| name | tech-scout |
| description | Technology scouting and evaluation for tools, frameworks, libraries, and technical approaches. Use when users need to evaluate technology options, compare frameworks, assess technical feasibility, scout emerging technologies, or make build-vs-buy decisions. Produces structured comparison matrices with objective criteria scoring.
|
Tech Scout
Technology scouting and evaluation skill. Systematically discovers, evaluates, and compares technical options to support informed technology decisions.
Trigger Words
/tech-scout- "evaluate this technology"
- "compare these frameworks"
- "what are the options for"
- "build vs buy"
- "technology assessment"
- "find alternatives to"
- "scout technologies"
Quick Start
- Define the technical need and constraints
- Discover candidate technologies
- Establish evaluation criteria with weights
- Evaluate each candidate against criteria
- Produce comparison matrix and recommendation
Core Workflow
Tech Scout Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define need and constraints
- [ ] Step 2: Candidate discovery
- [ ] Step 3: Evaluation criteria
- [ ] Step 4: Deep evaluation
- [ ] Step 5: Comparison matrix
- [ ] Step 6: Recommendation
Step 1: Define Need and Constraints
## Technical Need
- Problem to solve: [description]
- Current solution (if any): [what exists today]
- Why change is needed: [pain points]
## Constraints
| Constraint | Value | Flexibility |
|-----------|-------|-------------|
| Budget | [amount] | [hard/soft] |
| Timeline | [timeframe] | [hard/soft] |
| Team skills | [languages/frameworks] | [hard/soft] |
| Scale requirements | [users/requests/data] | [hard/soft] |
| Integration needs | [systems to integrate with] | [hard/soft] |
| Compliance/Security | [requirements] | [hard/soft] |
Step 2: Candidate Discovery
Search strategy:
- Known options: Technologies the team already knows about
- Market leaders: Top solutions by adoption/market share
- Rising contenders: Newer options gaining traction
- Open-source alternatives: Community-driven options
- Unconventional approaches: Different paradigms that solve the same problem
For each candidate, capture:
| # | Technology | Category | Maturity | License | Last Release |
|---|-----------|----------|----------|---------|-------------|
| 1 | [name] | [category] | [early/growth/mature/declining] | [license] | [date] |
Step 3: Evaluation Criteria
Standard criteria (customize per evaluation):
| Criterion | Weight | Description |
|---|
| Functionality fit | 25% | Does it solve the stated problem? |
| Performance | 15% | Speed, throughput, latency |
| Developer experience | 15% | Docs, tooling, debugging, learning curve |
| Community & ecosystem | 10% | Activity, packages, support channels |
| Maintenance & longevity | 10% | Release cadence, backing, bus factor |
| Security | 10% | CVE history, security practices, audit status |
| Integration ease | 10% | APIs, SDKs, compatibility |
| Cost (TCO) | 5% | License, infrastructure, training, migration |
Customization rules:
- Weights must sum to 100%
- Minimum 5 criteria, maximum 10
- At least one criterion must address risk/security
- Weights should reflect the specific decision context
Step 4: Deep Evaluation
For each candidate, evaluate:
## [Technology Name]
### Overview
- What it is: [one sentence]
- Primary use case: [intended purpose]
- Architecture: [key design decisions]
### Strengths
1. [strength with evidence]
2. [strength with evidence]
### Weaknesses
1. [weakness with evidence]
2. [weakness with evidence]
### Scores
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Justification |
|-----------|-------------|---------------|
| Functionality fit | [1-5] | [why] |
| Performance | [1-5] | [why] |
| ... | ... | ... |
### Risk Assessment
- Vendor lock-in risk: [low/medium/high]
- Technology obsolescence risk: [low/medium/high]
- Migration difficulty (if switching later): [low/medium/high]
### Notable
- [Any standout feature or concern not captured above]
Step 5: Comparison Matrix
## Comparison Matrix
| Criterion (Weight) | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-------------------|----------|----------|----------|
| Functionality (25%) | 4 (1.00) | 3 (0.75) | 5 (1.25) |
| Performance (15%) | 3 (0.45) | 5 (0.75) | 4 (0.60) |
| Dev Experience (15%) | 5 (0.75) | 3 (0.45) | 3 (0.45) |
| Community (10%) | 4 (0.40) | 5 (0.50) | 2 (0.20) |
| Maintenance (10%) | 4 (0.40) | 4 (0.40) | 3 (0.30) |
| Security (10%) | 3 (0.30) | 4 (0.40) | 4 (0.40) |
| Integration (10%) | 4 (0.40) | 3 (0.30) | 3 (0.30) |
| Cost (5%) | 5 (0.25) | 2 (0.10) | 3 (0.15) |
| **Weighted Total** | **3.95** | **3.65** | **3.65** |
Format: raw_score (weighted_score) where weighted_score = raw_score × weight
Step 6: Recommendation
## Recommendation
### Primary Recommendation: [Technology]
- Weighted score: [X.XX]
- Key reasons: [top 2-3 differentiators]
- Risk mitigation: [how to address top risks]
### Runner-Up: [Technology]
- When to choose this instead: [specific conditions]
### Not Recommended: [Technology]
- Why not: [key disqualifiers]
### Implementation Considerations
- Migration path from current solution: [approach]
- Estimated adoption timeline: [timeframe]
- Key risks to monitor: [risks]
- Success metrics: [how to know it's working]
Build vs Buy Decision Template
When the evaluation is specifically build-vs-buy:
## Build vs Buy Analysis
| Factor | Build | Buy |
|--------|-------|-----|
| Upfront cost | [estimate] | [estimate] |
| Annual maintenance | [estimate] | [estimate] |
| Time to production | [estimate] | [estimate] |
| Customization | Full control | [level] |
| Competitive advantage | [yes/no - why] | N/A |
| Team capacity | [impact on team] | [minimal] |
| 3-year TCO | [total] | [total] |
### Recommendation: [Build/Buy]
[Reasoning]
Integration with Other Skills
- Use
deep-research for in-depth background on specific technologies
- Use
research-analyst for market and ecosystem analysis
- Use
deep-think for complex architectural trade-offs
- Feed results to
brainstorm for implementation approaches
Anti-Patterns
- Do NOT evaluate only one option (minimum 2 candidates)
- Do NOT use subjective scoring without justification
- Do NOT ignore total cost of ownership (focus only on license cost)
- Do NOT skip risk assessment
- Do NOT recommend based on hype or popularity alone
- Do NOT ignore the team's existing skills and constraints
