review-multitenant-considerations-doc

name	review-multitenant-considerations-doc
description	**ANALYSIS SKILL** — Review Azure Architecture Center multitenant considerations docs for completeness, accuracy, and decision-framework quality. Considerations docs help CTOs and lead architects of SaaS/ISV companies decide if and how to adopt multitenancy. Produces a review report with severity and confidence ratings. WHEN: "review multitenant considerations doc", "review considerations doc", "review AAC considerations doc", "multitenant considerations review", "check considerations doc structure". INVOKES: microsoft-learn MCP, subagent, search, read. FOR SINGLE OPERATIONS: Use Microsoft Learn MCP directly.
metadata	{"author":"PlagueHO","version":"3.0","reference":"https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/multitenant/considerations/overview"}
compatibility	GitHub Copilot, VS Code. Requires microsoft-learn MCP tools (microsoft_docs_search, microsoft_docs_fetch, microsoft_code_sample_search) and subagent support.

Review AAC Multitenant Considerations Documentation

Review documents in the considerations/ subfolder of /docs/guide/multitenant/ for decision-framework quality, multitenancy completeness, and technical accuracy. Audience: CTOs, architects, and product managers of SaaS/ISV companies planning multitenant Azure solutions.

"Tenant" means your customers or user groups — not Microsoft Entra tenants.

Scope exclusion: Do NOT review general link validity, inclusive language, or generic tone/style (Microsoft Learn Build covers these). DO review clarity and terminology specific to multitenancy and SaaS concepts.

What Makes a Considerations Document

Considerations documents present decision frameworks and strategic thinking for CTOs and lead architects before committing to an architecture. They sit above Approaches (patterns per service category) and Service-Specific (individual Azure service detail) articles.

Considerations documents must:

• Focus on what to think about, not how to implement.
• Present decisions as a spectrum of options with tradeoffs, not prescriptive answers.
• Balance technical and commercial perspectives.
• Use comparison tables where options exist.
• Include Benefits/Risks for each option.
• Use "consider" language — never dictate.
• Avoid code, configuration, or service-specific implementation detail.
• Use conceptual diagrams (not implementation diagrams).
• Use interrogative subheadings (questions that guide decisions).

See review-framework.md for the fundamental concern areas used in Step 4.

Prerequisites

• Microsoft Learn MCP tools — microsoft_docs_search, microsoft_docs_fetch, microsoft_code_sample_search.
• Subagent tools — research Azure service features, cross-reference sources.
• Search and Read tools — read target document and related files.

Process

Step 1 — Verify Front Matter and ms.date

1. Read the target document.
2. Verify YAML front matter is valid and contains required fields.
3. Verify ms.date is present and in US date format (mm/dd/yyyy).
4. If ms.date is significantly outdated, flag it.

Step 2 — Verify Structure

Read considerations-template.md. Compare heading hierarchy and section order:

1. Required sections present: Introduction, Core decision-framework content (with comparison tables and Benefits/Risks per option), Contributors (with LinkedIn links), Next steps.
2. Sections in correct order; heading levels follow proper hierarchy.
3. Each option or model has both Benefits and Risks subsections.
4. No code or configuration details present.

Step 3 — Verify Decision Framework Accuracy

Use MCP tools and subagent research to validate decision frameworks, options, and recommendations against current official docs.

Tool	Query Pattern	Purpose
microsoft_docs_search	"<topic> multitenancy best practices"	Validate multitenant guidance
microsoft_docs_fetch	URL from search results	Retrieve full doc pages
microsoft_docs_search	"<topic> preview features"	Check preview/GA status
microsoft_docs_search	"<topic> deprecation retirement"	Check deprecation status

Verify:

3a — Options and Frameworks Are Current

• Options reflect current Azure guidance and capabilities.
• Comparison tables contain correct, balanced information.
• Benefits and risks for each option are accurate.
• Recommendations use "consider" language (not prescriptive).

3b — Preview and Deprecation Status

• Preview features are marked as such. Presenting a preview feature as GA is critical.
• Deprecated or retiring features are flagged. Recommending a deprecated feature without disclaimer is critical.

3c — Multitenancy Differentiation

• Each option provides unique value in a multitenant context — not benefits that apply equally to single-tenant deployments.
• Options explain differentiated advantages: tenant isolation, per-tenant scaling, noisy-neighbor mitigation, cost allocation, tenant lifecycle management.
• Flag options without differentiated multitenant value.

Step 4 — Review Multitenancy Considerations Coverage

Most critical step. Evaluate whether the document thoroughly covers the multitenancy considerations relevant to its topic. Use review-framework.md for the fundamental concern areas — the non-functional requirements of a multitenant system that apply across any architectural topic.

For each fundamental concern area in the framework, assess:

1. Relevance — Does this topic have multitenancy implications in this area?
2. Completeness — If relevant, are the key decisions and tradeoffs surfaced?
3. Balance — Are both technical and commercial/business perspectives present?
4. Actionability — Does the guidance help architects make decisions, not just list considerations?
5. Multitenancy differentiation — Does the guidance provide value specific to multitenant architectures, not just general best practices?

The fundamental concern areas include (see framework for full detail and evaluation questions):

• Tenant definition and boundaries
• Isolation and shared-resource tradeoffs
• Scalability, performance, and resource contention
• Security and trust boundaries
• Compliance, data sovereignty, and governance
• Cost management and commercial alignment
• Tenant lifecycle impact
• Operational excellence and observability
• Reliability and fault isolation
• Identity, access, and entitlements
• Evolution, extensibility, and future-proofing

Not every area applies to every document. Skip areas that are genuinely not applicable, but record the reasoning in the review report. Flag areas that should be covered but are missing as gaps.

Step 5 — Check Terminology and Cross-References

• Uses "tenant" consistently (not "customer" when meaning tenant).
• Multitenancy concepts (isolation models, shared vs dedicated, noisy neighbor, control plane, deployment stamp) are explained correctly.
• SaaS and ISV terminology is accurate.
• Diagram alt-text follows Diagram that shows... pattern.
• Cross-references link to related Considerations, Approaches, and Service-Specific documents.
• Links to Well-Architected Framework and Cloud Design Patterns where relevant.

Step 6 — Check Scope Boundaries

Verify the document stays within considerations scope:

• Must contain: Decision frameworks, options with tradeoffs, strategic guidance for architects and CTOs.
• Must not contain: Code, configuration, deployment scripts, service-specific implementation detail, or content belonging in Approaches or Service-Specific articles.
• Always preserve: Contributors sections with attribution.
• Never invent: Azure services or features — verify against official docs.

Flag content belonging to Approaches or Service-Specific categories as a structural issue (severity 🔴 Critical).

Step 7 — Produce the Review Report

Output the review using report-template.md. The template contains all required sections, severity/confidence/status legends, and change type definitions. Follow it as-is.

Quality Standards

• Accurate — Decision frameworks reflect current Azure capabilities.
• Complete — Covers relevant multitenancy considerations thoroughly.
• Balanced — Technical and commercial perspectives present.
• Clear — Consistent multitenancy/SaaS terminology; concise.
• Connected — Cross-links to Approaches, Service-Specific docs, WAF, and Cloud Design Patterns.
• Current — ms.date reflects recent review; no deprecated or preview features without status indicators.

Edge Cases

• Unverifiable claims — Note as "unverified" with confidence 🔴 Low; recommend manual confirmation.
• Conflicting official sources — Report both; flag for human resolution; confidence 🟡 Medium.
• Wrong-category content — Flag as structural issue, severity 🔴 Critical.
• No multitenancy-specific guidance exists for the topic — Note the gap; suggest checking broader Azure documentation.
• Preview feature with no GA timeline — Flag as 🟠 Important; add preview disclaimer.