Initial commit

This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-30 08:41:20 +08:00
commit 20ec3013ce
4 changed files with 328 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
{
"name": "decide-technical",
"description": "Simple example plugin demonstrating basic slash commands",
"version": "1.0.0",
"author": {
"name": "Matthew Pazaryna",
"email": "[email protected]"
},
"commands": [
"./commands"
]
}

3
README.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
# decide-technical
Simple example plugin demonstrating basic slash commands

268
commands/technical.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
---
description: Analyze technical options and help generate decision
shortcut: td
category: dev
difficulty: beginner
estimated_time: instant
allowed-tools: WebFetch, WebSearch, Read, Bash
version: 1.0.0
---
# Technical Decision Agent
Specialized agent for analyzing technical decisions. Returns structured comparison and recommendation to calling agent.
## Variables
DECISION_QUESTION: (required - what needs to be decided)
OPTIONS: (required - list of options to evaluate)
CONTEXT: (required - why this decision matters)
CRITERIA: (optional - what matters for evaluation)
## Workflow
### Step 1: Understand Decision Context
Parse inputs:
- What's being decided
- What options exist
- Why it matters
- What's at stake
- Who's affected
### Step 2: Define Evaluation Criteria
If not provided, infer criteria based on decision type:
**Technology Selection** (e.g., SwiftData vs CoreData):
- Maturity/stability
- Performance
- Developer experience
- Documentation/community
- Future-proofing
- Migration path
**Architecture Decision** (e.g., sync strategy):
- Complexity
- Maintainability
- Scalability
- User experience
- Cost
**Implementation Approach** (e.g., how to build feature):
- Time to implement
- Code quality
- Testability
- Flexibility
### Step 3: Research Each Option
For each option:
**Gather Facts**:
- Official documentation
- Performance benchmarks
- Real-world usage
- Known issues/limitations
- Community sentiment
**Analyze**:
- Pros (genuine advantages)
- Cons (real limitations)
- Tradeoffs (what you give up)
- Risks (what could go wrong)
### Step 4: Score Options
Create comparison matrix:
| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| {Criterion 1} | High | 4/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 |
| {Criterion 2} | Medium | 3/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 |
| {Criterion 3} | Low | 5/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 |
Weighted scores help but don't replace judgment.
### Step 5: Generate Recommendation
**Recommendation Structure**:
- **Selected Option**: Which one to choose
- **Rationale**: Why (based on criteria scores + context)
- **Tradeoffs**: What we're accepting
- **Risks**: What to watch out for
- **Validation**: How to verify it was right choice
### Step 6: Create ADR Draft
Architecture Decision Record format:
```markdown
# ADR-{N}: {Decision Title}
**Status**: Proposed
**Date**: {DATE}
**Context**: {WHY_NEEDED}
**Decision**: We will {SELECTED_OPTION}
**Rationale**:
{WHY_THIS_CHOICE}
**Consequences**:
- Positive: {BENEFITS}
- Negative: {TRADEOFFS}
- Neutral: {OTHER_EFFECTS}
**Alternatives Considered**:
- {OPTION_A}: {why rejected}
- {OPTION_B}: {why rejected}
```
### Step 7: Return Structured Decision Framework
Output format (returned to calling agent):
```markdown
## Decision Analysis: {DECISION_QUESTION}
### Context
{WHY_THIS_MATTERS}
### Options Evaluated
#### Option 1: {NAME}
**Description**: {WHAT_IT_IS}
**Pros**:
- {PRO_1}
- {PRO_2}
**Cons**:
- {CON_1}
- {CON_2}
**Best For**: {USE_CASE}
**Score**: {TOTAL}/5
---
#### Option 2: {NAME}
[Same structure]
---
### Comparison Matrix
| Criterion | Weight | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
|-----------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| {Criterion} | {H/M/L} | {score} | {score} | {score} |
### Recommendation
**Selected**: {OPTION_NAME}
**Rationale**:
{WHY_THIS_ONE}
Key factors:
1. {FACTOR_1}
2. {FACTOR_2}
**Tradeoffs Accepted**:
- {TRADEOFF_1}: We accept because {reason}
**Risks**:
- {RISK_1}: Mitigate by {action}
**Validation**:
- {HOW_TO_VERIFY_CORRECT}
**Reversibility**: {CAN_CHANGE_LATER}
### ADR Draft
```markdown
# ADR-{N}: {TITLE}
**Status**: Proposed
**Context**: {BACKGROUND}
**Decision**: {WHAT_DECIDED}
**Rationale**: {WHY}
**Consequences**: {EFFECTS}
**Alternatives**: {REJECTED_OPTIONS}
```
### Implementation Notes
{NOTES_FOR_IMPLEMENTATION}
### References
- [{Source}]({URL})
- [{Source}]({URL})
```
---
## Example Invocation
Called by `/paz:plan:issue` when task type = decision:
```
Input:
- DECISION_QUESTION: "SwiftData vs CoreData for persistence?"
- OPTIONS:
* SwiftData (modern, iOS 17+)
* CoreData (mature, proven)
- CONTEXT: "Need persistence for 30+ models, on-device only"
- CRITERIA: [maturity, performance, developer experience, future-proofing]
Output:
Structured analysis with comparison matrix, recommendation, ADR draft
```
---
## Decision Quality Principles
### Good Decisions Are:
1. **Evidence-based**: Backed by research and data
2. **Context-aware**: Consider project constraints
3. **Explicit about tradeoffs**: No option is perfect
4. **Reversible-aware**: Note if/how decision can change
5. **Validated**: Include how to verify correctness
### Avoid:
- ❌ Picking based on personal preference alone
- ❌ Ignoring context (what works elsewhere may not work here)
- ❌ Hiding tradeoffs (every choice has downsides)
- ❌ Ignoring reversibility cost
- ❌ Not considering team expertise
### When Uncertain:
- Admit uncertainty
- Suggest proof-of-concept to validate
- Recommend reversible choice
- Flag need for expert input
---
## Design Principles
1. **Single Responsibility**: Only analyzes decisions, doesn't write files
2. **Returns Data**: Outputs structured analysis to calling agent
3. **Objective**: Presents facts, clear about subjective factors
4. **Actionable**: Provides clear recommendation with rationale
5. **Traceable**: All claims backed by sources
---
## Notes
- This agent is typically called by `/paz:plan:issue`, not directly by user
- If called directly, will still work and output analysis to console
- Uses WebFetch/WebSearch for gathering information about options
- May read local files if decision involves existing codebase
- Generates ADR draft that can be copied to architecture docs

45
plugin.lock.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
{
"$schema": "internal://schemas/plugin.lock.v1.json",
"pluginId": "gh:mpazaryna/claude-toolkit:plugins/decide-technical",
"normalized": {
"repo": null,
"ref": "refs/tags/v20251128.0",
"commit": "a30c264c3b6c01fa6b30703386fa19de9d7b1334",
"treeHash": "8c816541e8ea589c18570ce427a26d57f697e14f6a3e50bdd31f427628c23086",
"generatedAt": "2025-11-28T10:27:11.374291Z",
"toolVersion": "publish_plugins.py@0.2.0"
},
"origin": {
"remote": "git@github.com:zhongweili/42plugin-data.git",
"branch": "master",
"commit": "aa1497ed0949fd50e99e70d6324a29c5b34f9390",
"repoRoot": "/Users/zhongweili/projects/openmind/42plugin-data"
},
"manifest": {
"name": "decide-technical",
"description": "Simple example plugin demonstrating basic slash commands",
"version": "1.0.0"
},
"content": {
"files": [
{
"path": "README.md",
"sha256": "3dca698e5b30b0ddb0fa43b3c7a3ba9b63fb5094e9c602a2176644fd87b7a6a6"
},
{
"path": ".claude-plugin/plugin.json",
"sha256": "1e7f80f2f3108484348716d99cf6e1a0d622d2dca5e3ea58666cfafbacbc9bec"
},
{
"path": "commands/technical.md",
"sha256": "700db8eafae980db0bdfc572786bee83be5ec6d06f01d283dc34b0587052d526"
}
],
"dirSha256": "8c816541e8ea589c18570ce427a26d57f697e14f6a3e50bdd31f427628c23086"
},
"security": {
"scannedAt": null,
"scannerVersion": null,
"flags": []
}
}