Concept review

Owner: Product team Scope: Every MVP release candidate must pass or document exceptions. Goal: A first-time repo visitor understands the core concept within 60 seconds of landing on the README.

This review is manual and subjective. It requires a reviewer who has not seen the project before, or who can credibly simulate that perspective. The reviewer reads only what a GitHub visitor sees in the first scroll.

What to test

The reviewer opens https://github.com/outrightmental/ConversationSimulator (or the README rendered locally) and reads for 60 seconds — no deeper navigation allowed.

After 60 seconds the reviewer answers the following questions without looking further.

Rubric

Score each dimension 1 (fail), 2 (partial), or 3 (pass).

#	Dimension	Pass criteria	Score
1	What it is	Reviewer can state the product is the simulator for conversations — for interviews, negotiations, language practice, and difficult conversations	1 / 2 / 3
2	Local-first	Reviewer can state that inference runs locally (no cloud LLM required)	1 / 2 / 3
3	Who it is for	Reviewer can name at least two of the four target audiences (player, creator, developer, researcher) OR two use-cases (interviews, negotiations, language, difficult conversations)	1 / 2 / 3
4	How to start	Reviewer can state a concrete first action (e.g. “run setup.sh” or “open the web app”)	1 / 2 / 3
5	Not a chatbot	Reviewer understands the NPC follows a scenario script with goals and a rubric, not free-form conversation	1 / 2 / 3

Scoring:

13–15 points: PASS — concept is clear within 60 seconds.
10–12 points: PARTIAL — reviewer grasps the core but misses one important dimension; acceptable with documented gap.
< 10 points: FAIL — README must be revised before MVP tag.

Reviewer notes

Reviewer name   :
Date            :
Reading time    : [≤ 60 s / > 60 s]
Source          : GitHub README / local render / other

Q1 – What it is     : [reviewer's words]
Q2 – Local-first    : [yes / no / unsure — reviewer's words]
Q3 – Who it is for  : [reviewer's answer]
Q4 – How to start   : [reviewer's answer]
Q5 – Not a chatbot  : [yes / no / unsure — reviewer's words]

Scores: Q1= Q2= Q3= Q4= Q5=  Total= /15

Result  : PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL

Specific gaps identified:
  -
  -

Suggested README edits (if any):
  -
  -

Pass/fail determination

Result	Action
PASS	Record result in release issue; proceed to MVP tag
PARTIAL	Record result with gap description; product lead decides whether to block tag or document exception
FAIL	README revision required before MVP tag; re-review after revision

Release decision: A PASS or PARTIAL with documented justification is required before the MVP release can be tagged.