compare-architectures

name	compare-architectures
description	Generate and compare multiple architecture options (minimal, moderate, full modernization) with comprehensive trade-offs analysis across cost, timeline, risk, performance, and maintainability dimensions. Use when evaluating multiple architectural approaches or deciding between modernization strategies with different cost/risk trade-offs.
acceptance	[{"three_options_generated":"Three distinct architecture options created (minimal, moderate, full)"},{"trade_offs_analyzed":"Each option includes cost, timeline, risk, performance, maintainability analysis"},{"recommendation_provided":"Clear recommendation based on user constraints with justification"},{"comparison_matrix":"Side-by-side comparison matrix for easy evaluation"},{"next_steps_defined":"Implementation roadmap outlined for recommended option"}]
inputs	{"current_architecture":{"type":"string","required":false,"description":"Path to current architecture document or textual description of existing system"},"new_requirements":{"type":"string","required":true,"description":"User's goals, ideas, and new requirements to be incorporated"},"constraints":{"type":"object","required":false,"description":"Timeline, budget, team size, expertise constraints","default":{}},"comparison_dimensions":{"type":"array","required":false,"description":"Dimensions to compare (cost, timeline, risk, performance, maintainability, scalability, security)","default":["cost","timeline","risk","maintainability"]},"project_type":{"type":"string","required":false,"description":"frontend | backend | fullstack (auto-detected if not provided)"}}
outputs	{"comparison_created":{"type":"boolean","description":"Whether comparison document was successfully created"},"comparison_location":{"type":"string","description":"File path to comparison document (docs/architecture-comparison-{timestamp}.md)"},"options_count":{"type":"number","description":"Number of architecture options generated (always 3)"},"recommended_option":{"type":"string","description":"Which option is recommended (minimal | moderate | full)"},"recommendation_confidence":{"type":"number","description":"Confidence in recommendation (0-100)"}}
telemetry	{"emit":"skill.compare-architectures.completed","track":["project_type","options_count","recommended_option","recommendation_confidence","comparison_dimensions","duration_ms","comparison_location"]}

Compare Architectures Skill

Purpose

Generate three distinct architecture options with comprehensive trade-offs analysis to help users make informed decisions about system modernization or design. Each option represents a different investment level (minimal, moderate, full) with detailed cost, timeline, risk, and quality analysis.

Core Principles:

• Present 3 viable options (not 1 perfect solution)
• Honest trade-offs analysis (no "best" option without context)
• Evidence-based estimates (cost, timeline, risk)
• Clear recommendation with justification
• Actionable next steps for chosen option

Prerequisites

• Understanding of current system (if brownfield)
• Clear new requirements or goals
• User constraints known (timeline, budget, team)
• workspace/ directory exists for output storage

---

Workflow

Step 1: Analyze Current State & Requirements

Action: Understand current architecture and new requirements to create meaningful options.

Key Activities:

1. Load Current Architecture (if brownfield)

   # If current_architecture path provided
   python .claude/skills/bmad-commands/scripts/read_file.py \
     --path {current_architecture} \
     --output json
   
   # Extract:
   # - Current technology stack
   # - Architecture patterns
   # - Known limitations/pain points
   # - Production readiness score (if from analyze-architecture)
   

   If current architecture is textual description, parse for:

   • Technology stack (languages, frameworks, databases)
   • Architecture type (monolith, microservices, etc.)
   • Scale indicators (users, data volume, traffic)
   • Pain points mentioned

2. Parse New Requirements

   Extract from new_requirements:

   • Functional changes: New features, capabilities, integrations
   • Non-functional changes: Performance, scalability, security needs
   • Business goals: Why these changes matter, expected outcomes
   • Success criteria: How to measure success

   Example parsing:

   Input: "Add real-time chat, support 10K concurrent users, mobile app needed"
   
   Parsed:
   - Functional: Real-time chat feature, mobile support
   - Non-functional: Scale to 10K concurrent (performance requirement)
   - Technical implications: Need WebSocket/SSE, mobile framework
   

3. Identify Constraints

   From constraints parameter:

   • Timeline: How soon is this needed? (weeks, months, year)
   • Budget: Cost sensitivity (low, moderate, high)
   • Team size: How many developers available?
   • Team expertise: Current skill set, willingness to learn new tech
   • Risk tolerance: Conservative (low risk) vs. aggressive (innovation)

   Default assumptions if not provided:

   • Timeline: Moderate (3-6 months)
   • Budget: Moderate
   • Team: Small (2-5 developers)
   • Expertise: Moderate (willing to learn)
   • Risk tolerance: Moderate

4. Detect Project Type (if not provided)

   Based on current architecture and requirements:

   • Frontend: UI/UX dominant, client-side changes
   • Backend: API/services/data dominant
   • Fullstack: Both frontend and backend changes

Output: Comprehensive context for option generation

See: references/requirement-analysis.md for detailed parsing techniques

---

Step 2: Generate Three Architecture Options

Action: Create three distinct options representing different investment/change levels.

Option Generation Strategy:

Option A: Minimal Changes (Lowest Risk, Fastest)

Philosophy: Keep what works, fix what's broken, add minimally.

Approach:

• Technology: Stick with current stack, upgrade versions
• Architecture: Minimal pattern changes, targeted fixes
• Scope: Address critical pain points only, defer nice-to-haves
• Integration: Bolt-on new features to existing architecture
• Migration: No migration, incremental additions

Typical Characteristics:

• Timeline: 2-6 weeks
• Cost: $ (1x baseline)
• Risk: Low (minimal changes, proven tech)
• Team impact: Minimal learning curve
• Technical debt: May increase slightly (tactical over strategic)

Example (Real-time Chat Requirement):

## Option A: Minimal Changes - Bolt-on Chat

**Approach:** Add Socket.IO to existing Express backend, embed chat widget in current UI.

**Technology Stack:**
- Keep: Current React frontend, Express backend, PostgreSQL
- Add: Socket.IO (WebSocket), Redis (pub/sub)

**Architecture:**
- Chat service as separate Express route
- Shared PostgreSQL for messages
- Redis for pub/sub between server instances

**Changes Required:**
- Add Socket.IO endpoints to Express (~500 LOC)
- Add chat UI component to React (~300 LOC)
- Add Redis for horizontal scaling (~100 LOC)

**Pros:**
✅ Fast implementation (3-4 weeks)
✅ Low risk (minimal changes)
✅ No migration needed
✅ Team knows the stack

**Cons:**
❌ Not optimal architecture for real-time
❌ May have scaling challenges >5K users
❌ Technical debt increases
❌ Shared database could become bottleneck

**Cost:** $15K-$25K (developer time)
**Timeline:** 3-4 weeks
**Risk:** Low

---

Option B: Moderate Refactor (Balanced Approach)

Philosophy: Strategic improvements, selective modernization, set up for future.

Approach:

• Technology: Mix of current + modern (gradual migration)
• Architecture: Improve patterns, introduce new where needed
• Scope: Address current needs + position for future growth
• Integration: Refactor key areas, new services for new features
• Migration: Incremental (strangler fig pattern)

Typical Characteristics:

• Timeline: 2-4 months
• Cost: $$ (2-3x baseline)
• Risk: Medium (some new tech, planned migration)
• Team impact: Moderate learning (new patterns/tools)
• Technical debt: Reduced overall (strategic improvements)

Example (Real-time Chat Requirement):

## Option B: Moderate Refactor - Dedicated Chat Service

**Approach:** Extract chat as microservice with modern real-time stack, keep core app.

**Technology Stack:**
- Keep: React frontend, Express API, PostgreSQL (core)
- New: Node.js + Socket.IO (chat service), MongoDB (chat messages), Redis (caching)

**Architecture:**
- Chat microservice (separate deployment)
- Event-driven communication (message bus)
- Dedicated database for chat (MongoDB)
- API gateway pattern for routing

**Changes Required:**
- Build chat microservice (~2K LOC)
- Integrate with existing auth (JWT sharing)
- Update frontend to connect to chat service
- Set up API gateway (Kong/Express Gateway)

**Pros:**
✅ Scales well (dedicated service)
✅ Better real-time performance
✅ Reduces technical debt
✅ Positions for future microservices
✅ Team learns modern patterns

**Cons:**
❌ More complex deployment
❌ Need to learn microservices patterns
❌ Operational overhead (monitoring, debugging)
⚠️  Migration period (running both)

**Cost:** $40K-$60K (developer time + infrastructure)
**Timeline:** 2-3 months
**Risk:** Medium

---

Option C: Full Modernization (Highest Quality, Longest Timeline)

Philosophy: Do it right, invest for long-term, modern best practices.

Approach:

• Technology: Modern stack, latest frameworks and tools
• Architecture: Best practices, scalable patterns from day 1
• Scope: Solve current needs + future-proof for 3-5 years
• Integration: Complete redesign, greenfield opportunity
• Migration: Phased complete migration or parallel run

Typical Characteristics:

• Timeline: 4-8 months
• Cost: $$$ (4-6x baseline)
• Risk: High (major changes, new tech, migration complexity)
• Team impact: Significant learning (new ecosystem)
• Technical debt: Near zero (clean slate)

Example (Real-time Chat Requirement):

## Option C: Full Modernization - Real-time First Architecture

**Approach:** Rebuild as real-time-first app with modern fullstack framework.

**Technology Stack:**
- Frontend: Next.js 15 (React 19, server components)
- Backend: tRPC + WebSocket, serverless functions
- Database: PostgreSQL (main) + Redis (cache/pub-sub)
- Real-time: Ably or Pusher (managed real-time infrastructure)
- Mobile: React Native (shared components with web)

**Architecture:**
- Fullstack monorepo (Turborepo)
- Real-time-first design (WebSocket primary, HTTP fallback)
- Serverless functions (auto-scaling)
- CDN edge functions for global performance
- Mobile + web from single codebase

**Changes Required:**
- Complete rebuild of frontend in Next.js (~8K LOC)
- Backend as tRPC API + WebSocket (~4K LOC)
- Real-time infrastructure setup (Ably/Pusher)
- Mobile app (React Native, ~3K LOC)
- Data migration from old to new system

**Pros:**
✅ Modern, maintainable codebase
✅ Excellent real-time performance
✅ Scales to 100K+ users easily
✅ Mobile + web unified
✅ Easy to hire developers (popular stack)
✅ Near-zero technical debt

**Cons:**
❌ Long timeline (4-6 months)
❌ High cost (significant investment)
❌ Team needs to learn new stack
❌ Complex migration from old system
❌ Risk of over-engineering

**Cost:** $120K-$180K (developer time + services)
**Timeline:** 4-6 months
**Risk:** High

---

Step 3: Perform Trade-offs Analysis

Action: Compare options across key dimensions to enable informed decision.

Key Dimensions:

1. Cost Analysis

Components:

• Development time: Developer hours × hourly rate
• Infrastructure: Hosting, services, licenses
• Migration: Data migration, parallel running, cutover
• Training: Team learning curve, external training
• Opportunity cost: What else could team work on?

Comparison Matrix:

Dimension	Option A: Minimal	Option B: Moderate	Option C: Full
Development	2-3 dev-weeks	8-12 dev-weeks	20-26 dev-weeks
Infrastructure	+$50/mo	+$200/mo	+$500/mo
Migration	None	$5K-$10K	$15K-$25K
Training	None	Moderate	Significant
Total Cost	$15K-$25K	$40K-$60K	$120K-$180K

---

2. Timeline Analysis

Factors:

• Planning: Requirements, design, architecture
• Development: Implementation time
• Testing: QA, performance, security
• Migration: Data migration, cutover, validation
• Stabilization: Bug fixes, monitoring, optimization

Comparison Matrix:

Phase	Option A: Minimal	Option B: Moderate	Option C: Full
Planning	1 week	2 weeks	3 weeks
Development	2-3 weeks	8-10 weeks	16-20 weeks
Testing	1 week	2 weeks	4 weeks
Migration	None	1 week	2-3 weeks
Stabilization	1 week	2 weeks	3 weeks
Total Timeline	3-4 weeks	2-3 months	4-6 months

---

3. Risk Analysis

Risk Categories:

• Technical risk: New tech, complex patterns, unknowns
• Migration risk: Data loss, downtime, bugs
• Team risk: Skill gaps, learning curve, velocity drop
• Business risk: Opportunity cost, market timing, competition

Scoring (0-100, higher = riskier):

Risk Type	Option A: Minimal	Option B: Moderate	Option C: Full
Technical	20 (known tech)	50 (some new)	75 (major changes)
Migration	10 (no migration)	40 (incremental)	70 (big bang)
Team	15 (no learning)	45 (moderate learn)	65 (steep curve)
Business	25 (low impact)	35 (moderate)	55 (high impact)
Overall Risk	Low (18)	Medium (43)	High (66)

---

4. Performance & Scalability

Metrics:

• Latency: Response time (p50, p95, p99)
• Throughput: Requests per second
• Concurrency: Concurrent users supported
• Scalability: Horizontal/vertical scaling capability

Comparison:

Metric	Option A: Minimal	Option B: Moderate	Option C: Full
Latency	Good (<200ms)	Very Good (<100ms)	Excellent (<50ms)
Concurrency	~5K users	~25K users	~100K+ users
Scalability	Limited (vertical)	Good (horizontal)	Excellent (elastic)
Score	60/100	80/100	95/100

---

5. Maintainability & Technical Debt

Factors:

• Code quality: Readability, structure, patterns
• Technical debt: Shortcuts, compromises, legacy code
• Team velocity: How fast can team add features later?
• Hiring: How easy to find developers?

Comparison:

Factor	Option A: Minimal	Option B: Moderate	Option C: Full
Code Quality	Fair (adds debt)	Good (improves)	Excellent (clean)
Tech Debt	+10% increase	-20% reduction	-90% reduction
Future Velocity	Slows over time	Maintains	Accelerates
Hiring	Moderate	Good	Excellent
Score	50/100	75/100	95/100

---

Step 4: Generate Recommendation

Action: Recommend the best option based on user constraints and provide justification.

Recommendation Logic:

def recommend_option(constraints, user_priorities):
    # Score each option based on constraints
    scores = {
        "minimal": 0,
        "moderate": 0,
        "full": 0
    }

    # Timeline constraint
    if constraints.timeline == "urgent" (<2 months):
        scores["minimal"] += 40
        scores["moderate"] += 20
        scores["full"] += 0
    elif constraints.timeline == "moderate" (2-6 months):
        scores["minimal"] += 20
        scores["moderate"] += 40
        scores["full"] += 20
    else:  # Long-term (>6 months)
        scores["minimal"] += 10
        scores["moderate"] += 30
        scores["full"] += 40

    # Budget constraint
    if constraints.budget == "tight":
        scores["minimal"] += 40
        scores["moderate"] += 15
        scores["full"] += 0
    elif constraints.budget == "moderate":
        scores["minimal"] += 20
        scores["moderate"] += 40
        scores["full"] += 15
    else:  # generous
        scores["minimal"] += 10
        scores["moderate"] += 25
        scores["full"] += 40

    # Risk tolerance
    if constraints.risk_tolerance == "conservative":
        scores["minimal"] += 30
        scores["moderate"] += 20
        scores["full"] += 5
    elif constraints.risk_tolerance == "moderate":
        scores["minimal"] += 15
        scores["moderate"] += 35
        scores["full"] += 20
    else:  # aggressive
        scores["minimal"] += 5
        scores["moderate"] += 20
        scores["full"] += 40

    # User priorities
    if user_priorities.includes("long_term_quality"):
        scores["full"] += 20
        scores["moderate"] += 10
    if user_priorities.includes("speed_to_market"):
        scores["minimal"] += 20
        scores["moderate"] += 10
    if user_priorities.includes("scale_for_growth"):
        scores["full"] += 15
        scores["moderate"] += 10

    # Return highest scoring option
    return max(scores, key=scores.get)

Recommendation Format:

## My Recommendation: Option B - Moderate Refactor

**Confidence:** 85% (High)

**Why This Option:**

Given the constraints:
- Timeline: 3-4 months (moderate)
- Budget: $40K-$60K (moderate)
- Risk tolerance: Medium (willing to invest strategically)
- Priorities: Scale for growth + reduce technical debt

**Option B (Moderate Refactor) is the best fit because:**

1. **Balanced Investment:**
   - Not too fast/cheap (Option A would hit limits soon)
   - Not too slow/expensive (Option C might be over-engineering)
   - $40K-$60K is reasonable for 2-3 month project

2. **Addresses Core Needs:**
   - Solves real-time chat requirement properly (dedicated service)
   - Scales to 25K users (covers the 10K + growth trajectory)
   - Sets up for future microservices (if needed)

3. **Manageable Risk:**
   - Team can learn gradually (not all at once like Option C)
   - Incremental migration (lower risk than big bang)
   - Proven patterns (microservices, event-driven)

4. **Future-Proof:**
   - Reduces technical debt (20% improvement)
   - Easier to hire (modern but not bleeding edge)
   - Positions for growth (can add more services later)

**When to Consider Alternatives:**

- **Choose Option A if:** Timeline is critical (<6 weeks), budget is very tight (<$30K)
- **Choose Option C if:** Planning for 100K+ users, have 6+ months, budget >$120K

Confidence Scoring:

• High (80-100%): Clear constraints, obvious best choice
• Medium (60-79%): Trade-offs close, depends on priorities
• Low (<60%): Need more information, similar options

---

Step 5: Create Comparison Document

Action: Generate comprehensive comparison document with all options, trade-offs, and recommendation.

Document Structure:

# Architecture Options Comparison: [Project Name]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Prepared For:** [User/Stakeholder]
**Current State:** [Brief summary of existing architecture]
**New Requirements:** [What's being added/changed]

---

## Executive Summary

**Recommendation:** Option B - Moderate Refactor
**Confidence:** 85% (High)

**Why:** Balanced approach that meets the requirements, fits timeline/budget, and positions for future growth without over-engineering.

**Quick Comparison:**

| Factor | Option A | Option B ✅ | Option C |
|--------|----------|------------|----------|
| **Timeline** | 3-4 weeks | 2-3 months | 4-6 months |
| **Cost** | $15K-$25K | $40K-$60K | $120K-$180K |
| **Risk** | Low (18) | Medium (43) | High (66) |
| **Scale** | ~5K users | ~25K users | ~100K+ users |
| **Tech Debt** | +10% | -20% | -90% |

---

## Option A: Minimal Changes

[Detailed description from Step 2]

**Architecture Diagram:**
[ASCII or reference to diagram]

**Technology Stack:**
- [List with justifications]

**Implementation Plan:**
1. [High-level steps]
2. ...

**Pros & Cons:**
✅ [Pros]
❌ [Cons]

**Trade-offs Analysis:**
[Cost, timeline, risk, performance, maintainability details]

---

## Option B: Moderate Refactor ✅ RECOMMENDED

[Detailed description from Step 2]

[Same sections as Option A]

**Why This is Recommended:**
[Recommendation justification from Step 4]

---

## Option C: Full Modernization

[Detailed description from Step 2]

[Same sections as Option A]

---

## Side-by-Side Comparison

### Cost Comparison
[Detailed cost breakdown table]

### Timeline Comparison
[Gantt chart or timeline visualization]

### Risk Comparison
[Risk matrix or scoring table]

### Performance Comparison
[Performance metrics table]

### Maintainability Comparison
[Technical debt and code quality comparison]

---

## Recommendation Details

### Primary Recommendation: Option B

[Full justification from Step 4]

### Alternative Scenarios

**If timeline is critical (<6 weeks):**
→ Choose Option A, plan for Option B later

**If budget is generous (>$120K):**
→ Consider Option C for long-term investment

**If team is risk-averse:**
→ Start with Option A, evaluate results, then consider Option B

---

## Next Steps

### If You Choose Option A (Minimal):
1. [Implementation roadmap]
2. [Key decisions needed]
3. [Timeline with milestones]

### If You Choose Option B (Moderate) ✅:
1. **Week 1-2:** Architecture design finalization
2. **Week 3-4:** Chat microservice development
3. **Week 5-6:** API gateway setup + integration
4. **Week 7-8:** Frontend integration + testing
5. **Week 9-10:** Migration + stabilization

**Key Decisions Needed:**
- Message bus choice (RabbitMQ vs. Kafka vs. AWS SQS)
- API gateway (Kong vs. Express Gateway vs. AWS API Gateway)
- MongoDB hosting (self-managed vs. MongoDB Atlas)

**Success Criteria:**
- Chat supports 10K concurrent users
- p95 latency <100ms
- Zero downtime migration
- No data loss during migration

### If You Choose Option C (Full):
1. [Implementation roadmap]
2. [Key decisions needed]
3. [Timeline with milestones]

---

## Appendices

### Appendix A: Assumptions
- [List all assumptions made]

### Appendix B: Technology Comparison
- [Detailed tech stack comparison]

### Appendix C: Migration Strategy
- [For Option B and C, detailed migration approach]

### Appendix D: Risk Mitigation
- [For each identified risk, mitigation strategies]

---

**Prepared by:** Winston (Architecture Subagent)
**Review Status:** Ready for Stakeholder Review
**Next Action:** Decision on preferred option

File Location: docs/architecture-comparison-[timestamp].md

---

Reference Files

• references/requirement-analysis.md - How to parse and analyze requirements
• references/option-generation-patterns.md - Strategies for creating options
• references/cost-estimation.md - How to estimate costs accurately
• references/risk-assessment-framework.md - Risk scoring methodology
• references/trade-offs-analysis.md - Comprehensive trade-offs evaluation

---

When to Escalate

Escalate to user when:

• Requirements are vague or contradictory
• Constraints are unrealistic (timeline too short for scope)
• All options have critical risks
• User priorities conflict (e.g., "fastest AND highest quality")

Escalate to architects when:

• Complex architecture patterns needed
• Novel technology choices required
• Compliance/regulatory requirements unclear
• Performance requirements extremely stringent

---

Success Criteria

A comparison is successful when:

✅ Three viable options generated:

• Each option is realistic and implementable
• Clear differentiation between options
• All options address core requirements

✅ Comprehensive trade-offs:

• All key dimensions analyzed (cost, timeline, risk, etc.)
• Honest assessment (no "perfect" option)
• Evidence-based estimates

✅ Clear recommendation:

• Based on user constraints and priorities
• Well-justified with reasoning
• Confidence level stated

✅ Actionable next steps:

• Implementation roadmap for each option
• Key decisions identified
• Success criteria defined

---

Part of BMAD Enhanced Planning Suite