency risks)       residual risks)
        │
        └──> Compliance Checker ───> Compliance Matrix
             (Regulatory, security,  (Gaps, remediation
              data protection)        requirements)
                    │
                    v
           Technical Assessment Report
           (Score, feasibility, recommendations)

Each assessment axis produces an independent score and analysis. The Capability Matcher compares requirements against a structured capability database derived from the AIAD registry, which catalogs all platform features, agents, commands, and applications with their functional specifications. The Complexity Analyzer evaluates the architectural impact of implementing the solution, considering factors like the number of integration points, data transformation complexity, and performance requirements. The Risk Evaluator identifies technical risks using a taxonomy of common delivery risks calibrated to the platform's historical project data.

Usage

Basic Technical Assessment

# Assess opportunity from presales case
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042"

# Assess from analysis output
/presales-assess --from-analysis analysis-2026-02-15.json

# Quick feasibility check
/presales-assess --requirements "EASM platform for 500 domains" --quick

Detailed Assessment

# Full technical assessment with all dimensions
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --detail full

# Assessment with explicit capability mapping
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --capability-map --gap-analysis

# Assessment with risk register
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --risk-analysis --mitigation-plan

Compliance-Focused Assessment

# Assessment with regulatory compliance dimension
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --compliance nis2,gdpr

# Assessment with security architecture review
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --security-review --threat-model

Comparative Assessment

# Compare two technical approaches
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" \
  --approach-a "SaaS deployment" --approach-b "On-premise deployment" --compare

# Assess against multiple solution architectures
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --architectures saas,hybrid,onprem

Options & Parameters

Parameter	Type	Default	Description
`--case-id`	string	none	Presales case identifier
`--from-analysis`	path	none	Analysis output file to assess
`--requirements`	string	none	Direct requirement description
`--quick`	flag	false	Quick feasibility check only
`--detail`	enum	standard	Assessment depth: quick, standard, full
`--capability-map`	flag	false	Include platform capability mapping
`--gap-analysis`	flag	false	Identify capability gaps requiring custom work
`--risk-analysis`	flag	false	Include technical risk register
`--mitigation-plan`	flag	false	Generate risk mitigation recommendations
`--compliance`	string	none	Compliance frameworks to evaluate
`--security-review`	flag	false	Include security architecture review
`--threat-model`	flag	false	Generate threat model for solution
`--compare`	flag	false	Compare multiple approaches
`--approach-a`	string	none	First approach description
`--approach-b`	string	none	Second approach description
`--architectures`	string	none	Architecture options to evaluate
`--effort-model`	enum	standard	Effort estimation model: optimistic, standard, conservative
`--format`	enum	table	Output: table, json, html, pdf, markdown
`--output`	path	stdout	Output file path

Execution Flow

The technical assessment follows a systematic evaluation process that builds understanding progressively.

Phase 1 -- Requirement Structuring (1-3 seconds): Requirements are parsed from the input source (case data, analysis output, or direct description) and organized into a structured requirement model. Each requirement is classified by category (functional, non-functional, integration, compliance), priority (must-have, should-have, nice-to-have), and complexity (simple, moderate, complex, very complex).

Phase 2 -- Capability Assessment (2-5 seconds): Each structured requirement is evaluated against the platform's capability database. The assessment identifies three categories: directly supported (existing platform feature), partially supported (feature exists but requires configuration or customization), and unsupported (requires custom development). The gap analysis quantifies the custom development effort for each unsupported requirement.

Phase 3 -- Complexity Analysis (2-5 seconds): The overall solution architecture is analyzed for complexity factors. This includes integration point count and depth, data model compatibility, performance requirement feasibility, scalability implications, and deployment architecture constraints. Each complexity factor contributes to the overall effort estimation.

Phase 4 -- Risk Evaluation (1-3 seconds): Technical risks are identified using a structured risk taxonomy. Each risk is scored on probability (1-5) and impact (1-5), producing a risk priority number. Mitigation strategies are generated for high-priority risks. The risk register includes both technical risks (performance, scalability, integration) and delivery risks (timeline, resource availability, dependency management).

Phase 5 -- Scoring and Recommendation (< 1 second): The overall technical feasibility score is calculated by aggregating capability coverage, complexity factors, and risk exposure. The score maps to a recommendation: Strong Go (85-100), Go (70-84), Conditional Go (55-69), Conditional No-Go (40-54), Strong No-Go (0-39). Each recommendation includes specific conditions and caveats.

Integration Points

Component	Integration Type	Description
/presales-analyze	Upstream	Receives analyzed requirements
/presales-price	Downstream	Effort estimates feed pricing
/presales-propose	Downstream	Assessment feeds proposal technical section
/presales-case	Case Management	Assessment linked to presales case
/presales	Parent Command	Top-level presales orchestration
AIAD Registry	Capability Database	Platform features and capabilities
Prismatic Agents	Execution	`technical-assessor` agent
Telemetry	Observability	Assessment quality and timing metrics

Best Practices

Use Analysis Output as Input: The most reliable assessments come from structured analysis output rather than free-text requirements. Run /presales-analyze first to produce structured input for the assessment.

Start with Quick Feasibility: For initial opportunity screening, use --quick to get a rapid feasibility indication before investing time in detailed assessment. This prevents wasted effort on technically infeasible opportunities.

Always Include Risk Analysis: Even for straightforward opportunities, --risk-analysis reveals potential delivery challenges that may not be apparent from capability mapping alone. Identifying risks early allows for proactive mitigation in the proposal.

Compare Architecture Options: When multiple deployment or architecture approaches are viable, use --compare to produce a structured comparison. This gives the proposal team clear talking points for each option.

Calibrate Effort Models: Use --effort-model conservative for fixed-price proposals and --effort-model standard for time-and-materials engagements. The conservative model adds buffers for uncertainty.

Error Handling

Error Condition	Behavior	Recovery
Case not found	Error with available cases	Verify case ID
No requirements extracted	Error with guidance	Provide structured requirements
Capability database unavailable	Assessment with cached data	Warning about data freshness
Unknown compliance framework	Error with supported frameworks	Use supported framework codes
Assessment timeout	Partial results with warning	Use `--quick` for faster assessment
Conflicting requirements	Warning with conflict details	Resolve conflicts with prospect

Advanced Usage

Assessment Templates

# Use predefined assessment template
/presales-assess --template easm-deployment --case-id "CASE-2026-042"

# List available assessment templates
/presales-assess --list-templates

Integration with Proposal Pipeline

# Full presales pipeline
/presales-analyze --file rfp.pdf --case-id "CASE-2026-042"
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --detail full --risk-analysis
/presales-price --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --from-assessment
/presales-propose --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --from-assessment --from-pricing

Automated Reassessment

# Reassess after requirement changes
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --reassess --diff-from previous

# Track assessment score over requirement iterations
/presales-assess --case-id "CASE-2026-042" --history --trend

Doctrine Compliance

All commands operate under the NO MERCY, NO DOUBTS doctrine:

NO MERCY: Zero tolerance for incomplete execution or quality violations. Every requirement must be assessed -- no requirements are skipped or deferred. Capability gaps are reported honestly without minimization. Risk registers include all identified risks, including those that might make the opportunity less attractive.
NO DOUBTS: Full investigation before action, evidence-based results. Feasibility determinations are based on verified platform capabilities, not assumptions. Effort estimates reference historical project data. The NABLA axiom of Unknown Valid is respected: when assessment cannot determine feasibility for a requirement, it is classified as "Unknown" rather than assumed feasible or infeasible.

/presales - Presales intelligence for company analysis and opportunity identification
/presales-analyze - Text, file and URL analysis for presales opportunity assessment
/presales-case - Presales case management for status tracking and updates
/investigate - Launch comprehensive OSINT investigation across 121+ sources
/email-osint - Email-based OSINT gathering with breach correlation and social profiling
/google-hacking - Google dorking and advanced search intelligence extraction

Connect & Contribute

Created by Tomáš Korcak (korczis) | Open Source under GHL

GitHub | GitLab | LinkedIn | Contact
Developer Portal | Architecture | Meet the Creator

/presales-assess