Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
12
.claude-plugin/plugin.json
Normal file
12
.claude-plugin/plugin.json
Normal 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
3
README.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
||||
# decide-technical
|
||||
|
||||
Simple example plugin demonstrating basic slash commands
|
||||
268
commands/technical.md
Normal file
268
commands/technical.md
Normal 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
45
plugin.lock.json
Normal 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": []
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user