architecture-tradeoff-analysis
Registry Trigger
Use when
- compare architecture options constraints forces risks and long term cost
Do not use when
- no task-local architecture tradeoff analysis decision is required
Skill Role
Compare feasible architecture options against hard constraints, material consequences, reversibility, exit cost, decisive evidence, and assumption-change triggers. Do not design or implement the selected architecture.
High-Value Rules
- Bound the decision before comparing options. Name the decision owner, affected boundary, in-scope outcome, excluded decisions, and sourced contractual, policy, ownership, compatibility, safety, capacity, or delivery constraints.
- Exclude infeasible and unresolved options from preference comparison. Screen candidates against hard constraints, classifying evidence-backed failures as disqualified and unresolved feasibility as pending.
- Separate disqualifiers from preferences. A hard constraint determines feasibility; a preference differentiates feasible choices. Do not let weighting, popularity, familiarity, or sunk cost average away a disqualifier.
- Record only material consequences. Include only consequences that can change selection, ownership, public behavior, boundaries, operations, cost, delivery, validation, or future change.
- Make reversibility and exit concrete. Identify what must be migrated, restored, unwound, or retained; name data/contract portability, authority, dependency, validation, and residual obligations on exit.
- Make decisive evidence falsifiable. Map claims that determine feasibility or selection to current source, contract, policy, prototype, measurement, or owner evidence plus a check capable of rejecting the claim; otherwise state the proof limit.
- Review when an assumption changes. Name the constraint, workload, ownership, vendor, regulatory, cost, incident, or capability signal that reopens the choice, its owned source, and the decision consequence.
Anti-Patterns
- Score an infeasible option beside feasible choices or use a preferred criterion to hide a failed hard constraint.
- Produce a broad pros-and-cons inventory, pre-filled consequence sections, or numeric precision that does not change the choice or lacks comparable evidence.
- Treat the selected option as permanent while exit obligations, decisive assumptions, and owned review signals remain unstated.
Stop Conditions
Escalate when the decision boundary or owner is unclear, candidate feasibility is unproved, a hard constraint lacks authority, or decisive evidence is inaccessible. Also escalate when exit would strand data, contracts, or ownership, or the choice changes a public contract, trust boundary, compliance scope, availability objective, vendor dependency, or irreversible operating commitment.
Output Contract
- architecture decision comparison with bounded scope, hard constraints, feasible options, material consequences, reversibility and exit path, falsifiable decisive evidence, and owned assumption-change review trigger
Targeted References
| Path |
Type |
Load when |
Do not load when |
Required by |
Required output |
| checklist |
decision-checklist |
Several feasibility consequence exit evidence or review-trigger decisions remain open together |
The root record already closes boundary feasibility disqualifiers material consequences exit evidence and review triggers |
analysis-agent |
checklist-result, residual-risk |
| evidence patterns |
evidence-pattern |
Graph edges boundary claims decisive evidence or decision-to-validation freshness need proof |
No source-backed boundary graph feasibility exit or review-trigger claim awaits closure |
analysis-agent |
evidence-record, proof-limit, residual-risk |
| tradeoff benchmarks |
benchmark-pattern |
Feasible options need a qualitative or evidence-supported numeric comparison method |
Hard constraints leave one feasible path or current qualitative evidence resolves the choice |
analysis-agent |
option-comparison, selected-approach |
1---2name: architecture-tradeoff-analysis3description: `analysis-agent`: use when architecture options, constraints, material consequences, and exit costs need an evidence-backed comparison; skip when no task-local tradeoff exists.4---5
6# architecture-tradeoff-analysis
7
8## Registry Trigger
9
10**Use when**
11
12- compare architecture options constraints forces risks and long term cost
13
14**Do not use when**
15
16- no task-local architecture tradeoff analysis decision is required
17
18## Skill Role
19
20Compare feasible architecture options against hard constraints, material consequences, reversibility, exit cost, decisive evidence, and assumption-change triggers. Do not design or implement the selected architecture.
21
22## High-Value Rules
23
24- **Bound the decision before comparing options.** Name the decision owner, affected boundary, in-scope outcome, excluded decisions, and sourced contractual, policy, ownership, compatibility, safety, capacity, or delivery constraints.
25- **Exclude infeasible and unresolved options from preference comparison.** Screen candidates against hard constraints, classifying evidence-backed failures as disqualified and unresolved feasibility as pending.
26- **Separate disqualifiers from preferences.** A hard constraint determines feasibility; a preference differentiates feasible choices. Do not let weighting, popularity, familiarity, or sunk cost average away a disqualifier.
27- **Record only material consequences.** Include only consequences that can change selection, ownership, public behavior, boundaries, operations, cost, delivery, validation, or future change.
28- **Make reversibility and exit concrete.** Identify what must be migrated, restored, unwound, or retained; name data/contract portability, authority, dependency, validation, and residual obligations on exit.
29- **Make decisive evidence falsifiable.** Map claims that determine feasibility or selection to current source, contract, policy, prototype, measurement, or owner evidence plus a check capable of rejecting the claim; otherwise state the proof limit.
30- **Review when an assumption changes.** Name the constraint, workload, ownership, vendor, regulatory, cost, incident, or capability signal that reopens the choice, its owned source, and the decision consequence.
31
32## Anti-Patterns
33
34- Score an infeasible option beside feasible choices or use a preferred criterion to hide a failed hard constraint.
35- Produce a broad pros-and-cons inventory, pre-filled consequence sections, or numeric precision that does not change the choice or lacks comparable evidence.
36- Treat the selected option as permanent while exit obligations, decisive assumptions, and owned review signals remain unstated.
37
38## Stop Conditions
39
40Escalate when the decision boundary or owner is unclear, candidate feasibility is unproved, a hard constraint lacks authority, or decisive evidence is inaccessible. Also escalate when exit would strand data, contracts, or ownership, or the choice changes a public contract, trust boundary, compliance scope, availability objective, vendor dependency, or irreversible operating commitment.
41
42## Output Contract
43
44- architecture decision comparison with bounded scope, hard constraints, feasible options, material consequences, reversibility and exit path, falsifiable decisive evidence, and owned assumption-change review trigger
45
46## Targeted References
47
48| Path | Type | Load when | Do not load when | Required by | Required output |
49|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50| [checklist](references/checklist.md) | decision-checklist | Several feasibility consequence exit evidence or review-trigger decisions remain open together | The root record already closes boundary feasibility disqualifiers material consequences exit evidence and review triggers | analysis-agent | checklist-result, residual-risk |
51| [evidence patterns](references/evidence-patterns.md) | evidence-pattern | Graph edges boundary claims decisive evidence or decision-to-validation freshness need proof | No source-backed boundary graph feasibility exit or review-trigger claim awaits closure | analysis-agent | evidence-record, proof-limit, residual-risk |
52| [tradeoff benchmarks](references/tradeoff-benchmarks.md) | benchmark-pattern | Feasible options need a qualitative or evidence-supported numeric comparison method | Hard constraints leave one feasible path or current qualitative evidence resolves the choice | analysis-agent | option-comparison, selected-approach |
machenjie