architecture-tradeoff-analysis

Estrellas7

Forks0

Actualizado17 de febrero de 2026 a las 08:24

Architecture trade-off analysis workflow for comparing options with explicit criteria, weighting, and sensitivity under uncertainty. Use when multiple viable architecture choices exist and rationale must be defensible; do not use after architecture direction is already fixed.

Instalación

Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.

Fuente

KentoShimizu

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

Abrir repositorio de GitHub Ver repositorios del creador

Descarga

Ocupaciones relacionadasSOC

Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC

Analistas de sistemas informáticosOcupaciones informáticas y matemáticas·SOC 15-1211

SKILL.md

readonly

name	architecture-tradeoff-analysis
description	Architecture trade-off analysis workflow for comparing options with explicit criteria, weighting, and sensitivity under uncertainty. Use when multiple viable architecture choices exist and rationale must be defensible; do not use after architecture direction is already fixed.

Architecture Tradeoff Analysis

Overview

Use this skill to make architecture choices explicit, comparable, and auditable instead of preference-driven.

Scope Boundaries

There are several plausible architecture options.
Decision stakes are high and reversal is expensive.
Teams need a shared basis for selecting one option.

Core Judgments

Option quality: whether candidates are realistic for the current context.
Criteria set: business and technical dimensions that actually drive success.
Weighting model: which criteria dominate and why.
Sensitivity: how decision changes when assumptions shift.

Practitioner Heuristics

Keep criteria small and high-impact; too many criteria hide real priorities.
Separate hard constraints from weighted preferences.
Include operational burden and team capability as first-class criteria.
Document dominant assumptions and the signals that would invalidate them.

Workflow

Define decision question, constraints, and decision horizon.
Enumerate candidate options and reject non-viable ones early.
Set criteria and weighting aligned to current strategy.
Score options with evidence-backed rationale per criterion.
Run sensitivity analysis on top-weighted criteria and uncertain assumptions.
Select preferred option and document fallback decision path.

Common Failure Modes

Scoring hides biased assumptions rather than exposing them.
Analysis compares abstract patterns, not implementable options.
Sensitivity analysis is skipped, leading to brittle conclusions.

Failure Conditions

Stop when decision criteria cannot be agreed.
Stop when option scoring lacks evidence for key criteria.
Escalate when sensitivity analysis shows no robust winner.

Más de este repositorio

mismo repositorio

debug-root-cause

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

Systematic debugging workflow for isolating software root causes, implementing proportional fixes, and verifying recovery with reproducible evidence. Use when application/runtime failures, regressions, or flaky behavior are observed and the task requires both diagnosis and remediation. When specialized skills are available in the environment, defer GitHub Actions failure triage to `github-fix-ci`, commit-introduction isolation to `git-bisect-debugging`, profiler-led hotspot analysis to `performance-profiling`, active security incident command to `security-incident-response`, and postmortem-only reporting to `incident-postmortem`. Do not use for broad feature implementation or speculative hardening without evidence.

2026-03-027

api-design-rest

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

Resource-oriented REST/OpenAPI contract design for URI/method semantics, idempotency, pagination, and HTTP status behavior. Trigger when REST contract diffs are detected in paths, methods, schemas, or status semantics, or when request-response transport choice is still unresolved before implementation. Do not use for GraphQL schema authoring, error-taxonomy-only changes, version lifecycle governance, or consumer-provider contract test implementation.

2026-02-177

ab-testing

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

Controlled online experiment workflow for product changes with causal inference, randomization integrity checks, and pre-registered decision criteria. Trigger when ship/no-ship decisions require causal evidence under uncertainty and KPI trade-offs must be quantified. Do not use for feature-flag rollout policy without experiment design, deterministic functional verification, or observability-only analysis.

2026-02-177

testing-contract

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

Provider-consumer compatibility testing for service interface changes. Use when APIs or event schemas evolve and executable contract checks must guard compatibility before release; do not use for UI-only validation or architecture topology decisions.

2026-02-177

testing-e2e

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

End-to-end test planning for critical user journeys across integrated systems. Use when release confidence depends on browser/API/dependency behavior as one flow; do not use for isolated unit behavior or pure contract checks.

2026-02-177

testing-regression-strategy

KentoShimizu/sw-agent-skills

Risk-based regression suite curation for release gating under time and budget limits. Use when teams must decide what runs always versus conditionally by impact and risk; do not use for implementing a single test type in isolation.

2026-02-177

name	architecture-tradeoff-analysis
description	Architecture trade-off analysis workflow for comparing options with explicit criteria, weighting, and sensitivity under uncertainty. Use when multiple viable architecture choices exist and rationale must be defensible; do not use after architecture direction is already fixed.

Architecture Tradeoff Analysis

Overview

Use this skill to make architecture choices explicit, comparable, and auditable instead of preference-driven.

Scope Boundaries

There are several plausible architecture options.
Decision stakes are high and reversal is expensive.
Teams need a shared basis for selecting one option.

Core Judgments

Option quality: whether candidates are realistic for the current context.
Criteria set: business and technical dimensions that actually drive success.
Weighting model: which criteria dominate and why.
Sensitivity: how decision changes when assumptions shift.

Practitioner Heuristics

Keep criteria small and high-impact; too many criteria hide real priorities.
Separate hard constraints from weighted preferences.
Include operational burden and team capability as first-class criteria.
Document dominant assumptions and the signals that would invalidate them.

Workflow

Define decision question, constraints, and decision horizon.
Enumerate candidate options and reject non-viable ones early.
Set criteria and weighting aligned to current strategy.
Score options with evidence-backed rationale per criterion.
Run sensitivity analysis on top-weighted criteria and uncertain assumptions.
Select preferred option and document fallback decision path.

Common Failure Modes

Scoring hides biased assumptions rather than exposing them.
Analysis compares abstract patterns, not implementable options.
Sensitivity analysis is skipped, leading to brittle conclusions.

Failure Conditions

Stop when decision criteria cannot be agreed.
Stop when option scoring lacks evidence for key criteria.
Escalate when sensitivity analysis shows no robust winner.