tradeoff-table
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Produce a side-by-side option comparison table with a clear recommendation. Use whenever the user is weighing approaches/tools/architectures ("X vs Y", "which should we use", "compare these options", "build vs buy") and would benefit from a structured tradeoff matrix rather than prose. This skill structures a comparison of known candidates; for a research-backed single tool pick use eval-tool, for surveying who the candidates even are use market-research.
In this repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architect-reviewSkill
- article-writingSkill
- changelog-watchSkill
- coordinator-workersSkill
- cost-forecastSkill
- design-docSkill
- documentSkill
- ea-briefingSkill
- estimateSkill
- eval-toolSkill
- gh-ticketsSkill
- headless-loopSkill
- interview-guideSkill
- job-supervisorSkill
- market-researchSkill
- meeting-notesSkill
- migration-planSkill
- obsidian-noteSkill
- plan-to-issuesSkill
- postmortemSkill
- readSkill
- release-notesSkill
- skill-stocktakeSkill
- slide-deckSkill
- status-reportSkill
- threat-modelSkill
- zoom-outSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 9
Default criteria (drop/add to fit the case): implementation complexity, operational burden, scalability, cost (build + run), security …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Output a Markdown table: columns = the candidate options, rows = decision criteria.
Default criteria (drop/add to fit the case): implementation complexity, operational burden,
scalability, cost (build + run), security posture, compliance fit (data residency,
self-hosting — per CONTEXT.md or the working agreement), vendor lock-in, maturity/community,
time-to-ship. Score each cell concretely (e.g. Low/Med/High
or 1–5), not vaguely.
After the table:
- Recommendation — one option, stated plainly.
- Why — the 2–3 criteria that decided it.
- When to revisit — the condition under which this choice should be re-opened.
Bias toward the simpler option unless a criterion clearly forces complexity. If you scored a criterion, you must be able to justify it — verify current facts on the web for any tool/ version/pricing claim before scoring.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.