- name
- decision-frameworks
- model
- reasoning
- description
- Structured decision-making patterns for common engineering choices — library selection, architecture, build vs buy, prioritization, reversibility analysis, and ADRs. Use when choosing between tools, architectures, or approaches, or when documenting technical decisions.
Decision Frameworks (Meta-Skill)
Structured approaches for making engineering decisions with confidence and traceability.
Installation
OpenClaw / Moltbot / Clawbot
npx clawhub@latest install decision-frameworksWhen to Use
- Choosing between libraries, frameworks, or tools
- Facing a build-vs-buy decision
- Selecting an architecture pattern (monolith vs microservices, SQL vs NoSQL, etc.)
- Multiple valid options exist and the team needs alignment
- Prioritizing a backlog or technical roadmap
- Documenting a significant technical decision for future reference
Decision Matrix Template
Use a weighted scoring matrix when comparing 3+ options across measurable criteria.
| Criteria | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 5 | 4 (20) | 3 (15) | 5 (25) |
| Developer Experience | 4 | 5 (20) | 4 (16) | 3 (12) |
| Community Support | 3 | 5 (15) | 3 (9) | 2 (6) |
| Learning Curve | 3 | 3 (9) | 4 (12) | 2 (6) |
| Cost | 2 | 5 (10) | 3 (6) | 4 (8) |
| Total | 74 | 58 | 57 |
How to use:
- List criteria relevant to the decision
- Assign weights (1-5) based on project priorities
- Score each option per criterion (1-5)
- Multiply score x weight, sum per option
- Highest total wins — but sanity-check the result against gut feel
Build vs Buy Framework
Follow this decision tree:
Is it a core differentiator for your product?
├── YES → Build it (own the competitive advantage)
└── NO
├── Does a mature, well-maintained solution exist?
│ ├── YES → Buy / adopt it
│ └── NO → Build, but keep it minimal
└── Is the integration cost higher than building?
├── YES → Build
└── NO → Buy / adoptFactor comparison:
| Factor | Build | Buy / Adopt |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance cost | Ongoing — your team owns it | Vendor/community maintains it |
| Customization | Unlimited flexibility | Limited to extension points |
| Time to market | Slower — development required | Faster — ready-made |
| Team expertise | Must have or acquire skills | Abstracted away |
| Long-term cost | Scales with internal capacity | License/subscription fees |
| Vendor lock-in risk | None | Medium to high |
| Security control | Full audit capability | Dependent on vendor transparency |
Library / Framework Selection
Evaluate candidate libraries against these criteria before adopting:
| Criterion | What to Check | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance activity | Commits in last 90 days, open issues trend | No commits in 6+ months |
| Community size | GitHub stars, npm weekly downloads, Discord/forum | < 1k weekly downloads for critical lib |
| Bundle size | Bundlephobia, tree-shaking support | > 50 KB gzipped for a utility lib |
| TypeScript support | Built-in types vs DefinitelyTyped, type quality | No types or outdated @types |
| Breaking change history | Changelog, semver adherence, migration guides | Frequent majors without guides |
| License | OSI-approved, compatible with your project | AGPL in a SaaS product, no license |
| Security audit | Snyk/Socket score, CVE history, dependency depth | Known unpatched CVEs |
| Documentation quality | Getting started guide, API reference, examples | README-only, no examples |
Quick heuristic: If you cannot replace the library within one sprint, treat the decision as a one-way door (see Reversibility Check below).
Architecture Decision Framework
Use these tradeoff tables when choosing between architectural approaches.
Monolith vs Microservices
| Factor | Monolith | Microservices |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity | Low at start, grows over time | High from day one |
| Deployment | Single artifact | Independent per service |
| Team scaling | Harder beyond 10-15 engineers | Enables autonomous teams |
| Data consistency | ACID transactions | Eventual consistency, sagas |
| Debugging | Single process, easy tracing | Distributed tracing required |
| Best when | Early-stage, small team, MVP | Proven domain boundaries, scale needs |
SQL vs NoSQL
| Factor | SQL (Relational) | NoSQL (Document/Key-Value) |
|---|---|---|
| Schema | Strict, enforced | Flexible, schema-on-read |
| Relationships | Native joins, foreign keys | Denormalized, application-level joins |
| Scaling | Vertical (read replicas help) | Horizontal by design |
| Consistency | Strong (ACID) | Tunable (eventual to strong) |
| Query flexibility | Ad-hoc queries, aggregations | Limited to access patterns |
| Best when | Complex relations, reporting | High write volume, flexible schema |
REST vs GraphQL
| Factor | REST | GraphQL |
|---|---|---|
| Simplicity | Simple, well-understood | Schema definition required |
| Over/under-fetching | Common — multiple endpoints | Clients request exact fields |
| Caching | HTTP caching built-in | Requires custom caching layer |
| Tooling | Mature ecosystem | Growing — Apollo, Relay, urql |
| Versioning | URL or header versioning | Schema evolution, deprecation |
| Best when | CRUD APIs, public APIs | Complex UIs, mobile + web clients |
SSR vs CSR vs SSG
| Factor | SSR | CSR | SSG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial load | Fast (HTML from server) | Slow (JS bundle parse) | Fastest (pre-built HTML) |
| SEO | Excellent | Poor without hydration | Excellent |
| Best when | Personalized pages | Dashboards, SPAs | Blogs, docs, marketing |
Monorepo vs Polyrepo
| Factor | Monorepo | Polyrepo |
|---|---|---|
| Code sharing | Trivial — same repo | Requires published packages |
| CI/CD complexity | Needs smart filtering (Turborepo) | Simple per-repo pipelines |
| Best when | Shared libs, aligned releases | Independent teams, different stacks |
Priority Matrices — RICE Scoring
Score and rank features/tasks:
RICE Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort| Factor | Scale |
|---|---|
| Reach | Number of users/events affected per quarter |
| Impact | 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal |
| Confidence | 100% = high, 80% = medium, 50% = low |
| Effort | Person-weeks (or person-sprints) |
MoSCoW Method
| Category | Meaning | Budget Target |
|---|---|---|
| Must | Non-negotiable for this release | ~60% of effort |
| Should | Important but not critical | ~20% of effort |
| Could | Desirable if time permits | ~15% of effort |
| Won't | Explicitly out of scope (this time) | ~5% (planning) |
Reversibility Check
Classify every significant decision as a one-way or two-way door.
| Aspect | One-Way Door (Type 1) | Two-Way Door (Type 2) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Irreversible or very costly to undo | Easily reversed with low cost |
| Examples | Database engine migration, public API contract, language rewrite | UI framework for internal tool, feature flag experiment, library swap behind interface |
| How to identify | Would reverting require > 1 sprint of rework? Data migration? Customer communication? | Can you revert with a config change, flag toggle, or single PR? |
| Approach | Invest in analysis, prototype, get stakeholder sign-off | Decide fast, ship, measure, iterate |
| Time to decide | Days to weeks — thorough evaluation | Hours — bias toward action |
Rule of thumb: Wrap risky choices behind interfaces/abstractions. This converts many one-way doors into two-way doors by isolating the implementation from consumers.
ADR Template
Document significant decisions using a lightweight Architecture Decision Record.
# ADR-NNNN: [Short Title]
## Status
[Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXXX]
## Context
What is the problem or situation that motivates this decision?
Include constraints, requirements, and forces at play.
## Decision
What is the change being proposed or adopted?
State the decision clearly and concisely.
## Consequences
### Positive
- [Benefit 1]
- [Benefit 2]
### Negative
- [Tradeoff 1]
- [Tradeoff 2]
### Risks
- [Risk and mitigation]Store in docs/adr/ or decisions/. Number sequentially. Never delete — mark superseded. Review during onboarding and quarterly audits.
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Description | Counter |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis Paralysis | Endless evaluation, no decision made | Set a decision deadline; use the matrix |
| HiPPO | Highest Paid Person's Opinion overrides data | Require data or a scored matrix for all options |
| Sunk Cost Fallacy | Continuing because of past investment, not future value | Evaluate options as if starting fresh today |
| Bandwagon Effect | Choosing because "everyone uses it" | Score against your actual criteria |
| Premature Optimization | Optimizing before measuring or validating need | Profile first; optimize only proven bottlenecks |
| Resume-Driven Development | Picking tech to pad a resume, not to solve the problem | Align choices with team skills and project goals |
| Not Invented Here | Rejecting external solutions out of pride | Run the Build vs Buy framework honestly |
NEVER Do
- NEVER skip writing down the decision — undocumented decisions get relitigated endlessly
- NEVER decide by committee without a single owner — assign a DRI (Directly Responsible Individual)
- NEVER treat all decisions as equal weight — classify by reversibility and impact first
- NEVER ignore second-order effects — ask "and then what?" at least twice
- NEVER lock in without an exit plan — define how you would migrate away before committing
- NEVER conflate familiarity with superiority — evaluate on criteria, not comfort
- NEVER defer a one-way door decision indefinitely — the cost of delay often exceeds the cost of a wrong choice