cloud-architecture-decider

name

cloud-architecture-decider

description

Decide cloud platform, abstraction rung, and deployment posture cloud-neutrally — gather requirements FIRST (compliance/residency, latency/regions, availability, cost, team maturity, existing estate), shape the provider-neutral logical architecture, THEN pick the highest abstraction rung the workload tolerates (IaaS/VPS → container-PaaS → managed-Jamstack/SSR → Postgres-BaaS → edge/serverless → hyperscaler), a provider within it (modern managed platforms e.g. Vercel/Render/Supabase/Cloudflare, or a hyperscaler AWS/Azure/GCP), and per-capability managed-vs-self-hosted posture — with tradeoffs, exit costs, and an ADR handoff. Ties to isolation, cost, and ops maturity, never fashion. Use when asked which cloud, provider, or platform tier to use, whether to migrate, managed-vs-self-hosted, or single-vs-multi-cloud. Do NOT use to MAP a decided provider to services (aws-/azure-saas-architect), system structure (architecture-designer), tenancy (saas-platform-architect), or IaC review (iac-reviewer).

Cloud Architecture Decider

Purpose

Produce a defensible cloud platform decision: a requirements-and-constraints record, a provider-neutral logical architecture, an explicit abstraction-rung placement (how much operational surface the team should own — from a raw VPS up to a fully managed platform), a scored rung/provider/deployment decision with honest tradeoffs and exit costs, and per-capability managed-vs-self-hosted calls. The discipline is decision-before-services and rung-before-provider: pick the highest abstraction rung the workload tolerates, THEN a provider within it — naming a provider's products before the constraints, logical shape, and rung are written produces architecture-by-brochure. For a hyperscaler the output is the input aws-saas-architect or azure-saas-architect maps; for the modern managed-platform tier the platform absorbs most of that mapping, so the decision record plus the concrete provider is often enough to start. The decision record is handed to adr-writer.

Use When

• Use when: asked which cloud provider a product should run on, or whether to stay, migrate, go multi-cloud, or go hybrid.
• Use when: choosing how much operational surface to own — the abstraction rung (raw VPS/IaaS, container-PaaS, managed-Jamstack/SSR host, Postgres-BaaS, edge/serverless, or hyperscaler managed services) — not just which provider.
• Use when: a greenfield SaaS needs its cloud/deployment posture decided.
• Use when: deciding managed-vs-self-hosted per capability (database, queue, search, k8s vs PaaS) — on any provider.
• Use when: an existing cloud bill, compliance obligation, or team-capacity problem reopens the platform question.
• Do NOT use when: the provider is already decided and the task is mapping to concrete services — azure-saas-architect / aws-saas-architect.
• Do NOT use when: designing component boundaries and data ownership — architecture-designer (its output is an input here).
• Do NOT use when: deciding pooled/siloed tenancy or control-plane/data-plane structure — saas-platform-architect (its isolation decisions constrain the cloud decision, not vice versa).
• Do NOT use when: reviewing a Terraform/Bicep diff — iac-reviewer.

Inputs to Inspect

1. The logical/system architecture if one exists (architecture-designer output, ADRs, diagrams) — the decision maps THIS, not a blank slate.
2. Tenancy decisions: saas-platform-architect pooled/siloed choices and tenant-modeler semantics — isolation requirements rule providers and deployment models in or out.
3. Compliance and residency obligations: certifications required by customers (SOC 2, ISO 27001), data-residency clauses, regulated-industry constraints — from contracts and security questionnaires, not memory.
4. Cost reality: current bills, saas-cost-architect model if present, funding stage, committed-spend contracts and credits with expiry dates.
5. Team operational maturity: who is on call, what the team has run in production before (k8s? managed PaaS only?), hiring plans.
6. Existing estate: current provider footprint, IaC, CI/CD, identity provider, and every integration with provider-specific services.
7. Latency/region needs: where users are, acceptable p95, offline/edge needs.
8. Workload shape per service: static/SSR, long-running/stateful, or bursty/ event-driven — this caps the abstraction rung (a stateful long-running process does not fit a pure edge runtime; a static frontend + API fits a managed-Jamstack host), so inspect it before choosing a rung.

Workflow

1. Write the requirements-and-constraints record across nine axes: compliance/residency, latency/regions, availability target, cost envelope, operational maturity, existing estate, integration gravity (what the product must talk to), scale trajectory, and exit-cost tolerance. Mark each entry verified (with source) or assumed. Missing answers on compliance, residency, or availability are Stop Conditions, not guesses. These axes drive the abstraction-rung placement in step 4: operational maturity and workload shape set how much ops the team should own; residency and compliance can force a rung; cost sets the model.
2. Shape the provider-neutral logical architecture: identity boundary, network zones, data stores by kind (relational/object/cache/search), compute shape (long-running services, jobs, functions), messaging needs, observability requirements — in capability language ("managed relational DB with per-tenant isolation option"), never product names. Concrete providers and platform brands are deferred to steps 4–5; nothing here names a product.
3. Derive hard filters from tenant isolation and compliance: which deployment models the tenancy design permits (a database-per-tenant silo needs cheap DB instances or schema automation; residency needs the right regions), and which providers/regions satisfy the compliance set. Filters eliminate options — and can eliminate whole rungs (strict residency or a heavy compliance set can rule the modern managed-platform tier out and force the hyperscaler rung; a stateful long-running service rules out a pure edge runtime) — before scoring starts.
4. Place the workload on the abstraction ladder — decide how much operational surface the team should own before naming any provider. The rungs, low→high abstraction (higher rung = less ops the team carries):
   • IaaS / VPS — you run the OS, patching, and runtime (hyperscaler VMs; e.g. DigitalOcean Droplets, Linode). Most control, most ops.
   • Container PaaS — "just deploy my app + DB," the platform runs the host and scaling (e.g. Render, Railway, Fly.io).
   • Managed Jamstack / SSR host — frontend + serverless functions, the platform owns build/CDN/deploy (e.g. Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare Pages).
   • Managed data / Postgres-BaaS — managed DB plus auth and storage (e.g. Supabase, Neon).
   • Edge / serverless functions — global, per-invocation compute (e.g. Cloudflare Workers, Fly.io).
   • Hyperscaler managed services — the full service catalog for deep compliance, scale, and integration (AWS, Azure, GCP). The rule: pick the highest rung the workload tolerates, then choose a provider within it — a higher rung hands more operational surface (patching, account topology, IAM, network) to the platform, the right default for a small team; reach DOWN the ladder only for a named reason (control, cost at proven scale, residency, a capability the platform lacks). Decide on the durable axes — abstraction rung, ops maturity, workload shape (static/SSR vs long-running/stateful vs edge/event), cost model (per-invocation vs per-VM vs bandwidth/egress), compliance/residency, and lock-in/exit cost — and treat the named brands as : their pricing, free-tier limits, and runtime constraints are VOLATILE verification items, never asserted from memory (the same rule the skill applies to hyperscaler SKUs and regions).

Output Format

CLOUD ARCHITECTURE DECISION — <product/scope>
Requirements & constraints: <nine axes, each verified(source)/assumed>
Logical architecture: <capability-language shape: identity, network zones,
  data, compute, messaging, observability>
Hard filters applied: <isolation/compliance/region filters → options and
  rungs eliminated, with the filter that killed each>
Abstraction rung: <rung chosen = highest the workload tolerates + why; rungs
  ruled out and by what (workload shape / residency / compliance)>
Options scored: <rung × provider × posture — cost model / operational fit /
  integration / regions / exit cost — rationale per axis>
Decision: <rung + provider + deployment posture — the one-paragraph why>
Managed vs self-hosted: <capability → posture → named reason → operational
  bill accepted>
Tradeoffs & exit costs: <what is given up; lock-in services; cost to leave;
  reopen triggers incl. outgrowing the rung>
Handoffs: <adr-writer record; hyperscaler → aws-/azure-saas-architect mapping,
  OR modern tier → saas-platform-architect/tenant-modeler/multi-tenant-data-
  architect + rls-policy-auditor + merge-is-deploy-governance;
  saas-cost-architect model>
Assumptions & open questions: <each with risk-if-wrong / who answers>

Validation Checklist

• Requirements record complete across all nine axes; every entry marked verified (with source) or assumed — no silent guesses on compliance, residency, or availability.
• Logical architecture contains zero provider product names.
• Concrete provider/platform brand names appear only in the abstraction- ladder explanation and the options/scoring output, as current examples — never in the logical architecture, which stays capability-language.
• Tenant isolation and compliance produced explicit hard filters before any scoring.
• The abstraction rung is chosen explicitly and justified as the highest the workload tolerates; rungs ruled out are recorded with the reason (workload shape, residency, compliance).
• Scoring is rung × provider × posture and includes operational maturity ("can this team run it") and exit cost — not just feature/price comparison, and not provider × posture alone.
• Multi-cloud, if chosen, carries its duplicated-expertise and lowest-common-denominator costs in writing; if rejected, the rejection is recorded.
• Every self-hosted call names its reason and its operational bill.
• Tradeoffs, lock-in, exit costs, and reopen triggers are written down.
• Handoffs are stated and rung-appropriate: adr-writer always; hyperscaler → the provider architect skill; modern managed-platform tier → the tenancy, RLS, and deploy owners.

Gotchas

• The enterprise-default trap: reaching for a hyperscaler (AWS/Azure/GCP) for a small team or greenfield product usually over-buys operational surface. The highest rung the workload tolerates — a managed Jamstack/SSR host, a Postgres-BaaS, or a container-PaaS — hands the patching, account topology, and IAM to the platform that the team would otherwise own. Reach DOWN the ladder for a named reason, not by reflex; "everyone uses AWS" is fashion, not a requirement.
• The named platforms (Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare, Render, Railway, Fly, Supabase, Neon, …) are current market examples of each rung, not endorsements; their free tiers, pricing, and runtime limits move quarterly — verify them at decision time, never assert from memory (the same discipline the skill applies to hyperscaler SKUs and regions). Note engine heritage precisely when it drives a decision (a Postgres-BaaS is not interchangeable with a MySQL/Vitess-heritage platform).
• Committed-spend contracts and startup credits decide more real cloud choices than architecture does — surface them in the cost axis instead of letting them operate invisibly.
• "Multi-cloud for resilience" usually buys correlated complexity, not resilience; region-level redundancy on one provider is the cheaper first answer. Multi-cloud earns its place via residency, acquisition risk, or customer mandate.
• Integration gravity is underweighted: an estate already deep in one provider's identity, queues, and IAM makes "better database elsewhere" a net loss after integration cost.
• Team maturity is the axis people lie about; score what the team has RUN in production, not what it wants to run.
• The tenancy model changes provider economics (thousands of silo DBs vs one pooled cluster price out differently) — decide with saas-platform-architect output in hand, not after.
• A "temporary" second provider from an acquisition becomes permanent; write the consolidation trigger into the decision or accept hybrid as the real posture.

Stop Conditions

• Compliance, data-residency, or availability requirements cannot be verified from any source → stop; a cloud decision on guessed compliance is unshippable. Route to human-approval-boundary with what is missing.
• Tenancy decisions do not exist yet → run saas-platform-architect first; the deployment model is an input, not an afterthought.
• The scored options land within noise of each other → present the tie with the tie-breaking question (usually exit cost or team maturity) to the human instead of manufacturing a winner.
• The decision would trigger a migration of a live production estate → decision record only; migration planning is separate, approval-gated work.

Supporting Files

• references/decision-inputs.md — the nine-axis requirements record template, the abstraction-ladder rungs with current example providers, the hard-filter derivation table, and the scoring rubric.
• evals/evals.json — trigger + behavior cases.
• evals/trigger-evals.json — discrimination within the cloud cluster (azure-saas-architect, aws-saas-architect, iac-reviewer) and against shipped architecture-designer / saas-platform-architect.