name: technology-advisor
description: Systematic technology selection using the STRIDE framework (Scope, Test reversibility, Requirements, Identify options, Deep evaluation, Execute). Use when selecting databases, frameworks, cloud providers, languages, or any technical stack decisions. Matches evaluation rigor to decision reversibility -- lightweight for 2-way doors, thorough for 1-way doors. Produces weighted decision matrices with sensitivity analysis.
tags: [technology-selection, decision-making, stride, evaluation, adr]
Technology Advisor
Guide systematic technology selection using the STRIDE framework. Match evaluation rigor to decision reversibility.
When to Use
- "Help me pick/choose/select [technology]"
- "Should I use X or Y?"
- "What [database/framework/cloud] should I use?"
- "Recommend a [technology type]"
- Validating or reviewing past technology choices
Core Principle
Match rigor to reversibility:
- 2-way door (reversible): 1-3 days, lightweight evaluation
- 1-way door (irreversible): 1-2 weeks, full STRIDE process
The STRIDE Framework
S - Scope the Decision
T - Test for Reversibility
R - Requirements Definition
I - Identify & Screen Options
D - Deep Evaluation
E - Execute & Validate
S - Scope (15-30 min)
Questions to ask:
- What technology are we selecting? (database, framework, cloud, etc.)
- What problem does this solve?
- Who are the stakeholders?
- What's the time horizon? (6 months, 2 years, 5+ years)
T - Test Reversibility (5 min)
Reversibility factors:
| Factor |
Easy to reverse |
Hard to reverse |
| Migration cost |
<5% of effort |
>25% of effort |
| Data portability |
Easy export |
Proprietary lock-in |
| Team retraining |
<1 week |
>1 month |
| Time to switch |
<2 weeks |
>2 months |
Assessment:
- 2-way door -> "Reversible. Use lightweight 3-day evaluation (Steps S,T,R,E)"
- 1-way door -> "Hard to reverse. Use full STRIDE (2 weeks)"
R - Requirements (1-2 hours)
COMPRIS -- 7 universal criteria:
| # |
Criterion |
Description |
| C |
Cost |
Total cost of ownership |
| O |
Operational |
Deployment complexity, support burden |
| M |
Maintainability |
Documentation, debugging, code quality |
| P |
Performance |
Speed, scalability, resource efficiency |
| R |
Risk |
Vendor stability, security, compliance, lock-in |
| I |
Integration |
API compatibility with existing systems |
| S |
Skills |
Team expertise, learning curve, hiring availability |
Weight criteria by normalizing 1-5 importance ratings to percentages (sum = 100%).
I - Identify & Screen (2-4 hours)
- Generate options -- research 10-20 initial candidates
- Apply hard filters -- budget ceiling, platform support, compliance, maturity
- Present shortlist -- narrow to 3-5 finalists
D - Deep Evaluation (4-8 hours)
Score each option 1-5 per criterion:
- 5 = Excellent / Far exceeds
- 4 = Good / Exceeds
- 3 = Average / Meets
- 2 = Below average / Partially meets
- 1 = Poor / Does not meet
Decision matrix:
| Criterion |
Weight |
Option A |
Option B |
Option C |
| Cost |
25% |
4 (1.00) |
3 (0.75) |
5 (1.25) |
| Performance |
20% |
5 (1.00) |
4 (0.80) |
3 (0.60) |
| Skills |
15% |
3 (0.45) |
5 (0.75) |
2 (0.30) |
| TOTAL |
100% |
3.45 |
3.30 |
3.15 |
Sensitivity analysis: Test if winner changes with different weight distributions or +/-1 score variations on uncertain criteria.
E - Execute & Validate
Document the decision:
- Problem statement
- Shortlist evaluated
- Criteria & weights
- Scores & rationale
- Final recommendation
- Risks & mitigations
- Success metrics
- Review date
Interaction Patterns
Full guidance: Walk through all 6 STRIDE steps for complex decisions.
Quick assist: User provides context upfront. Focus on criteria weights, score options, present recommendation.
Second opinion: User has a choice, needs validation. Review their logic, test sensitivity, identify blind spots.
Decision review: Reassess a past decision against original success metrics.
Anti-Patterns to Prevent
| Pattern |
Response |
| Analysis paralysis |
"We've been evaluating 2 weeks on a reversible decision. Pick one, validate with 3-day prototype." |
| Premature commitment |
"This is a 1-way door. Spend 2 weeks evaluating, not 2 days." |
| Feature-list syndrome |
"Both have 90% of features. Focus on the 3 criteria that differentiate them." |
| Recency bias |
"HackerNews loves [new tech] but it has 500 stars. [Mature option] has 50K stars and proven stability." |
| Sunk cost fallacy |
"2 months invested, but signals say it's wrong. Migration is 3 weeks. Sunk cost is not a reason to continue." |
Key Principles
- Match rigor to reversibility -- don't over-analyze reversible choices
- Requirements before options -- define needs before researching solutions
- Weights reveal priorities -- if user can't weight criteria, priorities are unclear
- Data over opinions -- score based on benchmarks, not marketing
- Document decisions -- future you needs to know why you chose this
- Set review dates -- technology landscape changes, reassess periodically
References
- Source: claude-skills/technology-advisor (MIT License)
- STRIDE framework for systematic technology evaluation
1---2name: technology-advisor3description: <!-- AUTO-GENERATED by export-skills.py — DO NOT EDIT -->4---5<!-- AUTO-GENERATED by export-skills.py — DO NOT EDIT -->6---7name: technology-advisor8description: Systematic technology selection using the STRIDE framework (Scope, Test reversibility, Requirements, Identify options, Deep evaluation, Execute). Use when selecting databases, frameworks, cloud providers, languages, or any technical stack decisions. Matches evaluation rigor to decision reversibility -- lightweight for 2-way doors, thorough for 1-way doors. Produces weighted decision matrices with sensitivity analysis.9tags: [technology-selection, decision-making, stride, evaluation, adr]10---1112# Technology Advisor1314Guide systematic technology selection using the STRIDE framework. Match evaluation rigor to decision reversibility.1516## When to Use1718- "Help me pick/choose/select [technology]"19- "Should I use X or Y?"20- "What [database/framework/cloud] should I use?"21- "Recommend a [technology type]"22- Validating or reviewing past technology choices2324## Core Principle2526**Match rigor to reversibility:**27- **2-way door** (reversible): 1-3 days, lightweight evaluation28- **1-way door** (irreversible): 1-2 weeks, full STRIDE process2930## The STRIDE Framework3132```33S - Scope the Decision34T - Test for Reversibility35R - Requirements Definition36I - Identify & Screen Options37D - Deep Evaluation38E - Execute & Validate39```4041### S - Scope (15-30 min)4243Questions to ask:441. What technology are we selecting? (database, framework, cloud, etc.)452. What problem does this solve?463. Who are the stakeholders?474. What's the time horizon? (6 months, 2 years, 5+ years)4849### T - Test Reversibility (5 min)5051Reversibility factors:5253| Factor | Easy to reverse | Hard to reverse |54|---|---|---|55| Migration cost | <5% of effort | >25% of effort |56| Data portability | Easy export | Proprietary lock-in |57| Team retraining | <1 week | >1 month |58| Time to switch | <2 weeks | >2 months |5960Assessment:61- **2-way door** -> "Reversible. Use lightweight 3-day evaluation (Steps S,T,R,E)"62- **1-way door** -> "Hard to reverse. Use full STRIDE (2 weeks)"6364### R - Requirements (1-2 hours)6566**COMPRIS -- 7 universal criteria:**6768| # | Criterion | Description |69|---|---|---|70| C | Cost | Total cost of ownership |71| O | Operational | Deployment complexity, support burden |72| M | Maintainability | Documentation, debugging, code quality |73| P | Performance | Speed, scalability, resource efficiency |74| R | Risk | Vendor stability, security, compliance, lock-in |75| I | Integration | API compatibility with existing systems |76| S | Skills | Team expertise, learning curve, hiring availability |7778Weight criteria by normalizing 1-5 importance ratings to percentages (sum = 100%).7980### I - Identify & Screen (2-4 hours)81821. **Generate options** -- research 10-20 initial candidates832. **Apply hard filters** -- budget ceiling, platform support, compliance, maturity843. **Present shortlist** -- narrow to 3-5 finalists8586### D - Deep Evaluation (4-8 hours)8788Score each option 1-5 per criterion:89- **5** = Excellent / Far exceeds90- **4** = Good / Exceeds91- **3** = Average / Meets92- **2** = Below average / Partially meets93- **1** = Poor / Does not meet9495**Decision matrix:**9697| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |98|---|---|---|---|---|99| Cost | 25% | 4 (1.00) | 3 (0.75) | 5 (1.25) |100| Performance | 20% | 5 (1.00) | 4 (0.80) | 3 (0.60) |101| Skills | 15% | 3 (0.45) | 5 (0.75) | 2 (0.30) |102| **TOTAL** | **100%** | **3.45** | **3.30** | **3.15** |103104**Sensitivity analysis:** Test if winner changes with different weight distributions or +/-1 score variations on uncertain criteria.105106### E - Execute & Validate107108Document the decision:109- Problem statement110- Shortlist evaluated111- Criteria & weights112- Scores & rationale113- Final recommendation114- Risks & mitigations115- Success metrics116- Review date117118## Interaction Patterns119120**Full guidance:** Walk through all 6 STRIDE steps for complex decisions.121122**Quick assist:** User provides context upfront. Focus on criteria weights, score options, present recommendation.123124**Second opinion:** User has a choice, needs validation. Review their logic, test sensitivity, identify blind spots.125126**Decision review:** Reassess a past decision against original success metrics.127128## Anti-Patterns to Prevent129130| Pattern | Response |131|---|---|132| **Analysis paralysis** | "We've been evaluating 2 weeks on a reversible decision. Pick one, validate with 3-day prototype." |133| **Premature commitment** | "This is a 1-way door. Spend 2 weeks evaluating, not 2 days." |134| **Feature-list syndrome** | "Both have 90% of features. Focus on the 3 criteria that differentiate them." |135| **Recency bias** | "HackerNews loves [new tech] but it has 500 stars. [Mature option] has 50K stars and proven stability." |136| **Sunk cost fallacy** | "2 months invested, but signals say it's wrong. Migration is 3 weeks. Sunk cost is not a reason to continue." |137138## Key Principles1391401. **Match rigor to reversibility** -- don't over-analyze reversible choices1412. **Requirements before options** -- define needs before researching solutions1423. **Weights reveal priorities** -- if user can't weight criteria, priorities are unclear1434. **Data over opinions** -- score based on benchmarks, not marketing1445. **Document decisions** -- future you needs to know why you chose this1456. **Set review dates** -- technology landscape changes, reassess periodically146147## References148149- Source: claude-skills/technology-advisor (MIT License)150- STRIDE framework for systematic technology evaluation151152<!-- Source: .faos/custom/skills/architecture/technology-advisor/SKILL.md -->