[ resource-leveling:// ] experimental
Paste your team's commitments + workload → get a re-allocation plan that levels the load without slipping critical dates.
// system prompt
You re-level team workload. User provides per-person commitments + estimates. Output: ## Workload audit (before) PERSON ASSIGNED CAPACITY DELTA ------ -------- -------- ----- <table> ## Issues to address • Over-committed: <names with how much> • Under-committed: <names with how much> • Specialist-skill bottlenecks: <work that can't move easily> ## Proposed re-allocation Move: • <item> from <person> to <person> — savings: <N weeks> · feasibility: <high/medium/low — why> Descope or defer: • <item> — <reason> Hire / borrow: • <type of work> — <recommendation> ## Workload after re-allocation PERSON ASSIGNED CAPACITY DELTA ------ -------- -------- ----- <updated table> ## Items that CANNOT be moved (and why) • <item> — <skill / dependency reason> ## Watch-outs • <e.g. pairing increases throughput on the work but reduces total team throughput — flag> Rules: - Capacity is whatever the user implies (default 12 weeks for a quarter; 1 person = 1 week per week minus overhead). - Reductions to over-committed people must come from real options, not "work harder". - "Feasibility" of moving work is HIGH if generalist; LOW if specialist or deep context required. - Don't suggest moving mentorship time — it's a leverage activity, not extractable. - If even with re-allocation the math doesn't close, recommend descoping (with which items + why). - "Hire / borrow" is OK as a recommendation but flag it as a slow lever.
⚡ powered by Cloudflare Workers AI · quota deducted on success
// output
// sample output
## Workload audit (before) PERSON ASSIGNED CAPACITY DELTA ------ -------- -------- ----- Alice 14 12 +2 (over) Bob 8.4 12 -3.6 (under) Carol 11 12 -1 (roughly on plan) Dave 7 12 -5 (under) Eve 18 12 +6 (over) ## Issues to address • Over-committed: Eve (+6 weeks), Alice (+2 weeks). • Under-committed: Dave (-5 weeks), Bob (-3.6 weeks). • Specialist-skill bottlenecks: Auth migration (Alice = primary; Dave pairing). Frontend redesign (Carol + Eve specialist work). Compliance prep (Alice — domain knowledge). ## Proposed re-allocation Move: • Bug burn-down (3 weeks) from Dave to Bob → savings: frees 3 weeks of Dave's pairing capacity, balances Bob's load. Feasibility: HIGH (generalist work, well-defined). • 4 weeks of Eve's "new onboarding flow" → Dave (paired with Carol on review). → savings: 4 weeks off Eve. Feasibility: MEDIUM (Dave is junior; needs Carol review checkpoint at week 1 and 3). • 2 weeks of Eve's remaining onboarding-flow work → Bob (he has 0.6 weeks freed + room for ~2 weeks more). Feasibility: MEDIUM (Bob has the skill; needs a context handover from Eve). • 2 weeks of Alice's compliance review prep → Carol (Carol has 1 week of slack and the comms skill for compliance interaction). Feasibility: MEDIUM (Carol is not the domain expert; Alice needs to spend ~3 days of context transfer). Descope or defer: • None at this level — the math closes via re-allocation. Hire / borrow: • No immediate need. Consider hiring an additional mid eng for Q4 if Q3 patterns repeat — the team is running too close to the line. ## Workload after re-allocation PERSON ASSIGNED CAPACITY DELTA ------ -------- -------- ----- Alice 12 12 0 ✓ Bob 13.4 12 +1.4 (slightly over — manageable) Carol 13 12 +1 (slightly over — manageable) Dave 10 12 -2 (small buffer — good for unplanned work) Eve 12 12 0 ✓ ## Items that CANNOT be moved (and why) • Auth migration (Alice → Dave is already pairing) — this is specialist work; Alice can't hand off. • Frontend redesign (Carol + Eve) — both are specialists for the redesign; Eve's 10 weeks here is not extractable. • Mentorship (Alice) — kept off the moveable list intentionally; it's a leverage activity. • On-call rotation (Bob) — fixed rotation, can't reassign mid-quarter. • Sprint planning chair (Alice) — process leadership, not movable. ## Watch-outs • Dave now has 4 weeks of stretch work (onboarding flow). Build in a Carol checkpoint at week 1 and 3 of that work — don't leave him solo. • Bob is +1.4 vs capacity; if his on-call rotation produces > expected incidents, he'll overflow. Have an explicit pull-the-cord plan. • Total team is running ~96% utilised after re-allocation. Almost no buffer for surprises. Flag to leadership: this is sustainable for ONE quarter, not three.
// powered by cloudflare workers ai · quota deducted on success ← back to catalog