magnus919_agent-skills/technical-project-management/evals/samples/with-skill-schedule.md

**No. With the supplied durations and one exclusive specialist, earliest completion is working-day offset 7—two working days after the deadline of 5.** This assumes uninterrupted specialist availability and no rework.

I ran the skill's schedule helper against the supplied JSON. Its dependency-only result is finish 6, already one day late. It flags overlapping specialist demand from offsets 2–3: build and review-prep both start after design. The tool detects resource conflicts but does not resolve them.

A feasible sequence under the stated resource constraint is:

| Task | Start offset | Finish offset |
|---|---:|---:|
| design | 0 | 2 |
| build | 2 | 5 |
| review-prep | 5 | 6 |
| accept | 6 | 7 |

Reversing build and review-prep also finishes at 7. After design, the specialist must perform 3 + 1 = 4 days of work sequentially, followed by one day of acceptance: **2 + 4 + 1 = 7**. These are elapsed working-day offsets, not inclusive calendar dates.

The helper reports design, build, and accept as zero-float tasks in its unconstrained model; review-prep's two days of apparent float do not make the specialist conflict disappear. The resource-constrained sequence makes its work part of the completion constraint too.

To meet offset 5, the plan needs an approved change: reduce elapsed work on this sequence by two days, or validate changed dependencies/capacity that achieve equivalent savings. A second qualified specialist alone permits the original parallel plan but still finishes at 6, one day late. Otherwise move the deadline to at least offset 7, with any contingency justified separately.

Have the task owners validate durations and the specialist's availability, then have the deadline owner choose a date or scope/capacity tradeoff. Record that decision and recalculate before making a commitment. Day 7 is a deterministic lower bound under these assumptions, not a confidence-rated promise.