176 lines
5.6 KiB
Markdown
176 lines
5.6 KiB
Markdown
# Technical Decision Validation Task
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
Systematically validate technical decisions through rigorous analysis, evidence-based evaluation, and comprehensive impact assessment. Ensure all technical choices align with quality standards and long-term sustainability.
|
|
|
|
## Integration with Memory System
|
|
- **What patterns to search for**: Technology adoption outcomes, similar technical decisions, performance benchmarks, maintenance burden patterns
|
|
- **What outcomes to track**: Decision stability over time, performance metrics achievement, maintenance costs, team satisfaction
|
|
- **What learnings to capture**: Effective evaluation criteria, decision reversal patterns, technology maturity insights, integration complexity lessons
|
|
|
|
## Technical Decision Categories
|
|
|
|
### Technology Stack Decisions
|
|
- [ ] **Framework Selection**: Primary frameworks and libraries
|
|
- [ ] **Database Choice**: Data storage solutions and patterns
|
|
- [ ] **Infrastructure Platform**: Cloud providers, deployment targets
|
|
- [ ] **Tool Selection**: Development tools, CI/CD, monitoring
|
|
- [ ] **Service Architecture**: Monolith vs microservices vs serverless
|
|
|
|
### Implementation Approach Decisions
|
|
- [ ] **Design Patterns**: Architectural and code patterns
|
|
- [ ] **API Design**: REST vs GraphQL vs gRPC
|
|
- [ ] **State Management**: Client and server state strategies
|
|
- [ ] **Security Approach**: Authentication, authorization, encryption
|
|
- [ ] **Testing Strategy**: Unit, integration, E2E approaches
|
|
|
|
## Validation Process
|
|
|
|
### Step 1: Decision Context Analysis
|
|
```python
|
|
def analyze_decision_context(decision):
|
|
context_factors = {
|
|
"requirements": extract_driving_requirements(decision),
|
|
"constraints": identify_constraints(decision),
|
|
"stakeholders": list_affected_stakeholders(decision),
|
|
"timeline": assess_timeline_impact(decision),
|
|
"budget": evaluate_cost_implications(decision)
|
|
}
|
|
return context_factors
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Evidence Gathering
|
|
- [ ] **Benchmark Data**: Performance comparisons, load testing results
|
|
- [ ] **Case Studies**: Similar implementations, success/failure stories
|
|
- [ ] **Expert Opinions**: Team experience, community consensus
|
|
- [ ] **Proof of Concepts**: Hands-on validation results
|
|
- [ ] **Cost Analysis**: License fees, operational costs, training needs
|
|
|
|
### Step 3: Trade-off Analysis
|
|
| Factor | Option A | Option B | Option C | Weight |
|
|
|--------|----------|----------|----------|---------|
|
|
| Performance | {score} | {score} | {score} | {weight} |
|
|
| Scalability | {score} | {score} | {score} | {weight} |
|
|
| Maintainability | {score} | {score} | {score} | {weight} |
|
|
| Team Experience | {score} | {score} | {score} | {weight} |
|
|
| Cost | {score} | {score} | {score} | {weight} |
|
|
| Risk | {score} | {score} | {score} | {weight} |
|
|
|
|
### Step 4: Risk Assessment
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## Technical Risk Analysis
|
|
### Option: {technology_choice}
|
|
|
|
**Risks Identified**:
|
|
1. **{Risk Name}**: {description}
|
|
- Probability: {high/medium/low}
|
|
- Impact: {high/medium/low}
|
|
- Mitigation: {strategy}
|
|
|
|
**Risk Score**: {calculated_risk_score}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Quality Gates
|
|
|
|
### Pre-Decision Gate
|
|
- [ ] Problem clearly defined
|
|
- [ ] Success criteria established
|
|
- [ ] Constraints documented
|
|
- [ ] Stakeholders identified
|
|
|
|
### Evaluation Gate
|
|
- [ ] Minimum 3 options evaluated
|
|
- [ ] Quantitative comparison completed
|
|
- [ ] POC results documented
|
|
- [ ] Team capability assessed
|
|
|
|
### Decision Gate
|
|
- [ ] Trade-off analysis reviewed
|
|
- [ ] Risk assessment completed
|
|
- [ ] Reversibility plan defined
|
|
- [ ] Success metrics established
|
|
|
|
## Success Criteria
|
|
- Decision backed by quantitative evidence
|
|
- Trade-offs explicitly documented
|
|
- Risks identified with mitigation strategies
|
|
- Team consensus achieved
|
|
- Reversibility strategy defined
|
|
- Confidence level >90%
|
|
|
|
## Memory Integration
|
|
```python
|
|
# Technical decision memory structure
|
|
tech_decision_memory = {
|
|
"type": "technical_decision",
|
|
"decision": {
|
|
"category": decision_category,
|
|
"choice": selected_option,
|
|
"alternatives": rejected_options
|
|
},
|
|
"evaluation": {
|
|
"criteria": evaluation_criteria,
|
|
"scores": comparison_scores,
|
|
"evidence": supporting_evidence
|
|
},
|
|
"rationale": {
|
|
"driving_factors": key_decision_drivers,
|
|
"trade_offs": accepted_trade_offs,
|
|
"risks": identified_risks
|
|
},
|
|
"outcome": {
|
|
"implementation_time": actual_time,
|
|
"performance_met": performance_results,
|
|
"team_satisfaction": satisfaction_score,
|
|
"stability": change_frequency
|
|
},
|
|
"lessons": key_learnings,
|
|
"confidence": decision_confidence
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Output Template
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Technical Decision Validation: {Decision Title}
|
|
**Date**: {timestamp}
|
|
**Decision Maker**: {name/team}
|
|
**Category**: {technology/implementation/architecture}
|
|
**Confidence**: {percentage}%
|
|
|
|
## Decision Summary
|
|
**Selected**: {chosen_option}
|
|
**Rationale**: {brief_rationale}
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation Results
|
|
### Quantitative Analysis
|
|
{comparison_table}
|
|
|
|
### Evidence Summary
|
|
- **Benchmarks**: {key_performance_data}
|
|
- **Case Studies**: {relevant_examples}
|
|
- **POC Results**: {validation_outcomes}
|
|
|
|
### Trade-off Analysis
|
|
**Accepted Trade-offs**:
|
|
- {trade_off_1}: {justification}
|
|
- {trade_off_2}: {justification}
|
|
|
|
## Risk Mitigation Plan
|
|
{risk_mitigation_strategies}
|
|
|
|
## Success Metrics
|
|
- {metric_1}: {target_value}
|
|
- {metric_2}: {target_value}
|
|
|
|
## Reversibility Strategy
|
|
{how_to_reverse_if_needed}
|
|
|
|
## Recommendation
|
|
{final_recommendation_with_confidence}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Brotherhood Collaboration
|
|
- Technical review with senior developers
|
|
- Architecture alignment with architect team
|
|
- Operational review with DevOps team
|
|
- Security review with security team |