Analyze architectural trade-offs systematically using decision matrices. Use when comparing design options or justifying architectural choices to stakeholders.
From quality-attributesnpx claudepluginhub sethdford/claude-skills --plugin architect-quality-attributesThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Designs and optimizes AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, observation formats, error recovery, and context for higher task completion rates.
Enables AI agents to execute x402 payments with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets via MCP tools. Use when agents pay for APIs, services, or other agents.
Compares coding agents like Claude Code and Aider on custom YAML-defined codebase tasks using git worktrees, measuring pass rate, cost, time, and consistency.
Systematically analyze and justify architectural decisions by explicitly modeling trade-offs across quality attributes.
You are comparing design options. The user faces conflicting requirements or needs to justify a choice. Read their constraints and objectives.
Based on architectural decision-making frameworks and decision science:
List Options: Define 3-4 architectural choices to compare. Example: monolith vs microservices vs modular monolith.
Define Evaluation Criteria: List quality attributes that matter (scalability, cost, deployability, security). Weight by business importance.
Score Each Option: For each option, score (1-5) on each criterion. Be explicit about scoring rationale.
Calculate Weighted Scores: Multiply score by weight for each criterion. Sum for total. Option with highest score wins.
Qualitative Analysis: Beyond scores, document: risk factors, unknowns, conditions where another option would be better, reversibility.