From quality-attributes
Analyze architectural trade-offs systematically using decision matrices. Use when comparing design options or justifying architectural choices to stakeholders.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/quality-attributes:trade-off-analysisThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Systematically analyze and justify architectural decisions by explicitly modeling trade-offs across quality attributes.
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.
npx claudepluginhub sethdford/claude-skills --plugin architect-quality-attributesBuilds weighted decision matrices, analyzes trade-offs, and generates ADRs for architectural, technical, and process decisions like database selection or framework choice.
Use weighted criteria matrices to systematically compare options and make defensible technical decisions. Use when evaluating competing approaches or vendors.
Produces structured technology trade-off analysis documents with scored comparison matrices for architecture evaluation, build-vs-buy, migration, and consolidation decisions.