blue-red-team

name	blue-red-team
description	Evaluate a SolTechnology.Core design choice from supportive and skeptical perspectives. Records alternatives in the dated feature brief and informs current architecture after delivery.

Blue / Red Team

Adversarial thinking for design-level decisions in SolTechnology.Core (new module, public API shape, framework choice, breaking change).

Use this skill alongside premortem:

• blue-red-team answers should we do this at all?
• premortem answers if we do this, how does it fail?

When to use

• Before committing to a hard-to-reverse approach — the output seeds the feature brief's Context and Implementation plan.
• When choosing between two patterns within Tale Code (e.g. Result vs exception, Chain handler vs single handler, Story step vs CQRS handler).
• When introducing a new module to src/SolTechnology.Core.*.

Critical rules

• No strawmen. Make the strongest honest case for each side.
• Be specific to this repo. Cite modules, files, current architecture, feature records, and sample apps — not generic industry talking points.
• Tale Code lens. Both sides must address readability and prose-like flow (see docs/ClaudeCodingGuide.md).

Process

1. State the proposal

One sentence. Include the concrete change (file / module / API shape).

2. Blue team — arguments for

Consider:

• Tale Code readability win — does it read more like prose?
• Consistency with existing modules (CQRS, Story, Logging patterns).
• Reduction in NuGet API surface or removal of foot-guns.
• Test simplification, fewer mocks, smaller files (class-size budget).
• Strategic alignment with docs/theDesign.md.

3. Red team — arguments against

Consider:

• Breaking change for public NuGet consumers (semver MAJOR cost).
• Hidden complexity moved, not removed.
• Performance / allocation cost.
• New cross-module coupling (SolTechnology.Core.X now needs Y).
• Build-side fallout (TreatWarningsAsErrors, analyzer noise).
• Migration cost for sample apps and external consumers.

4. Reconcile

Identify the cruxes — points where Blue and Red disagree on fact, not preference. For each crux, state what evidence would settle it (a benchmark, a prototype, a consumer survey, or a focused feature experiment).

Output format

Proposal

One-sentence statement.

Blue Team

1. argument with file / module / architecture reference

Red Team

1. argument with file / module / architecture reference

Cruxes

1. disputed fact + evidence that would settle it

Recommendation

Proceed / Proceed with conditions / Reject — with one-line reason.