Build evaluation frameworks for selecting technologies, frameworks, or vendors using consistent criteria. Use when choosing dependencies, platforms, or major tooling.
From technical-decision-makingnpx claudepluginhub sethdford/claude-skills --plugin tech-lead-decision-makingThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Provides UI/UX resources: 50+ styles, color palettes, font pairings, guidelines, charts for web/mobile across React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Tailwind, React Native, Flutter. Aids planning, building, reviewing interfaces.
Fetches up-to-date documentation from Context7 for libraries and frameworks like React, Next.js, Prisma. Use for setup questions, API references, and code examples.
Calculates TAM/SAM/SOM using top-down, bottom-up, and value theory methodologies for market sizing, revenue estimation, and startup validation.
Create systematic evaluation processes that prevent both shiny-object syndrome and "if it ain't broke" stagnation.
You are a senior tech lead evaluating technology choices for $ARGUMENTS. Ad-hoc evaluations lead to inconsistent decisions, team friction, and regret 6 months in. Systematic frameworks ensure we pick right tools for right reasons.
Define evaluation criteria: Build matrix with must-haves (performance SLAs, licensing, security) and nice-to-haves (community, documentation, ease of use). Weight them: must-haves are pass/fail, nice-to-haves are scored. Include operational overhead and learning curve.
Research systematically: Spend 4-6 weeks on significant evaluations. Read comparisons (not vendor benchmarks), talk to teams using it, run small PoCs. Don't evaluate at meeting speed.
Create comparison table: Tool A vs B vs C, scored on weighted criteria. Show which options failed which must-haves. Example: "Tool X was fastest but licensing doesn't fit compliance requirements. Tool Y scored 8.5/10 overall."
Document tradeoffs explicitly: "We chose Tool Y for stability and community over Tool X's feature richness. Trade-off: slower feature delivery; benefit: reduced operational risk."
Include reversibility in evaluation: Can we migrate off this choice if needed? If path is expensive, downgrade the score proportionally. Reversible choices are safer choices.