| name | architecture-pattern-selector |
| description | Recommend architecture patterns (monolith, microservices, serverless, modular monolith) based on scale, team size, and constraints. Use when cto-architect needs to select the right architectural approach for a new system or migration. Use when this capability is needed. |
| metadata | {"author":"alirezarezvani"} |
Architecture Pattern Selector
Provides systematic framework for selecting the right architecture pattern based on real-world constraints rather than hype or resume-driven development.
When to Use
- Designing a new system from scratch
- Evaluating whether to migrate from monolith to microservices
- Choosing between serverless vs container-based architecture
- Assessing if current architecture matches actual needs
Architecture Patterns
1. Monolith
Best for: Early-stage products, small teams, rapid iteration
Characteristics:
- Single deployable unit
- Shared database
- Simple deployment and debugging
- Fastest time to market
Choose when:
- Team < 10 engineers
- < 100K users
- Product-market fit not yet proven
- Need to iterate quickly on features
- Limited DevOps expertise
Avoid when:
- Different components need independent scaling
- Multiple teams need to deploy independently
- Parts of system have very different reliability requirements
2. Modular Monolith
Best for: Growing products that need structure without microservices complexity
Characteristics:
- Single deployable unit with clear module boundaries
- Modules communicate through defined interfaces
- Can evolve to microservices later
- Best of both worlds for mid-size teams
Choose when:
- Team 10-30 engineers
- 100K-1M users
- Need better code organization
- Want microservices benefits without operational overhead
- Planning future extraction to services
Avoid when:
- Need independent deployment per module
- Modules have fundamentally different scaling requirements
- Already have microservices expertise and infrastructure
3. Microservices
Best for: Large organizations with mature DevOps practices
Characteristics:
- Independent deployable services
- Service-specific databases
- Complex operational requirements
- High organizational overhead
Choose when:
- Team > 30 engineers with multiple squads
-
1M users with varying load patterns
- Different services need different scaling strategies
- Strong DevOps/Platform team
- Clear bounded contexts
Avoid when:
- Team lacks Kubernetes/container orchestration experience
- No dedicated platform/DevOps team
- Bounded contexts are unclear
- Chasing microservices for resume value
4. Serverless
Best for: Event-driven workloads, variable traffic, cost optimization
Characteristics:
- Pay-per-execution pricing
- Auto-scaling to zero
- Vendor lock-in concerns
- Cold start latency
Choose when:
- Highly variable or spiky traffic
- Event-driven processing (webhooks, queues)
- Cost-sensitive with unpredictable load
- Simple request-response patterns
- Limited DevOps capacity
Avoid when:
- Consistent high-volume traffic (cost inefficient)
- Low-latency requirements (< 100ms consistently)
- Long-running processes
- Complex stateful workflows
5. Hybrid
Best for: Complex systems with varied requirements
Characteristics:
- Mix of patterns for different components
- Monolith core with serverless functions
- Microservices for specific bounded contexts
Choose when:
- Different parts of system have different characteristics
- Migrating incrementally from monolith
- Some components need independent scaling
- Event-driven workflows alongside synchronous APIs
Selection Framework
Step 1: Assess Current State
Team Size: [ ] < 10 [ ] 10-30 [ ] 30-100 [ ] > 100
User Scale: [ ] < 100K [ ] 100K-1M [ ] 1M-10M [ ] > 10M
DevOps Maturity: [ ] None [ ] Basic [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced
Deployment Freq: [ ] Monthly [ ] Weekly [ ] Daily [ ] Multiple/day
Step 2: Evaluate Constraints
| Constraint | Impact on Pattern Choice |
|---|
| Time to market | Favors monolith |
| Team autonomy | Favors microservices |
| Cost sensitivity | Favors serverless or monolith |
| Latency requirements | Disfavors serverless |
| Compliance/security | May require isolation (microservices) |
Step 3: Apply Decision Matrix
See decision-matrix.md for the scoring framework.
Step 4: Consider Migration Path
Every architecture should have a migration path:
- Monolith → Modular Monolith → Microservices
- Monolith → Hybrid (extract specific services)
- Serverless → Containers (when scale justifies)
Output Format
When recommending an architecture pattern, provide:
## Architecture Recommendation
### Recommended Pattern: [Pattern Name]
**Confidence**: High / Medium / Low
### Why This Pattern
[2-3 specific reasons based on constraints]
### Trade-offs Accepted
- [Trade-off 1 and why it's acceptable]
- [Trade-off 2 and why it's acceptable]
### Migration Path
- **Current**: [Current state]
- **Phase 1**: [Near-term architecture]
- **Phase 2**: [If/when to evolve]
- **Trigger**: [What would cause migration to next phase]
### Patterns Rejected
| Pattern | Reason Not Selected |
|---------|---------------------|
| [Pattern] | [Specific reason] |
### Implementation Considerations
- [Key consideration 1]
- [Key consideration 2]
- [Key consideration 3]
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
Resume-Driven Architecture
Choosing microservices because it looks good on resumes, not because the problem requires it.
Red flag: "We should use microservices because that's what Netflix uses."
Reality check: You're not Netflix. What's your actual scale and team size?
Premature Distribution
Distributing a system before understanding the domain boundaries.
Red flag: "Let's start with microservices from day one."
Reality check: You'll draw the wrong boundaries. Start monolith, extract when clear.
Complexity Worship
Equating complexity with sophistication.
Red flag: "Our architecture needs to be enterprise-grade."
Reality check: Simple architectures that work beat complex ones that don't.
References
Source: alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team — distributed by TomeVault.
