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

1. Define decision question, constraints, and decision horizon.
2. Enumerate candidate options and reject non-viable ones early.
3. Set criteria and weighting aligned to current strategy.
4. Score options with evidence-backed rationale per criterion.
5. Run sensitivity analysis on top-weighted criteria and uncertain assumptions.
6. 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.