Skill: linuszz/traffic-lights (version 1.0.0)

--- name: traffic-lights description: "Create multi-criteria comparison charts using traffic lights or Harvey balls. Use for option evaluation, competitive comparison, and executive dashboards." --- # Traffic Light Charts ## Metadata - **Name**: traffic-lights - **Description**: Multi-criteria assessment visualization - **Triggers**: traffic light, harvey ball, stoplight, RAG status, multi-criteria ## Instructions You are creating a traffic light chart to evaluate $ARGUMENTS. Your task is to compare options across multiple criteria using a simple, visual format. ## Framework ### Visual Options **Traffic Lights (RAG)** ``` 🟢 Green = Good / On track / Above target 🟡 Yellow/Amer = Caution / At risk / Near target 🔴 Red = Bad / Off track / Below target ``` **Harvey Balls (Half-moons)** ``` ○ Empty = 0% / None / Very poor ◔ Quarter = 25% / Below average ◑ Half = 50% / Average ◕ Three-Q = 75% / Above average ● Full = 100% / Excellent ``` **Arrows** ``` ↑↑ Strong positive ↑ Positive → Neutral ↓ Negative ↓↓ Strong negative ``` ### When to Use Which | Chart Type | Best For | |------------|----------| | Traffic Lights | Status, progress, alerts | | Harvey Balls | Gradual comparison, rating | | Arrows | Trends, momentum | | Stars | Customer ratings, reviews | | Numbers | Precision needed | ### Standard Applications 1. **Competitive Comparison** - Us vs. competitors on key criteria 2. **Option Evaluation** - Compare alternatives for decision 3. **Status Dashboard** - Project/portfolio health 4. **Gap Analysis** - Current vs. desired state 5. **Vendor Selection** - Compare suppliers on requirements ## Output Process 1. **Define criteria** - What dimensions matter? 2. **Set scale** - What does each color/symbol mean? 3. **Gather data** - Assess each option on each criterion 4. **Apply ratings** - Consistent methodology 5. **Calculate overall** - Summary score 6. **Visualize** - Create the chart 7. **Annotate** - Add context and insights 8. **Interpret** - Draw conclusions ## Output Format ``` ## Traffic Light Chart: [Subject] ### Assessment Criteria | # | Criterion | Weight | Definition | |---|-----------|--------|------------| | 1 | [Criterion 1] | 20% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z | | 2 | [Criterion 2] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z | | 3 | [Criterion 3] | 25% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z | | 4 | [Criterion 4] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z | | 5 | [Criterion 5] | 10% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z | | 6 | [Criterion 6] | 15% | 🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z | | | **Total** | **100%** | | --- ### Traffic Light Matrix | Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D | |-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | **1. [Criterion 1]** | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🔴 | | **2. [Criterion 2]** | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟡 | | **3. [Criterion 3]** | 🟢 | 🔴 | 🟢 | 🟢 | | **4. [Criterion 4]** | 🟢 | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟡 | | **5. [Criterion 5]** | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🔴 | 🟢 | | **6. [Criterion 6]** | 🔴 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 | | **OVERALL** | 🟢 | 🟡 | 🟢 | 🟡 | **Legend:** - 🟢 Green = Strong / Meets requirements - 🟡 Yellow = Moderate / Partially meets - 🔴 Red = Weak / Does not meet --- ### Scoring (Optional Quantitative) | Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D | |-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | 1. [Criterion] | 20% | 3 (0.6) | 2 (0.4) | 3 (0.6) | 1 (0.2) | | 2. [Criterion] | 15% | 2 (0.3) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) | | 3. [Criterion] | 25% | 3 (0.75) | 1 (0.25) | 3 (0.75) | 3 (0.75) | | 4. [Criterion] | 15% | 3 (0.45) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.3) | | 5. [Criterion] | 10% | 2 (0.2) | 3 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.3) | | 6. [Criterion] | 15% | 1 (0.15) | 2 (0.3) | 3 (0.45) | 2 (0.3) | | **WEIGHTED TOTAL** | **100%** | **2.45** | **2.15** | **2.50** | **2.15** | | **RANK** | | **2nd** | **3rd** | **1st** | **3rd** | *Scale: 1=Red, 2=Yellow, 3=Green* --- ### Alternative: Harvey Ball Format | Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C | Option D | |-----------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | **1. [Criterion]** | ● | ◑ | ● | ◔ | | **2. [Criterion]** | ◑ | ● | ◑ | ◑ | | **3. [Criterion]** | ● | ○ | ● | ◑ | | **4. [Criterion]** | ● | ● | ◑ | ◑ | | **5. [Criterion]** | ◑ | ● | ◔ | ● | | **6. [Criterion]** | ◔ | ◑ | ● | ◑ | | **OVERALL** | ◕ | ◑ | ● | ◑ | **Legend:** - ○ None (0%) | ◔ Quarter (25%) | ◑ Half (50%) | ◕ Three-Q (75%) | ● Full (100%) --- ### Pattern Analysis **Strengths by Option** | Option | Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses | |--------|---------------|----------------| | Option A | [Criterion 1, 3, 4] | [Criterion 6] | | Option B | [Criterion 2, 4, 5] | [Criterion 3] | | Option C | [Criterion 1, 3, 6] | [Criterion 5] | | Option D | [Criterion 1, 3, 5] | [Criterion 1] | **Patterns Observed** 1. [Pattern 1 - e.g., "All options score well on Criterion 4"] 2. [Pattern 2 - e.g., "Criterion 3 shows largest differentiation"] 3. [Pattern 3 - e.g., "No option scores green on all criteria"] --- ### Recommendation **Top Choice: [Option C]** - Rationale: [Why this option] - Trade-offs: [What we give up] **Runner-up: [Option A]** - When to consider: [Situations where this is better] **Not Recommended: [Option D]** - Why not: [Key deficiencies] ``` ## Tips - Define criteria before rating - don't retrofit - Be consistent - same assessor or calibrated team - Don't have too many criteria (6-10 is optimal) - Weight criteria by importance - Use supporting data in appendix - The overall score should be a guide, not a rule - Patterns matter more than individual cells - Document the rationale for each rating ## References - Few, Stephen. *Information Dashboard Design*. 2006. - Tufte, Edward. *Beautiful Evidence*. 2006.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)